# Can You Be An Expert?



## MJS

In the Sport and TMA...Again thread, (man that thread gets a lot of attention ) Chris and Steve were having an interesting debate and something that was said, caught my eye.

Steve said:



> Yes.  We disagree completely.  You cannot be an expert in self defence without practical, real world experience in the field applying the techniques.  You CAN become an expert in a system.  Call it Parker-fu, put whatever techniques you want, apply measures for proficiency and teach people to an expert level in your system.  Because THAT'S what they're learning and applying.  They are not defending themselves in your class.  They are applying your system.



To which Chris replied:



> Yes, you can. Many are. It comes down to understanding what the needs are first and foremost, and continuing from there. I mean, most self defence isn't anything to do with any physical techniques at all... so there's nothing to go and test. It actually is far more an academic area than you're thinking it is. Forget the idea of techniques, you're focusing on the wrong thing, and honestly, I don't think you know what you're arguing against.



So, what does everyone think?  Can you become an expert or authority on SD, with no real world experience?  Sure, of course, one of the most effective tools of SD is avoidance.  Is there something you can potentially do to avoid a situation?  If you can avoid something altogether, you're better off.  Of course, in the perfect world, sometimes things aren't that easy, so physical skills are necessary.  But having experience in hands on skill, I feel is important.  Would you want to go in for surgery and know that you will be the first patient that this new doctor has ever worked on?  How about the pilot flying the plane you're on?  I'd like to know that my flight isn't this guys first solo flight. LOL.  

I'd like to think that if we took 2 people, 1 with no experience at all, and then someone like Rory Miller, that it should be a no brainer.


----------



## TwentyThree

Well, I'm curious, then, how one acquires practical experience to become an expert _without _becoming someone like Rory Miller who's sought out professions requiring that knowledge.

If I'm a normal person (y'know, with a regular job and family and bills and stuff), in order to train and gain expertise in self defense, do I purposely seek out dangerous situations?

Do I hang out in rowdy bars, walk alone in bad neighborhoods in dark alleyways... what?

Or, unless you have that profession, it then becomes _impossible _to be an expert in self defense?


----------



## seasoned

Technique is always good and a go to place when the chips are down. But, I feel that focus and determination "mentally", are most important, and the vehicle by which learned techniques are properly fueled by.
Law enforcement and Military see fit to address this aspect through discipline and consistency of adherence through the daily mental training from day one of basic training. (This may be what Chris is eluding to above). First the mind THEN the body Then the technique........
For this very reason, LE love to hire ex-military for all the above reasons. Add this to hands on life threatening experience and you have the whole ball of wax. But, IMHO I don't think you would need the hands on life threatening experience as long as the mental aspect was thoroughly instilled.

Re: Can You Be An Expert?    *Yes
*
Proper training, exposes us to many more situations then we may ever encounter in a lifetime. So, for this very reason always "train as if your life depended on it", and in doing so you will be well rounded to handle yourself in SD and an expert to boot.................


----------



## RTKDCMB

Maybe instead of saying that someone is an expert in self defence they can say they are an expert in self defence training or self defence techniques and strategies. May be then there will be less disagreements on the subject.


----------



## DennisBreene

MJS said:


> So, what does everyone think?  Can you become an expert or authority on SD, with no real world experience?  Sure, of course, one of the most effective tools of SD is avoidance.  Is there something you can potentially do to avoid a situation?  If you can avoid something altogether, you're better off.  Of course, in the perfect world, sometimes things aren't that easy, so physical skills are necessary.  But having experience in hands on skill, I feel is important.  Would you want to go in for surgery and know that you will be the first patient that this new doctor has ever worked on?  How about the pilot flying the plane you're on?  I'd like to know that my flight isn't this guys first solo flight. LOL.
> 
> I'd like to think that if we took 2 people, 1 with no experience at all, and then someone like Rory Miller, that it should be a no brainer.



The pilot trains for thousands of hours in simulators and other venues to handle emergencies that may never occur while he flies. The surgeon trains, reads case reports, watches videos of complications and observes other surgeons to gain a knowledge base on how to handle complications that may arise.
What they have in common is the ability to acquire knowledge of how to handle situations based on the experience of others and apply that knowledge if needed.  They don't necessarily have to face every situation personally to be well trained for the event if it occurs.  This is systematic learning and is very effective.
I don't see why that approach cannot apply to self defense.  The underlying requirement is that the techniques in the system be tested and proven effective by someone who has used them and then diligently taught to students who may or may not have the occasion to use them. 
That's also military combat training in a nut shell.  Would you expect that someone who had actually used said techniques might be more seasoned and effective?    Probably, but that doesn't mean that the techniques that are developed are any less valid when taught to the next student.  The glaring difference is that the pilot and surgeon are training in a formalized, reviewed and standardized system of crisis management with a solid foundation in collective experience.  How much of martial arts self defense has such a formal "peer reviewed" body of knowledge as the foundation for the techniques that are taught. I suspect that the deficiency lies in a lot of untested material being taught as though it is proven. Without the organized peer review of those individuals who have actually used the techniques as a gold standard, much of what we are taught probably falls under the umbrella of unproven theory.


----------



## seasoned

TwentyThree said:


> Well, I'm curious, then, how one acquires practical experience to become an expert _without _becoming someone like Rory Miller who's sought out professions requiring that knowledge.
> 
> If I'm a normal person (y'know, with a regular job and family and bills and stuff), in order to train and gain expertise in self defense, do I purposely seek out dangerous situations?
> 
> Do I hang out in rowdy bars, walk alone in bad neighborhoods in dark alleyways... what?
> 
> Or, unless you have that profession, it then becomes _impossible _to be an expert in self defense?



Yet, if I was to ask you if you could do anything with those sticks late at night with an intruder in your home, I would bet that for a short point in time you would be that "expert" moving like a cat. Funny thing about that expert inside of the ones that have put the time in, the expert appears when we need it most..........


----------



## MJS

DennisBreene said:


> The pilot trains for thousands of hours in simulators and other venues to handle emergencies that may never occur while he flies. The surgeon trains, reads case reports, watches videos of complications and observes other surgeons to gain a knowledge base on how to handle complications that may arise.
> What they have in common is the ability to acquire knowledge of how to handle situations based on the experience of others and apply that knowledge if needed.  They don't necessarily have to face every situation personally to be well trained for the event if it occurs.  This is systematic learning and is very effective.
> I don't see why that approach cannot apply to self defense.  The underlying requirement is that the techniques in the system be tested and proven effective by someone who has used them and then diligently taught to students who may or may not have the occasion to use them.
> That's also military combat training in a nut shell.  Would you expect that someone who had actually used said techniques might be more seasoned and effective?    Probably, but that doesn't mean that the techniques that are developed are any less valid when taught to the next student.  The glaring difference is that the pilot and surgeon are training in a formalized, reviewed and standardized system of crisis management with a solid foundation in collective experience.  How much of martial arts self defense has such a formal "peer reviewed" body of knowledge as the foundation for the techniques that are taught. I suspect that the deficiency lies in a lot of untested material being taught as though it is proven. Without the organized peer review of those individuals who have actually used the techniques as a gold standard, much of what we are taught probably falls under the umbrella of unproven theory.



Nice post! I agree....there are simulators to use, as mentioned for pilots, etc.  We can simulate things in training, and I'm a big fan of scenario training, providing it's done in a realistic fashion.  Hell, LE, firefighters, Military do it all the time.  But going on what you said...that the techniques in the system have been proven by someone...well, for me, I'm not 100% sure I can be sold on that.  It doesn't matter if 100 people before me, tested them, the fact is, I'm not them, and I need to make sure that *I* can do them, regardless of success.  Its a shame that if someone is billing what they teach, as effective SD and they're claiming to be an expert, that there should be some sort of formalized, reviewed, standardized system.


----------



## MJS

TwentyThree said:


> Well, I'm curious, then, how one acquires practical experience to become an expert _without _becoming someone like Rory Miller who's sought out professions requiring that knowledge.
> 
> If I'm a normal person (y'know, with a regular job and family and bills and stuff), in order to train and gain expertise in self defense, do I purposely seek out dangerous situations?
> 
> Do I hang out in rowdy bars, walk alone in bad neighborhoods in dark alleyways... what?
> 
> Or, unless you have that profession, it then becomes _impossible _to be an expert in self defense?



Well, for me, I'm no longer in one of those 'professions' so I consider myself a normal person, with a job, bills, wife, dog, etc.  I don't hang in bars, and avoid bad spots if possible.  Of course, there are situations that I have not found myself in, ie: having someone pull a knife on me, yet I still teach knife work and defense.  I do however, make a point of really looking at things for practicality, and I'd say that simply comes with time.  I also make a point of training with those that are currently or have been in professions in which they have to walk the walk and talk the talk.  

Does everyone have to be a Rory?  Not at all.  But I'd be more inclined to take his word on whether something works or not, over the guy who says that his teachers teacher, said that it worked for him, and who might not be testing it and seeing for himself, whether or not its as effective as he claims.


----------



## MJS

seasoned said:


> Technique is always good and a go to place when the chips are down. But, I feel that focus and determination "mentally", are most important, and the vehicle by which learned techniques are properly fueled by.
> Law enforcement and Military see fit to address this aspect through discipline and consistency of adherence through the daily mental training from day one of basic training. (This may be what Chris is eluding to above). First the mind THEN the body Then the technique........
> For this very reason, LE love to hire ex-military for all the above reasons. Add this to hands on life threatening experience and you have the whole ball of wax. But, IMHO I don't think you would need the hands on life threatening experience as long as the mental aspect was thoroughly instilled.
> 
> Re: Can You Be An Expert?    *Yes
> *
> Proper training, exposes us to many more situations then we may ever encounter in a lifetime. So, for this very reason always "train as if your life depended on it", and in doing so you will be well rounded to handle yourself in SD and an expert to boot.................



Good points.  Peyton Quinn did this with his scenario training, getting people into the right mindset.  Sure, some will say that a scenario isn't the real deal.  Well, of course.  But he was obviously capable of putting the students mind into that state.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

MJS said:


> Can you become an expert or authority on SD, with no real world experience?



I like to look at this from the probability projection. If you have knocked/taken 100 guys down, the chance that you may knock/take your next opponent down will be high. The question is where will you be able to accumulate your 100 successful experience if not from "sport"? Can you consider "sport" real world?


----------



## seasoned

MJS said:


> Good points.  Peyton Quinn did this with his scenario training, getting people into the right mindset.  Sure, some will say that a scenario isn't the real deal.  Well, of course.  But he was obviously capable of putting the students mind into that state.


Even in kata your opponent needs to be real to you in your head. I teach people to move with that invisible enemy and as you strike kill the air around you. Train the way you want to react and you WILL react that way for real..............


----------



## Steve

TwentyThree said:


> Well, I'm curious, then, how one acquires practical experience to become an expert _without _becoming someone like Rory Miller who's sought out professions requiring that knowledge.
> 
> If I'm a normal person (y'know, with a regular job and family and bills and stuff), in order to train and gain expertise in self defense, do I purposely seek out dangerous situations?
> 
> Do I hang out in rowdy bars, walk alone in bad neighborhoods in dark alleyways... what?
> 
> Or, unless you have that profession, it then becomes _impossible _to be an expert in self defense?



I would say that one can gain experience without being an expert.  Where this really matters is when someone begins teaching others.  

Can you take CPR lessons and remember the skills when you need them in a crisis?  Sure.  That's possible and happens all the time.  And, if you are diligent, take refresher courses and practice the skills, your chances of remembering them when you need them go up significantly.  But does this make you an expert in CPR?  

Now, let's look at it from the other side.  Would you want to learn CPR from someone who is not even a qualified medical professional?  

But, "self defence instructor" isn't as specific as CPR.  It's a skill set, similar to that of being a nurse practitioner.  Is a person who graduates from nursing school an expert? Would you take a nurse, who's never worked in a hospital or in any capacity as a nurse, and put that person in charge of teaching other nurses?  

In the same way, we have a lot of people who teach self defense, who, like Chris, believe that studying something can lead to expertise.  I disagree.  You can get to the piont where you might be able to apply skills.  But that does not equal expert.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> Nice post! I agree....there are simulators to use, as mentioned for pilots, etc.  We can simulate things in training, and I'm a big fan of scenario training, providing it's done in a realistic fashion.  Hell, LE, firefighters, Military do it all the time.  But going on what you said...that the techniques in the system have been proven by someone...well, for me, I'm not 100% sure I can be sold on that.  It doesn't matter if 100 people before me, tested them, the fact is, I'm not them, and I need to make sure that *I* can do them, regardless of success.  Its a shame that if someone is billing what they teach, as effective SD and they're claiming to be an expert, that there should be some sort of formalized, reviewed, standardized system.



The pilot, however, can be an expert pilot.  In fact, I'd argue that there are only a few "expert" crash landers among pilots.  There are, however, a lot of very experienced, competent, expert pilots.  And they are expert pilots precisely because their experience is not limited to simulators.

Once again, let's look at it from another perspective.  Let's say you have a guy who cn do anything in a simulator, but has never flown an ACTUAL plane.  Can a person become an expert pilot without ever flying a plane?  I would say no.  In order to make the leap between a competent trainee an an expert, there's a lot of hours logged in the pilot's seat of an actual plane.  

Would that person be competent as a flight instructor?  I would say that there might be some limited, specific things he could competently share, but I'd be very uneasy if the pilot of my 747 to Orlando was brand new off the simulator having learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane, who himself learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane.  

Sure, you can learn skills in a simulator.  I've said this many times in the past, but it's relevant here.  There's something called Bloom's taxonomy and it's very simple.  People learn things in predictable stages:  

Knowledge -> Comprehension -> Application -> Analysis -> Synthesis -> Evaluation

Most martial arts training stops somewhere between comprehension and application.  The transition you guys are talking about is exactly the transition between comprehension and application.  In adult learning and business training, this is the big challenge.  How to get people out of training and able to apply the skills on the job in the quickest, most eficient and reliable way.

But, in business, as in ANY human endeavor, competence is the FIRST step toward expertise.  In other words, a person who is an expert must be competent, but not every person who is competent is an expert.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> Maybe instead of saying that someone is an expert in self defence they can say they are an expert in self defence training or self defence techniques and strategies. May be then there will be less disagreements on the subject.



This is what I was referring to in the other thread.  If you're training in goju ryu karate, you can certainly become an expert in that system.   If Chris Parker or RTKDCMB teaches a defined curriculum with standards and measures of proficiency, then of course students could advance within the system and become experts.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

seasoned said:


> Even in kata your opponent needs to be real to you in your head. I teach people to move with that invisible enemy and as you strike kill the air around you. Train the way you want to react and you WILL react that way for real..............



Your imagination, no matter how vivid and detailed it may be, is not the same as real life.

Visualization is a terrific training tool.  However, it is specifically to assist with the transfer of training from comprehension to application.  It does not REPLACE application.  Only by applying skills can one progress beyond this stage of learning.

And there are stages beyond application.  Competence is application.  Expertise is a level of understanding beyond simple competence.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> The pilot, however, can be an expert pilot.  In fact, I'd argue that there are only a few "expert" crash landers among pilots.  There are, however, a lot of very experienced, competent, expert pilots.  And they are expert pilots precisely because their experience is not limited to simulators.
> 
> Once again, let's look at it from another perspective.  Let's say you have a guy who cn do anything in a simulator, but has never flown an ACTUAL plane.  Can a person become an expert pilot without ever flying a plane?  I would say no.  In order to make the leap between a competent trainee an an expert, there's a lot of hours logged in the pilot's seat of an actual plane.
> 
> Would that person be competent as a flight instructor?  I would say that there might be some limited, specific things he could competently share, but I'd be very uneasy if the pilot of my 747 to Orlando was brand new off the simulator having learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane, who himself learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane.
> 
> Sure, you can learn skills in a simulator.  I've said this many times in the past, but it's relevant here.  There's something called Bloom's taxonomy and it's very simple.  People learn things in predictable stages:
> 
> Knowledge -> Comprehension -> Application -> Analysis -> Synthesis -> Evaluation
> 
> Most martial arts training stops somewhere between comprehension and application.  The transition you guys are talking about is exactly the transition between comprehension and application.  In adult learning and business training, this is the big challenge.  How to get people out of training and able to apply the skills on the job in the quickest, most eficient and reliable way.
> 
> But, in business, as in ANY human endeavor, competence is the FIRST step toward expertise.  In other words, a person who is an expert must be competent, but not every person who is competent is an expert.
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


So In your opinion nobody can be a self defense expert since nobody has 100s of real world self defense experiences?  
I think self defense may be too broad a term.  There are knife experts that would suck with a gun gun experts that would get hurt going hands on, dept of  corrections self defense is different then police which is different then woman which is different then men.  So there may not be a all encompassing self defense expert. Breaking it down a little more specific and yes there are plenty of field experts.  That build that knowledge from case study and training.  an expert in shark attacks doesn't need to have been bitten by a shark.


----------



## Hanzou

Unless you're Batman, or some sort of vigilante, you're not an expert on self-defense. I would also say that law enforcement and ex-military aren't experts in self defense either. They're experts in law enforcement and military tactics respectively. Neither completely translates into self-defense tactics.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So In your opinion nobody can be a self defense expert since nobody has 100s of real world self defense experiences?
> I think self defense may be too broad a term.  There are knife experts that would suck with a gun gun experts that would get hurt going hands on, dept of  corrections self defense is different then police which is different then woman which is different then men.  So there may not be a all encompassing self defense expert. Breaking it down a little more specific and yes there are plenty of field experts.  That build that knowledge from case study and training.  an expert in shark attacks doesn't need to have been bitten by a shark.



Who said 100s?

I do agree that the term self defense is too broad.  It's hopelessly abstract.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## TwentyThree

seasoned said:


> Yet, if I was to ask you if you could do anything with those sticks late at night with an intruder in your home, I would bet that for a short point in time you would be that "expert" moving like a cat. Funny thing about that expert inside of the ones that have put the time in, the expert appears when we need it most..........



Ah, but my training with my sticks would apply well to the various knives and shorter clubs hidden around my household that I can, in fact, find in the dark.

An intruder would do well to choose another house.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Who said 100s?
> 
> I do agree that the term self defense is too broad.  It's hopelessly abstract.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


So how many?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So how many?



How many do you think, ballen?  Zero?  If it's any number above zero, we're in agreement.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> How many do you think, ballen?  Zero?  If it's any number above zero, we're in agreement.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



So once is good enough?  I think it can be zero with other means of Intel. that's why I'm asking your opinion.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So once is good enough?  I think it can be zero with other means of Intel. that's why I'm asking your opinion.



I think that it depends upon the activity, but that it's always more than zero.

Now, to be clear, we cultivate expertise in things we do, and as you said, the issue is one of specificity.  What I mean is, if your goal is to be an academic, the experience you would accumulate would be research.  However, if your goal is to be an expert in DOING something, you must do that thing.

We see this all the time on the internet.  There are guys who know everything there is to know about MMA and BJJ.  They can talk about strategy or technique all day long, but after a while, it becomes clear to those of us who actually train that they don't.  They are academics, and knowing the steps involved isn't the same as doing those steps.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

I disagree when it comes to self defense there is no routine defend yourself. No two are identical so one time or five its not going to be the same so you need to study many many case files to gain knowledge so your own experience is just one of many and not totally needed.  It may make people trust you more because of real life experience but it doesn't make your knowledge that much better


----------



## oftheherd1

DennisBreene said:


> The pilot trains for thousands of hours in simulators and other venues to handle emergencies that may never occur while he flies. The surgeon trains, reads case reports, watches videos of complications and observes other surgeons to gain a knowledge base on how to handle complications that may arise.
> What they have in common is the ability to acquire knowledge of how to handle situations based on the experience of others and apply that knowledge if needed.  They don't necessarily have to face every situation personally to be well trained for the event if it occurs.  This is systematic learning and is very effective.
> I don't see why that approach cannot apply to self defense.  The underlying requirement is that the techniques in the system be tested and proven effective by someone who has used them and then diligently taught to students who may or may not have the occasion to use them.
> That's also military combat training in a nut shell.  Would you expect that someone who had actually used said techniques might be more seasoned and effective?    Probably, but that doesn't mean that the techniques that are developed are any less valid when taught to the next student.  The glaring difference is that the pilot and surgeon are training in a formalized, reviewed and standardized system of crisis management with a solid foundation in collective experience.  How much of martial arts self defense has such a formal "peer reviewed" body of knowledge as the foundation for the techniques that are taught. I suspect that the deficiency lies in a lot of untested material being taught as though it is proven. Without the organized peer review of those individuals who have actually used the techniques as a gold standard, much of what we are taught probably falls under the umbrella of unproven theory.



There's an old saying in the military, that you fight like you train.  While personal experience in a stressful and/or dangerous situation is undoubtedly very valuable, if we couldn't learn from other's experience, if we could only learn from personal experience, a lot of people would die or get hurt trying to learn things that would complete a mission and keep them alive.  Very wasteful from the military point of view.  Doesn't make for happy soldiers either.

When I first joined the US Army, I was in the Airborne Infantry.  I don't know what it is now, but then jump school was a rather intense 3 weeks of physical training and training how to make a successful parachute jump.  That is done though a lot of repetitious training.  It's amazing how much training you can cram into 3 weeks, really 2, since that is the length of ground school.  

Considering the consequences of failure, most soldiers invest a lot of mental and physical energy into learning all that is taught (how many MA students can say that?), and learning it well.

I once had what is called a squid.  The parachutes suspension lines begin to cross over the parachute (an inversion) but don't make it all the way.  If only one suspension line gets stuck, you have two pockets, commonly called a Mae West (after the movie star).  In my case multiple lines got stuck on top, forming many small pockets, hence the name squid.  They do not form sufficient resistance to slow you down enough to prevent injury when you get to the ground.  I was dropping like a rock below those who had jumped with me.

But either one of those scenarios is considered a partial malfunction.  We were taught in partial malfunctions to hold our left hand in front of our reserve (to hold in the spring loaded pilot chute), pull the D-handle to activate the reserve, reach in and grab the skirts of the reserve 'chute and raise what part of the skirt we had and flap in out to catch the wind and open so as to immediately begin filling it with air and not get tangled in any part of the main.  We were also taught that when we pulled the D-handle out to place it behind the back-pack of our reserve.  I guess that was to prevent it from striking someone below.  

We all thought it was stupid to take time to do that in an emergency, and swore we never would.  But failure to do so in the many practices in jump school resulted in doing some type of immediate calisthenics.  Also much more subsequent attention from the jump master instructors than you wanted.

During my malfunction during that jump, after my reserve deployed, I happened to look up (I felt a bumping and heard snapping which was my main pulling out to fully open).  Low and behold, there was my reserve D-handle stuck in some of the reserve suspension lines.  I have no recollection of putting that handle behind the reserve, 

Take that long story for any thing you think may (or may not) apply to the question posed in this thread, and the other answers given.

Did I mention in the military there is a saying you fight like you train?

I believe part of MA training is mental.  I believe MA training cannot be complete without it.  Part of that mental training is preparing oneself for as many eventualities as possible, and thinking what of your art's training would best work to get one safely out of the situation.  YMMV


----------



## seasoned

Steve said:


> Your imagination, no matter how vivid and detailed it may be, is not the same as real life.
> 
> Visualization is a terrific training tool.  However, it is specifically to assist with the transfer of training from comprehension to application.  It does not REPLACE application.  Only by applying skills can one progress beyond this stage of learning.
> 
> And there are stages beyond application.  Competence is application.  Expertise is a level of understanding beyond simple competence.
> 
> Sent from my IPA using Shoptalk HUD


While I respect your opinion, Steve, I carry a firearm in my part time job. I, like all LEO, qualify once a year with a state mandatory test for proficiency and need to pass it to carry that firearm while on duty. All year long I shoot at targets, but it is my thought process while on the range that makes all the difference to me. It may be a target I'm qualifying against, but to me it is a deadly physical force threat. The saying goes practice makes perfect and perfect practice makes the difference. I have heard it said many times before that while in a life and death situation officers have stated that in the heat of battle their training "just took over". Now, while I have never drawn my weapon on duty, there is no doubt in my mind that I will react any different then I do while in training.
I look at my martial arts training in the same way. I train to a certain point but there is never any way to really know just how one will react until the time comes.


----------



## DennisBreene

seasoned said:


> While I respect your opinion, Steve, I carry a firearm in my part time job. I, like all LEO, qualify once a year with a state mandatory test for proficiency and need to pass it to carry that firearm while on duty. All year long I shoot at targets, but it is my thought process while on the range that makes all the difference to me. It may be a target I'm qualifying against, but to me it is a deadly physical force threat. The saying goes practice makes perfect and perfect practice makes the difference. I have heard it said many times before that while in a life and death situation officers have stated that in the heat of battle their training "just took over". Now, while I have never drawn my weapon on duty, there is no doubt in my mind that I will react any different then I do while in training.
> I look at my martial arts training in the same way. I train to a certain point but there is never any way to really know just how one will react until the time comes.



I have heard similar comments from combat veterans.  The training "takes over".  Clearly most of us train will full awareness that it is unlikely that we will ever use our training "for real".  And since most of us are not facing imminent combat, we probably don't train as if our lives depended on it.  But, someday, for a few of us, that moment may occur, and we may really be in peril.  I think it's reasonable that the closer we train to reality and the more we maintain an attitude that the training may matter, the more likely that we will survive.  It's an imperfect world.  Training for a less than 1% possibility, is what we do, among other aspects of our arts.  Thinking about what we may face, running scenarios through our minds, playing what if with the techniques to test our limits, are all aspects of preparation.  In an area like self  defense, just as with the LEO firing his weapon on the job, finding ways to make some form of transition from skilled practice to practiced skill is a challenge.  I suspect that if the time ever comes for me, I will be better than if I had never trained.  I may still not succeed (a lot of trained marines died in the waters off Normandy Beach in spite of their training), but I am grateful to those who came before me and taught me what they know and challenged me to do it better the next time.  And I don't feel that I am any where near an expert, or even skilled in some aspects of defense. I just do what I do and train as best I can, and at the end of the day, I go home and don't spend my hours worrying about the villain lurking behind a bush.  The expert is the man who comes in from out of town to render an opinion.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I disagree when it comes to self defense there is no routine defend yourself. No two are identical so one time or five its not going to be the same so you need to study many many case files to gain knowledge so your own experience is just one of many and not totally needed.  It may make people trust you more because of real life experience but it doesn't make your knowledge that much better


What I hear you saying is that, in addition to experience, you need to be well trained.  I agree.


----------



## Steve

seasoned said:


> While I respect your opinion, Steve, I carry a firearm in my part time job. I, like all LEO, qualify once a year with a state mandatory test for proficiency and need to pass it to carry that firearm while on duty. All year long I shoot at targets, but it is my thought process while on the range that makes all the difference to me. It may be a target I'm qualifying against, but to me it is a deadly physical force threat. The saying goes practice makes perfect and perfect practice makes the difference. I have heard it said many times before that while in a life and death situation officers have stated that in the heat of battle their training "just took over". Now, while I have never drawn my weapon on duty, there is no doubt in my mind that I will react any different then I do while in training.
> I look at my martial arts training in the same way. I train to a certain point but there is never any way to really know just how one will react until the time comes.


I think that everything you're saying makes perfect sense.  I don't know how to say it in a way that is more clear.  Nothing you say above is in conflict with anything I've said.  Once again, being well trained is the first step toward becoming an expert in something.  

There's something else here that's important to remember.  Talking about pilots or LEO or nurses or airborne infantry is different than talking about crash landings, CPR, or parachute malfunctions.  In the former group, we're talking about a broad skill set.  In the latter, we're talking about a specific skill.

In any broad skill set or profession, the experience gained in the core skill set of the profession will be the foundation for success when encountering something outside the norm.  For example, an inexperienced pilot will be well trained in emergency procedures.  But when US Airways flight 1549 struck a flock of Canadian Geese on take off,  don't you think Capt. Sullenberger's 20,000 flight hours and almost 5,000 hours in that specific model aircraft were salient to the successful crash landing?   

Here's the real question.  Do you guys believe that there's no practical difference between an experienced pilot like Capt. Sullenberger or someone who's logged 20,000 hours in a simulator?  If you were thinking about attending a seminar on the realities of handling an in-flight emergency and water landing, would you find a guy who's run all the simulations to be equivalent to someone who's actually done it?


----------



## Steve

DennisBreene said:


> I have heard similar comments from combat veterans.  The training "takes over".  Clearly most of us train will full awareness that it is unlikely that we will ever use our training "for real".  And since most of us are not facing imminent combat, we probably don't train as if our lives depended on it.  But, someday, for a few of us, that moment may occur, and we may really be in peril.  I think it's reasonable that the closer we train to reality and the more we maintain an attitude that the training may matter, the more likely that we will survive.  It's an imperfect world.  Training for a less than 1% possibility, is what we do, among other aspects of our arts.  Thinking about what we may face, running scenarios through our minds, playing what if with the techniques to test our limits, are all aspects of preparation.  In an area like self  defense, just as with the LEO firing his weapon on the job, finding ways to make some form of transition from skilled practice to practiced skill is a challenge.  I suspect that if the time ever comes for me, I will be better than if I had never trained.  I may still not succeed (a lot of trained marines died in the waters off Normandy Beach in spite of their training), but I am grateful to those who came before me and taught me what they know and challenged me to do it better the next time.  And I don't feel that I am any where near an expert, or even skilled in some aspects of defense. I just do what I do and train as best I can, and at the end of the day, I go home and don't spend my hours worrying about the villain lurking behind a bush.  The expert is the man who comes in from out of town to render an opinion.


I just want to point out to you guys that you're specifically talking about the act of doing what you've trained to do.  In a combat unit, is the guy fresh out of training considered an expert?  Nothing left for him to learn?

If you're thinking, "Yes, of course there's more for him to learn," then we are in complete agreement.  I would say that a highly capable, fully trained combat soldier coming out of training and into his first unit is likely competent.  But, do you guys really think he's an expert?  

On the bloom's taxonomy model I mentioned earlier (Knowledge - Comprehension - Application - Analysis - Synthesis - Evalution), I'd put the new guy right on the hyphen between Comprehension and Application.  Doing it is "application" level.  NCOs with years in the trade are moving up beyond simple competence.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> What I hear you saying is that, in addition to experience, you need to be well trained.  I agree.



Nope what I'm saying is experience is a bonus but not that important.  The best person I ever spoke with on officer safety issues wasn't even a cop.  He was an analyst that studied 1000s of officer murders and assaults.  He had more knowledge on the topic then anyone I've ever met and he sat behind a desk and has never worn a badge


----------



## DennisBreene

Steve said:


> I just want to point out to you guys that you're specifically talking about the act of doing what you've trained to do.  In a combat unit, is the guy fresh out of training considered an expert?  Nothing left for him to learn?


Of course not.  Are the drill instructors who train them? Probably some are, and some may not be expert; just more trained than the recruits. There is certainly a hierarchy of training and experience at play in training someone to be skilled at almost every endeavor I can imagine.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Nope what I'm saying is experience is a bonus but not that important.  The best person I ever spoke with on officer safety issues wasn't even a cop.  He was an analyst that studied 1000s of officer murders and assaults.  He had more knowledge on the topic then anyone I've ever met and he sat behind a desk and has never worn a badge


Sounds to me like he was an expert.  You can be an academic.  And I'm sure his advice was sound, as it was based upon his specific area of expertise.  But, in spite of his academic expertise, do you think he could be given a gun and perform as well as you in the field?


----------



## Steve

DennisBreene said:


> Of course not.  Are the drill instructors who train them? Probably some are, and some may not be expert; just more trained than the recruits.


So, you're saying that the trainees aren't experts, and even some of their trainers weren't experts, either?  But, I bet the trainers were well trained in the specific training model.  Right?  They may not have been expert paratroopers, but they were probably excellent trainers.

So, let's apply this to martial arts:  Let's say there's a "self defense" boot camp.  The trainer isn't a "Self Defense" expert (in the same way that some of the instructors at Jump School weren't experts).  But he's an expert in the system.  What is he teaching you?  The system.  What are you becoming competent in?  The system.  And when you "graduate" from the training, you may be competent in the system and may have learned some VERY solid techniques that can help you defend yourself.  But, you're not a self defense expert.  And neither was your instructor.


----------



## DennisBreene

Steve said:


> So, you're saying that the trainees aren't experts, and even some of their trainers weren't experts, either?  But, I bet the trainers were well trained in the specific training model.  Right?  They may not have been expert paratroopers, but they were probably excellent trainers.
> 
> So, let's apply this to martial arts:  Let's say there's a "self defense" boot camp.  The trainer isn't a "Self Defense" expert (in the same way that some of the instructors at Jump School weren't experts).  But he's an expert in the system.  What is he teaching you?  The system.  What are you becoming competent in?  The system.  And when you "graduate" from the training, you may be competent in the system and may have learned some VERY solid techniques that can help you defend yourself.  But, you're not a self defense expert.  And neither was your instructor.



I can agree with that. I suspect we could go round and round as to what would qualify someone as "expert".  It may be akin to the supreme court saying that it could not define pornography but would recognize it when it saw it.


----------



## Steve

DennisBreene said:


> I can agree with that. I suspect we could go round and round as to what would qualify someone as "expert".  It may be akin to the supreme court saying that it could not define pornography but would recognize it when it saw it.


And, there are experts even among the experts.  A cardiac surgeon with years of experience is clearly an expert to the lay person.  But among cardiac surgeons, I bet there are a few who are looked upon by their peers as an expert resource.   On the Bloom's taxonomy model, that's the difference between Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation.  All are what I would consider varying levels within the range of being an "expert."   And it would likely take someone who is at least competent in that field to distinguish between the three.  But, once again, they're all beyond simply being competent in their field.  

Within every unit, office or group I've ever been a part of, there are people at all ranges of expertise, and within the group it's clear who is whom.  But outside of "self defense" training, I can't think of one other example where the alleged experts often have only academic understanding of a practical (i.e. non-academic) skill set.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Sounds to me like he was an expert.  You can be an academic.  And I'm sure his advice was sound, as it was based upon his specific area of expertise.  But, in spite of his academic expertise, do you think he could be given a gun and perform as well as you in the field?


Yes he was an expert.  Being an expert and preforming in the field are two different things.  Just because I can do the job in the field doesn't make me the expert


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> And, there are experts even among the experts.  A cardiac surgeon with years of experience is clearly an expert to the lay person.  But among cardiac surgeons, I bet there are a few who are looked upon by their peers as an expert resource.  Within every unit, office or group I've ever been a part of, there are people at all ranges of expertise, and within the group it's clear who is whom.  But outside of "self defense" training, I can't think of one other example where the alleged experts often have only academic understanding of a practical (i.e. non-academic) skill set.


Why do you consider self-defense a non academic skills set.  Self defense is 95% mental.  The best self defense is being smart enough to avoid trouble to start with


----------



## Tgace

DennisBreene said:


> The pilot trains for thousands of hours in simulators and other venues to handle emergencies that may never occur while he flies. The surgeon trains, reads case reports, watches videos of complications and observes other surgeons to gain a knowledge base on how to handle complications that may arise.



But...a pilot actually flies an aircraft. A surgeon actually cuts.....

Just as devils advocate. 


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Yes he was an expert.  Being an expert and preforming in the field are two different things.


Well, sure they're different.  But he was an expert... just not an expert cop.  He was an expert analyst.  Why?  Because that's what he did. 





> Just because I can do the job in the field doesn't make me the expert


Yes!  We're getting somewhere!  Doing the job in the field doesn't necessarily make you an expert.  Certainly doesn't make you an expert analyst. 

Man, seriously.  The world would be a MUCH better place if people understood the simple distinction you're making above.  Respect people's area of expertise and it makes all the difference.  An analyst is an expert analyst.  Could he do your job?  No.  But he can help you do your job better, if that's his area of expertise.


----------



## DennisBreene

Tgace said:


> But...a pilot actually flies an aircraft. A surgeon actually cuts.....
> 
> Just as devils advocate.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



True. And you can log the hours flown and the cases performed.  How does one catalogue field experience in self defense in our relatively safe society?


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> But...a pilot actually flies an aircraft. A surgeon actually cuts.....


Exactly, tgace.  What kind of a pilot would he be if he didn't actually fly the damned plane?  But, that's EXACTLY what we're talking about here with regards to self defense.





> Just as devils advocate.


 No problem.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Well, sure they're different.  But he was an expert... just not an expert cop.  He was an expert analyst.  Why?  Because that's what he did. Yes!  We're getting somewhere!  Doing the job in the field doesn't necessarily make you an expert.  Certainly doesn't make you an expert analyst.
> 
> Man, seriously.  The world would be a MUCH better place if people understood the simple distinction you're making above.  Respect people's area of expertise and it makes all the difference.  An analyst is an expert analyst.  Could he do your job?  No.  But he can help you do your job better, if that's his area of expertise.



No your just flat wrong.  He was an expert at officer safety.  He was teaching us to do our jobs safer.  We took his expertise and put it in action.  He was still the expert not me.  Could he do my job sure with a little training but why he's making 3 times as much teaching classes


----------



## Steve

DennisBreene said:


> True. And you can log the hours flown and the cases performed.  How does one catalogue field experience in self defense in our relatively safe society?


Well, there's a great question.  However, before we start tackling the question of cataloging experience within the field of self defense, can we first agree that experience is necessary?  

I know Chris Parker has alleged multiple times that experience is not necessary in order to become a self defense expert.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> No your just flat wrong.  He was an expert at officer safety.  He was teaching us to do our jobs safer.  We took his expertise and put it in action.  He was still the expert not me.  Could he do my job sure with a little training but why he's making 3 times as much teaching classes


LOL.  Once again, you're saying I'm wrong and then saying EXACTLY the same thing I'm saying.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> LOL.  Once again, you're saying I'm wrong and then saying EXACTLY the same thing I'm saying.



I don't think you know what your saying.  Who is the officer safety (offixer self defense) expert?  The guy teaching the class that has zero in field experience or the cop taking the class?  You claim one can't be a self defense expert without real world experience yet he is one.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I don't think you know what your saying.  Who is the officer safety (offixer self defense) expert?  The guy teaching the class that has zero in field experience or the cop taking the class?  You claim one can't be a self defense expert without real world experience yet he is one.


I'm just going on what you're saying.  What exactly does the officer safety expert do?  Help me out here, ballen.


----------



## Tgace

Didn't we have a long thread on this topic elsewhere Steve?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Didn't we have a long thread on this topic elsewhere Steve?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


Yes.  And I put a link to it in the sport vs tma thread.  I don't honestly think I can say it much differently than I did in that thread....  I  haven't seen anything that has changed my mind.  Human beings all accumulate experience in the same way.  There are no short cuts to expertise.  You have to log the hours.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I'm just going on what you're saying.  What exactly does the officer safety expert do?  Help me out here, ballen.



What do you think he does.  He teaches skills to officers to do the job safer.  He teaches self defense to officers.  Yet he has no real world experience which you said can't be done.


----------



## DennisBreene

Steve said:


> Well, there's a great question.  However, before we start tackling the question of cataloging experience within the field of self defense, can we first agree that experience is necessary?
> 
> I know Chris Parker has alleged multiple times that experience is not necessary in order to become a self defense expert.



I believe that a huge part of the issue is in defining experience.  As a trained eye surgeon, I was skilled when I completed my training. I was an expert in the eyes of a non-eye surgeon.  In practice, when I was operating, I frequently faced circumstances that I had not treated in training. I may have read about them, I may have seen videos of how others handled similar circumstances.  On occasion, I faced circumstances where I didn't have even that benefit.  I still had to manage the situation.  In the process of garnering that collective experience, I became an expert in the eyes of my peers (and I also viewed them as experts).  The continuum from trained to expert had no qualifying line to mark my progress but that didn't make the distinction any less real.  I did have the benefit of years of experience in my specialty to buttress that distinction.  I suspect that in the world of martial arts, experienced artists can point to others who they respect as experts, based on their collective experiences and demonstrated skills in situations as close to "reality" as is practical. Can it be codified? Maybe not.


----------



## Tgace

As I said in:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=108916 

Someone...somewhere...within a reasonable timeframe should have "done" what is being taught as a self defense technique. The core of this discussion isnt so much about the individual practitioner having had "experience" as it is about a systems combative foundation. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## oftheherd1

Steve said:


> I think that everything you're saying makes perfect sense.  I don't know how to say it in a way that is more clear.  Nothing you say above is in conflict with anything I've said.  Once again, being well trained is the first step toward becoming an expert in something.
> 
> *There's something else here that's important to remember.  Talking about pilots or LEO or nurses or airborne infantry is different than talking about crash landings, CPR, or parachute malfunctions.  In the former group, we're talking about a broad skill set.  In the latter, we're talking about a specific skill.*
> 
> In any broad skill set or profession, the experience gained in the core skill set of the profession will be the foundation for success when encountering something outside the norm.  For example, an inexperienced pilot will be well trained in emergency procedures.  But when US Airways flight 1549 struck a flock of Canadian Geese on take off,  don't you think Capt. Sullenberger's 20,000 flight hours and almost 5,000 hours in that specific model aircraft were salient to the successful crash landing?
> 
> Here's the real question.  Do you guys believe that there's no practical difference between an experienced pilot like Capt. Sullenberger or someone who's logged 20,000 hours in a simulator?  If you were thinking about attending a seminar on the realities of handling an in-flight emergency and water landing, would you find a guy who's run all the simulations to be equivalent to someone who's actually done it?



I don't know that I understand what you are trying to say in the bolded text.  Any particular skill in any body of knowledge can probably be trained to.  That I don't know anything about throws doesn't mean I can't be trained to execute a particular release and break.  It may take a little longer if I don't have some basic foundations, but I can still be taught that.

In the case of Cpt Sullenberger, I have no doubt his previous training and experience in that particular aircraft were valuable in his successful landing.  But although I have never talked with him, I think something of greater value at that time was his experience as a glider pilot.  Without power of any sort, he had to rely on that experience.  Granted that aircraft didn't have a great glide angle, but he had experience to ascertain what its glide angle was and use that to the advantage of landing the aircraft.  

So I would say it was the training both as a pilot of the type of aircraft he was flying, and of flying a glider.  If he ever received simulator training on complete loss of power while climbing during a takeoff, he could not have learned the feel of an aircraft like he would have from flying gliders.


----------



## DennisBreene

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't know that I understand what you are trying to say in the bolded text.  Any particular skill in any body of knowledge can probably be trained to.  That I don't know anything about throws doesn't mean I can't be trained to execute a particular release and break.  It may take a little longer if I don't have some basic foundations, but I can still be taught that.
> 
> In the case of Cpt Sullenberger, I have no doubt his previous training and experience in that particular aircraft were valuable in his successful landing.  But although I have never talked with him, I think something of greater value at that time was his experience as a glider pilot.  Without power of any sort, he had to rely on that experience.  Granted that aircraft didn't have a great glide angle, but he had experience to ascertain what its glide angle was and use that to the advantage of landing the aircraft.
> 
> So I would say it was the training both as a pilot of the type of aircraft he was flying, and of flying a glider.  If he ever received simulator training on complete loss of power while climbing during a takeoff, he could not have learned the feel of an aircraft like he would have from flying gliders.



I think both contributions are valid points.  The analogies of various careers only have some relevance to self defense.  But in the arena of self defense, there are those who have effectively made a career of the study and practice of self defense.  The question follows; what skills and training are required to demonstrate the competence one would expect to be "expert" in the general practice of self defense (as opposed to being a sub-specialist in one isolated aspect like guns)? How does one actually demonstrate that competence in a way that would make it apparent that the skills would be effective in real life situations? And, how does one transfer that knowledge and skill to a student in a way that one could have reasonable confidence that the student could use the knowledge in a real life situation?


----------



## K-man

Maybe digressing slightly, just what are we looking for in self defence? Are we looking for something we can use on the street in the unlikely event of being attacked, or are we training to take on the top UfC fighters? Are we looking for something we can use if someone in a family gathering gets out of line or are we looking for something we can use in a combat zone in the Middle East? 

Can I suggest that an 'expert' is relative. If I were to approach a top MMA guy and offer to coach him to fight in the ring he would be quite justified in laughing me out of town. I have no experience in that field. If someone came to me and said that he was concerned that if someone threatened him or his family he wouldn't be able to defend them. To him I might be an expert, and as long as I had the competence and the ability to teach, I would be.
:asian:


----------



## DennisBreene

K-man said:


> Maybe digressing slightly, just what are we looking for in self defence? Are we looking for something we can use on the street in the unlikely event of being attacked, or are we training to take on the top UfC fighters? Are we looking for something we can use if someone in a family gathering gets out of line or are we looking for something we can use in a combat zone in the Middle East?
> 
> Can I suggest that an 'expert' is relative. If I were to approach a top MMA guy and offer to coach him to fight in the ring he would be quite justified in laughing me out of town. I have no experience in that field. If someone came to me and said that he was concerned that if someone threatened him or his family he wouldn't be able to defend them. To him I might be an expert, and as long as I had the competence and the ability to teach, I would be.
> :asian:



I don't think this is really a digression. I believe that until we define our terms we risk unending circular reasoning.  To my mind, self defense for the average martial artist encompasses defense against personal attack in a non-military, non-competition and non-job required scenario.  Military, LEO, sport, corrections, all imply a potentially different skill set (though certainly overlapping) and are unique. I leave it to the collective wisdom as to whether that is the general understanding.


----------



## SENC-33

Real world experience will give you a leg up in actually defending yourself but no you don't need real world experience to be considerrd an expert in teaching it. So much of self defense can be learned and taught through observation, the understanding of people and violence and plain old common sense. You don't need a real world certificate to pass that knowledge on.


----------



## Tgace

History is full of examples of the difference between the trained/book learned and the "experienced". Look at the history of the veteran soldier and the new "boot" or the rookie cop and the street wise vet....

Of course, how do you propogate an art with "street experience" as a standard? Where is that experience supposed to be found?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

Tgace said:


> History is full of examples of the difference between the trained/book learned and the "experienced". Look at the history of the veteran soldier and the new "boot" or the rookie cop and the street wise vet....
> 
> Of course, how do you propogate an art with "street experience" as a standard? Where is that experience supposed to be found?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


Flip side I've seen vet cops do some really stupid stuff due to complacency.    Time on and real world experience alone don't make you an expert


----------



## MJS

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like to look at this from the probability projection. If you have knocked/taken 100 guys down, the chance that you may knock/take your next opponent down will be high. The question is where will you be able to accumulate your 100 successful experience if not from "sport"? Can you consider "sport" real world?



Well, unless you walked around going from bar to bar and picking fights, you're right, you probably won't get 100 guys.  Of course, this obviously isn't the best thing to do. To answer your question, can I consider 'sport', real world?  Well, within a certain context, I could, but of course, there are limits.  You'll probably get some real world resistance and contact, but as far as the other things, ie: a mat vs. pavement, weapons vs no weapons, no ref, the higher odds of death in the real world vs staying alive in the ring, sure, like I said, it'll be real to a point.


----------



## MJS

seasoned said:


> Even in kata your opponent needs to be real to you in your head. I teach people to move with that invisible enemy and as you strike kill the air around you. Train the way you want to react and you WILL react that way for real..............



I agree.  My teacher makes us do the same thing.  If we're not putting in 100% when we do the kata, we hear about it.


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> The pilot, however, can be an expert pilot.  In fact, I'd argue that there are only a few "expert" crash landers among pilots.  There are, however, a lot of very experienced, competent, expert pilots.  And they are expert pilots precisely because their experience is not limited to simulators.
> 
> Once again, let's look at it from another perspective.  Let's say you have a guy who cn do anything in a simulator, but has never flown an ACTUAL plane.  Can a person become an expert pilot without ever flying a plane?  I would say no.  In order to make the leap between a competent trainee an an expert, there's a lot of hours logged in the pilot's seat of an actual plane.
> 
> Would that person be competent as a flight instructor?  I would say that there might be some limited, specific things he could competently share, but I'd be very uneasy if the pilot of my 747 to Orlando was brand new off the simulator having learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane, who himself learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane.
> 
> Sure, you can learn skills in a simulator.  I've said this many times in the past, but it's relevant here.  There's something called Bloom's taxonomy and it's very simple.  People learn things in predictable stages:
> 
> Knowledge -> Comprehension -> Application -> Analysis -> Synthesis -> Evaluation
> 
> Most martial arts training stops somewhere between comprehension and application.  The transition you guys are talking about is exactly the transition between comprehension and application.  In adult learning and business training, this is the big challenge.  How to get people out of training and able to apply the skills on the job in the quickest, most eficient and reliable way.
> 
> But, in business, as in ANY human endeavor, competence is the FIRST step toward expertise.  In other words, a person who is an expert must be competent, but not every person who is competent is an expert.
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Great points Steve!  This is why I mentioned what I did in my OP.  For me personally, if it came down to choosing, I'd rather have someone with the actual hands on training, vs. someone who spent the majority of time simulating.  As for the pilots, I tend to agree also, and had Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger, not been flying that plane that day, my guess is it would have been a recovery effort rather than a rescue effort.  So, going on this:



> Sure, you can learn skills in a simulator.  I've said this many times in the past, but it's relevant here.  There's something called Bloom's taxonomy and it's very simple.  People learn things in predictable stages:
> 
> Knowledge -> Comprehension -> Application -> Analysis -> Synthesis -> Evaluation
> 
> Most martial arts training stops somewhere between comprehension and application.  The transition you guys are talking about is exactly the transition between comprehension and application.  In adult learning and business training, this is the big challenge.  How to get people out of training and able to apply the skills on the job in the quickest, most eficient and reliable way.



What would you suggest to get people to do that?


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> Great points Steve!  This is why I mentioned what I did in my OP.  For me personally, if it came down to choosing, I'd rather have someone with the actual hands on training, vs. someone who spent the majority of time simulating.  As for the pilots, I tend to agree also, and had Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger, not been flying that plane that day, my guess is it would have been a recovery effort rather than a rescue effort.  So, going on this:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you suggest to get people to do that?


Here's the main point.  Training, no matter how good, can only prepare you for competence.  

Not everyone will work in trade that will take them to a level of expertise.

Abd to be clear, for most people, this is plenty.  The danger is when a competent expert creates a system and then people start misrepresenting the system.  A guy creates a system and then traces another guy, abd that guy things that he's a self defense expert because he's an expert in the system.  I would suggest that the two are not the same.


Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> So In your opinion nobody can be a self defense expert since nobody has 100s of real world self defense experiences?
> I think self defense may be too broad a term.  There are knife experts that would suck with a gun gun experts that would get hurt going hands on, dept of  corrections self defense is different then police which is different then woman which is different then men.  So there may not be a all encompassing self defense expert. Breaking it down a little more specific and yes there are plenty of field experts.  That build that knowledge from case study and training.  an expert in shark attacks doesn't need to have been bitten by a shark.



I'll use LE as an example.  Let's say you're in the police academy.  It's time to head to the range and do some shooting.  Your instructor for the lesson has extensively researched guns, dating back to the very first gun, all the way to present day.  He knows about the range of the gun, the stopping power, you name it, he knows it.  But he states that during his research, he's never once, actually fired a gun.  

You're the new recruit.  Would you want to be instructed by this guy?

On the flip side, if the instructor was former military, would you want to be taught by him?  And I know that the skill set that the average officer gets, compared to what a Marine sniper would get, will be different, and probably wouldn't apply to the average LEO, but the fact remains, you'd still be getting trained by someone who's fired a wide array of weapons.


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> Yes.  And I put a link to it in the sport vs tma thread.  I don't honestly think I can say it much differently than I did in that thread....  I  haven't seen anything that has changed my mind.  Human beings all accumulate experience in the same way.  There are no short cuts to expertise.  You have to log the hours.



Ahh...my bad.  I seem to recall that other thread, but forgot about it at the time.  Anyways, I agree, in that if you truly want to have the expertise, you need to get the hands on training.


----------



## MJS

K-man said:


> Maybe digressing slightly, just what are we looking for in self defence? Are we looking for something we can use on the street in the unlikely event of being attacked, or are we training to take on the top UfC fighters? Are we looking for something we can use if someone in a family gathering gets out of line or are we looking for something we can use in a combat zone in the Middle East?



I'd say it'd depend on your goal.  The guy who is looking for something to do after work, maybe meet some new people, get in better shape, probably isn't going to have the same goals as someone who is looking to defend themselves in a SD situation, regardless of how rare or not, that may happen.  Given that I do my very best to avoid trouble, the fact that my neighborhood is pretty crime free, my odds of having to defend myself, are much lower on the scale.  This doesn't mean that I don't want to have the tools, should I need them.  So for me, that's just what I'm looking to defend against..the punk who might try to mug me when I'm walking to my car in the parking garage of the mall.  I've got no desire to be the next fighter on TUF. 



> Can I suggest that an 'expert' is relative. If I were to approach a top MMA guy and offer to coach him to fight in the ring he would be quite justified in laughing me out of town. I have no experience in that field. If someone came to me and said that he was concerned that if someone threatened him or his family he wouldn't be able to defend them. To him I might be an expert, and as long as I had the competence and the ability to teach, I would be.
> :asian:



On the flip side, you could teach him a skill set for outside of the ring, should it be something that he doesn't have or wants to expand upon.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> As I said in:
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=108916
> 
> Someone...somewhere...within a reasonable timeframe should have "done" what is being taught as a self defense technique. The core of this discussion isnt so much about the individual practitioner having had "experience" as it is about a systems combative foundation.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


The point, though, where this experienced person puts together his/her system, the training becomes codified and specific.  In other words, he's not teaching "self defense".  He's teaching his system.  And while this won't make any difference in the short term, I believe that down the road it does.  A question I posed in the other thread was how many generations from practical expertise have to occur before the efficacy of the training will suffer?   Let's say you are an experienced guy with a lot of practical, hands on knowledge of a subject.  Using your expertise, you put together a training curriculum that is practical and effective and you begin teaching people.  They, in turn, become experts in your system and begin teaching other people.  And so on.  This is how martial arts work.  A guy develops his system.  He teaches people, who teach people, who teach people.

The simple point I'm making is that they are specifically teaching people the system.  The expertise being gained isn't "self defense."  It's the system.  And, at some point, I believe that without reality checks, the system will suffer from the presumption of efficacy.  

Looking once again at the pilot, if Capt. Sullenberger trained a pilot who never flew a plane (simulators only), that student is still benefiting from his instructor's expertise.  But, there are a million little things that Sulley knows that a trainee won't.  Things that you only get by doing.  And, so when that student becomes an instructor, teaching Sulley's method for flying a plane (without ever actually flying a plane), he will not pass those things on.  And his students become instructors... and pretty soon, we have thousands of schools popping up all over the world teaching people to fly planes without actually flying planes.  Are any of these people expert pilots?  I'd argue that they are not.  Rather, they are experts in Sulley's flightless pilot training system.


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> I'll use LE as an example.  Let's say you're in the police academy.  It's time to head to the range and do some shooting.  Your instructor for the lesson has extensively researched guns, dating back to the very first gun, all the way to present day.  He knows about the range of the gun, the stopping power, you name it, he knows it.  But he states that during his research, he's never once, actually fired a gun.
> 
> You're the new recruit.  Would you want to be instructed by this guy?
> 
> On the flip side, if the instructor was former military, would you want to be taught by him?  And I know that the skill set that the average officer gets, compared to what a Marine sniper would get, will be different, and probably wouldn't apply to the average LEO, but the fact remains, you'd still be getting trained by someone who's fired a wide array of weapons.


In the other thread, Tgace posted a link to an article where a guy discusses the difference between some firearms.  I might be remembering it wrong, but the gist of it as I recall was that he was training SWAT guys, and in the course of the training, some would have really expensive, shiny, firearms that were showy, but not reliable.  He then went on about which firearms he preferred and why.  The choice of the showy, expensive firearms on the part of the trainees had everything to do with their lack of experience.  And his choices, and the depth of his rationale behind his choices, had everything to do with the depth of his experience.  You can't teach experience.  And you can't be an expert without it.

As ballen and others are, I think, beginning to understand, it's about being aware of exactly what one's areas of expertise really are.


----------



## oftheherd1

I think I have to agree with the post that said we need to define expert, and specifically in martial arts.  I think we are giving examples and arguments that don't necessarily apply to MA.  

Would a 1st Dan be considered an expert?  Taught properly he sure is going to know a lot to earn his black belt.  He sure should know a lot of things that the non-MA educated person will never know.  But within the MA community, he is probably not yet an expert.  Since there are many styles of MA, could we at least suggest a level at which one becomes an expert?  Is it at 2nd Dan, 3rd, or perhaps 4th where most can have their own school (at least in Korea) and be called Master?  How about being a Grand Master?  Must one be there before being an expert?  

What do others of you think?  Are we wasting time by not narrowly defining our discussion to MA?  Can we agree at what level a person becomes an expert?


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Maybe digressing slightly, just what are we looking for in self defence? Are we looking for something we can use on the street in the unlikely event of being attacked, or are we training to take on the top UfC fighters? Are we looking for something we can use if someone in a family gathering gets out of line or are we looking for something we can use in a combat zone in the Middle East?
> 
> Can I suggest that an 'expert' is relative. If I were to approach a top MMA guy and offer to coach him to fight in the ring he would be quite justified in laughing me out of town. I have no experience in that field. If someone came to me and said that he was concerned that if someone threatened him or his family he wouldn't be able to defend them. To him I might be an expert, and as long as I had the competence and the ability to teach, I would be.
> :asian:


Totally agree, and this was the genesis of the original thread.  Self Defense is so vague that I don't think it's very useful.  BJJ doesn't, IMO, teach self defense, although some of the skills are certainly useful.  MMA doesn't teach self defense, either, although once again, some of the skills can be useful.

But, Krav Maga doesn't teach self defense, either.  In exactly the same way BJJ/MMA/Boxing etc teach the system, Krav Maga teaches a method.  Without the reality checks and practical experience, the best someone can hope for out of their training is expertise within the system, and... maybe... competent defense skills.   But an expert in Krav Maga, Systema or whatever, is not necessarily an expert in self defense.  Might be, but not necessarily.

Why is this?  I believe it's because "self defense" is a sales pitch.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> History is full of examples of the difference between the trained/book learned and the "experienced". Look at the history of the veteran soldier and the new "boot" or the rookie cop and the street wise vet....
> 
> Of course, how do you propogate an art with "street experience" as a standard? Where is that experience supposed to be found?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


It would be hard.  I'm not suggesting that schools do this. There are two ways to approach this.  First, and probably the easiest, is for a school to simply be more specific and up front about what they're teaching and what they're not teaching.  If an instructor has no practical experience, maybe touting him as an expert is wrong.

Second is to make a show of giving students large sums of cash in high crime neighborhood and then see if they can walk out without being killed.


----------



## Steve

oftheherd1 said:


> I think I have to agree with the post that said we need to define expert, and specifically in martial arts.  I think we are giving examples and arguments that don't necessarily apply to MA.
> 
> Would a 1st Dan be considered an expert?  Taught properly he sure is going to know a lot to earn his black belt.  He sure should know a lot of things that the non-MA educated person will never know.  But within the MA community, he is probably not yet an expert.  Since there are many styles of MA, could we at least suggest a level at which one becomes an expert?  Is it at 2nd Dan, 3rd, or perhaps 4th where most can have their own school (at least in Korea) and be called Master?  How about being a Grand Master?  Must one be there before being an expert?
> 
> What do others of you think?  Are we wasting time by not narrowly defining our discussion to MA?  Can we agree at what level a person becomes an expert?


I would say that if you train in a specific martial art, regardless of which art, you are working on becoming an expert in that specific system.  Where "expert" falls and how it's defined will be specific to that art.  The fundamental point here is that, you cannot become an expert in Goju Ryu Karate by studying (no matter how diligently) BJJ.  You cannot become an expert in Budo Taijutsu by studying Judo.  Simply put, you cannot become an expert in one thing by studying something else.  It seems obvious, I know. 

Self Defense is vague.  It's like saying "love."  Love means something different to everyone... and so does "self defense."  People don't train self defense.  People train in systems.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Flip side I've seen vet cops do some really stupid stuff due to complacency.    Time on and real world experience alone don't make you an expert


I would agree with this.  While all experts will have practical experience, not everyone with practical experience will be an expert.  

The first step to expertise is competence.  While anyone can make a mistake, if the mistakes are due to a lack of competence (skills gaps, chronic apathy/complacence or whatever), then a person cannot be an expert, by definition.


----------



## oftheherd1

Steve said:


> I would say that if you train in a specific martial art, regardless of which art, you are working on becoming an expert in that specific system.  Where "expert" falls and how it's defined will be specific to that art.  The fundamental point here is that, you cannot become an expert in Goju Ryu Karate by studying (no matter how diligently) BJJ.  You cannot become an expert in Budo Taijutsu by studying Judo.  Simply put, you cannot become an expert in one thing by studying something else.  It seems obvious, I know.
> 
> Self Defense is vague.  It's like saying "love."  Love means something different to everyone... and so does "self defense."  People don't train self defense.  People train in systems.



Sounds like a good start:  you can only be an expert in a system you have trained in.  Do all MA, at least the oriental if not others, train in any way in self defense?


----------



## Steve

oftheherd1 said:


> Sounds like a good start:  you can only be an expert in a system you have trained in.  Do all MA, at least the oriental if not others, train in any way in self defense?


I believe that every martial art system, sport or non-sport, has strengths and weaknesses.  There is no perfect system.

Is BJJ good for self defense or bad for self defense?  The answer is it's both good and bad.  There are good things and bad things taught in BJJ that might apply to self defense.  Same for MMA.  And, here's the key.  It's the same for all arts.  

Now, this isn't to say that all arts are equal.  Quality training can make a big difference.  I'm not suggesting that all training is equally effective.  I'm simply saying that training can only take you, at best, to the cusp of competence.  In order to become competent (which is the first step on the road to becoming an expert), you have to apply the skills outside of training.  And for most people, this is plenty.  

Ballen pointed out a guy he respects who teaches a system that he believes is VERY effective for him.  How is ballen able to say this?  Because ballen uses the system in real life.  He's making the leap from comprehension to application and then to evaluation.  While is friend is an expert in the system he teaches, I'd argue that the person who is becoming a real expert is ballen, since he's developing skills within the system AND accumulating experience applying the skills outside of training.  And, the best possible instruction I could receive would be from someone who is an expert in the system AND ALSO has the tacit knowledge that can only be learned over time with experience.


----------



## DennisBreene

I don't think that identifying and creating a curriculum for teaching effective self defense is necessarily impossible or purely academic.  If you look at the common factors in some of the analogies they've used; aviation, medicine, combat.  One of the effective methods of analysis that is used in all of these is some sort of retrospective analysis. A plane crashes and there is an investigation. Something goes wrong in surgery and there is a morbidity and mortality conference.  Military engagements have after action reports.  In the first two examples (I am uncertain about the third), free and open communication is maximized by placing protections on the discussions and fact finding from civil litigation.  Events are then analyzed in detail. Experts in various aspects of the process evaluate such factors as mechanical failure, pilot/surgeon error, and much else and really pick apart the facts of the event to determine what happened, what went wrong, what was done to manage the situation, what wasn't done and what could have been done. And ultimately; if the accepted correct actions had been taken, would the outcome have been changed.  The process yields results in these fields in a number of ways. It identifies fundamental flaws in design or concept.  It identifies errors made by humans in performing required tasks.   It seeks to identify ways of modifying design and human conduct so that mishaps and misadventures can be prevented or if not preventable, the damage can be minimized. 


In theory at least, those same principles could be applied to case studies of actual self defense occurrences  to identify multiple factors relevant to what occurred and what can be learned from the analysis that would be of benefit in handling such occurrences most effectively.   Was the persons ability to avoid a conflict inadequate or ineffective.  If so; what could be changed in that person's behavior to avoid the the conflict.  The details of the encounter can be analyzed to determine if a technique was effective or ineffective and recommendations could be made as to how the event could have been managed better.
Repeated analysis of such occurences could yield insight into unifying themes as to what is effective and be used to refine or revamp instruction of techniques. It would be a daunting task, but not impossible.  It would require some level of consensus as to what individuals were qualified to do such investigations and reports.  And it would require commitment among practitioners to incorporate recommended changes into their curriculum.  Over time, the constant reassessment could lead to more effective principles based on real world experience.  It may sound outlandish, but that process is done constantly in the fields I have mentioned and has resulted in remarkable advancement in quality.  IMHO it is possible.  The question is; is there enough need for such an effort and is there the collective will to change how very traditional techniques are approached in order to systematically improve self defense technique?


----------



## EddieCyrax

Steve said:


> Here's the main point. Training, no matter how good, can only prepare you for competence.
> 
> Not everyone will work in trade that will take them to a level of expertise.
> 
> Abd to be clear, for most people, this is plenty. The danger is when a competent expert creates a system and then people start misrepresenting the system. A guy creates a system and then traces another guy, abd that guy things that he's a self defense expert because he's an expert in the system. I would suggest that the two are not the same.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk



I do not disagree with the premise of your opinions, but have follow up questions.  Given the vast volume of techniques tought in most all MAs, how many real life conflicts must a person be in to be an "expert"?  How many techniques must they have demonstrated?  Are you suggesting that only individuals in LE, military, bouncer, sport fighter(boxing/mma/etc) or street proven can ever obtain the level of expert?  If so, how is this determined/judged?  What becomes the standard to which one has to obtain?

The airline industry is a bit different here.  One can obtain enough seat time under supervision to get their licience.  How does a MA practicioner who trains (in all the right ways) in the hopes of never utilizing their training get this experience?

At this point, this seems extremely subjective.  I am not sure I would label all LEs or the ex-military as experts in MA just because they did their time and now currently practice MA. I have witnessed cases where this logic definately does not hold.

All this said, I have enjoyed reading this debate.....interesting food for thought....


----------



## Steve

EddieCyrax said:


> I do not disagree with the premise of your opinions, but have follow up questions.  Given the vast volume of techniques tought in most all MAs, how many real life conflicts must a person be in to be an "expert"?  How many techniques must they have demonstrated?  Are you suggesting that only individuals in LE, military, bouncer, sport fighter(boxing/mma/etc) or street proven can ever obtain the level of expert?  If so, how is this determined/judged?  What becomes the standard to which one has to obtain?


My opinion is that the term "self defense' is so abstract as to be worthless.  A LEO might have a lot of valuable and useful information to share based upon his/her experience and training.  While there may be some overlap, a bouncer would have slightly different (but perhaps equally valuable and useful) information to share.  A sport fighter would have a different piece of the puzzle.

Which is best for self defense?  Well, that depends as much on the student as the system.  





> The airline industry is a bit different here.  One can obtain enough seat time under supervision to get their licience.  How does a MA practicioner who trains (in all the right ways) in the hopes of never utilizing their training get this experience?


Remember, I'm not saying you can't get to the point where you could likely use your skills when necessary.  Excellent training will get you very, very close to competent.  What I'm saying is that you can't progress beyond that point without applying the skills in the wild (so to speak).  



> At this point, this seems extremely subjective.  I am not sure I would label all LEs or the ex-military as experts in MA just because they did their time and now currently practice MA. I have witnessed cases where this logic definately does not hold.


Of course not.  I agree completely.  I have said repeatedly that while I believe *all* experts have experience, not everyone with experience is an expert.  

The tricky part sometimes is accurately identifying the area of expertise.  Dennisbreene brought up the point that there are experts and then there are EXPERTS among the experts.  Expertise IS subjective and represents a range of experience, skill and ability.  


> All this said, I have enjoyed reading this debate.....interesting food for thought....


----------



## Steve

DennisBreene said:


> I don't think that identifying and creating a curriculum for teaching effective self defense is necessarily impossible or purely academic.  If you look at the common factors in some of the analogies they've used; aviation, medicine, combat.  One of the effective methods of analysis that is used in all of these is some sort of retrospective analysis. A plane crashes and there is an investigation. Something goes wrong in surgery and there is a morbidity and mortality conference.  Military engagements have after action reports.  In the first two examples (I am uncertain about the third), free and open communication is maximized by placing protections on the discussions and fact finding from civil litigation.  Events are then analyzed in detail. Experts in various aspects of the process evaluate such factors as mechanical failure, pilot/surgeon error, and much else and really pick apart the facts of the event to determine what happened, what went wrong, what was done to manage the situation, what wasn't done and what could have been done. And ultimately; if the accepted correct actions had been taken, would the outcome have been changed.  The process yields results in these fields in a number of ways. It identifies fundamental flaws in design or concept.  It identifies errors made by humans in performing required tasks.   It seeks to identify ways of modifying design and human conduct so that mishaps and misadventures can be prevented or if not preventable, the damage can be minimized.
> 
> 
> In theory at least, those same principles could be applied to case studies of actual self defense occurrences  to identify multiple factors relevant to what occurred and what can be learned from the analysis that would be of benefit in handling such occurrences most effectively.   Was the persons ability to avoid a conflict inadequate or ineffective.  If so; what could be changed in that person's behavior to avoid the the conflict.  The details of the encounter can be analyzed to determine if a technique was effective or ineffective and recommendations could be made as to how the event could have been managed better.
> Repeated analysis of such occurences could yield insight into unifying themes as to what is effective and be used to refine or revamp instruction of techniques. It would be a daunting task, but not impossible.  It would require some level of consensus as to what individuals were qualified to do such investigations and reports.  And it would require commitment among practitioners to incorporate recommended changes into their curriculum.  Over time, the constant reassessment could lead to more effective principles based on real world experience.  It may sound outlandish, but that process is done constantly in the fields I have mentioned and has resulted in remarkable advancement in quality.  IMHO it is possible.  The question is; is there enough need for such an effort and is there the collective will to change how very traditional techniques are approached in order to systematically improve self defense technique?


I think that it's entirely possible to create an effective curriculum.  Honestly, the sticking point for me isn't quality of training.  The part I think is a little alarming is the idea that people mistake the training for the skill.  Can a solid curriculum teach practical skills to a lay person?  Sure.  Of course.  A person might, through years of diligent training, get to the point where he or she is an expert _in that system.  
_
Will that person be able to apply those skills outside of training?  We can say maybe.  We might even be able to say probably.  but you can't legitimately claim to be an expert in something you've never actually done.


----------



## EddieCyrax

Steve said:


> but you can't legitimately claim to be an expert in something you've never actually done.



This is where I stuggle.  Define "Actually Done". 

Perhaps it is better to say that there is no such thing as an expert.  Perhaps this term is used for system/company marketing or to reflect one's ego.

For example.  Let's say a 1st Dan (you choose the MA) has trained for 7 years, and has proven his skills as a fighter in the ring and on the job as a LEO. Does this make them an expert in his MA?  

hmmmm....not sure I know the answer based on the discussion.


----------



## EddieCyrax

Another scenario:

As most people on this board are aware, real life is messy, most conflicts have 100s of variables for success, and happen in split seconds......

Does the outcome of this conflict impact ones ability to be an expert?  

Let's say a trained MA gets in a fight, performs his techniques skills appropriately, but in the end gets beat up due to an outside variable (pick one, size, strength, outclassed by another MA, etc), or the loser of two individuals fighting for an UFC championship belt.  Can the loser still claim to be an expert of their MA?


----------



## oftheherd1

DennisBreene said:


> I don't think that identifying and creating a curriculum for teaching effective self defense is necessarily impossible or purely academic.  If you look at the common factors in some of the analogies they've used; aviation, medicine, combat.  One of the effective methods of analysis that is used in all of these is some sort of retrospective analysis. A plane crashes and there is an investigation. Something goes wrong in surgery and there is a morbidity and mortality conference.  Military engagements have after action reports.  In the first two examples (I am uncertain about the third), free and open communication is maximized by placing protections on the discussions and fact finding from civil litigation.  Events are then analyzed in detail. Experts in various aspects of the process evaluate such factors as mechanical failure, pilot/surgeon error, and much else and really pick apart the facts of the event to determine what happened, what went wrong, what was done to manage the situation, what wasn't done and what could have been done. And ultimately; if the accepted correct actions had been taken, would the outcome have been changed.  The process yields results in these fields in a number of ways. It identifies fundamental flaws in design or concept.  It identifies errors made by humans in performing required tasks.   It seeks to identify ways of modifying design and human conduct so that mishaps and misadventures can be prevented or if not preventable, the damage can be minimized.
> 
> 
> In theory at least, those same principles could be applied to case studies of actual self defense occurrences  to identify multiple factors relevant to what occurred and what can be learned from the analysis that would be of benefit in handling such occurrences most effectively.   Was the persons ability to avoid a conflict inadequate or ineffective.  If so; what could be changed in that person's behavior to avoid the the conflict.  The details of the encounter can be analyzed to determine if a technique was effective or ineffective and recommendations could be made as to how the event could have been managed better.
> Repeated analysis of such occurences could yield insight into unifying themes as to what is effective and be used to refine or revamp instruction of techniques. It would be a daunting task, but not impossible.  It would require some level of consensus as to what individuals were qualified to do such investigations and reports.  And it would require commitment among practitioners to incorporate recommended changes into their curriculum.  Over time, the constant reassessment could lead to more effective principles based on real world experience.  It may sound outlandish, but that process is done constantly in the fields I have mentioned and has resulted in remarkable advancement in quality.  IMHO it is possible.  The question is; is there enough need for such an effort and is there the collective will to change how very traditional techniques are approached in order to systematically improve self defense technique?



Good points.  Is it reasonable to conjecture that in the 'old days' of MA, those learning and practicing those arts did the same?  Maybe not in as formal and structured a setting as you mention above, but around the practice area, or by the campfire, or dinner table, very serious discussions on what would work more effectively to ensure more success and less injury or death to their side?  Is that how we got to the point of what we are considered to need to know?


----------



## oftheherd1

Steve said:


> I believe that every martial art system, sport or non-sport, has strengths and weaknesses.  There is no perfect system.
> 
> Is BJJ good for self defense or bad for self defense?  The answer is it's both good and bad.  There are good things and bad things taught in BJJ that might apply to self defense.  Same for MMA.  And, here's the key.  It's the same for all arts.
> 
> Now, this isn't to say that all arts are equal.  Quality training can make a big difference.  I'm not suggesting that all training is equally effective.  I'm simply saying that training can only take you, at best, to the cusp of competence.  In order to become competent (which is the first step on the road to becoming an expert), you have to apply the skills outside of training.  And for most people, this is plenty.
> 
> Ballen pointed out a guy he respects who teaches a system that he believes is VERY effective for him.  How is ballen able to say this?  Because ballen uses the system in real life.  He's making the leap from comprehension to application and then to evaluation.  While is friend is an expert in the system he teaches, I'd argue that the person who is becoming a real expert is ballen, since he's developing skills within the system AND accumulating experience applying the skills outside of training.  And, the best possible instruction I could receive would be from someone who is an expert in the system AND ALSO has the tacit knowledge that can only be learned over time with experience.



I have always believed that in former training in MA, the skills taught to the level they were taught, allowed one to apply those skill if needed.  Free sparring is susposed to hone those skills, along with learning kata, and doing 1 and 3 step sparring.  Learning speed and power works as well.  But I agree that aggression in defense is sometimes harder to take from free sparring in the dojo to real situations outside the dojo.


----------



## K-man

oftheherd1 said:


> I think I have to agree with the post that said we need to define expert, and specifically in martial arts.  I think we are giving examples and arguments that don't necessarily apply to MA.
> 
> Would a 1st Dan be considered an expert?  Taught properly he sure is going to know a lot to earn his black belt.  He sure should know a lot of things that the non-MA educated person will never know.  But within the MA community, he is probably not yet an expert.  Since there are many styles of MA, could we at least suggest a level at which one becomes an expert?  Is it at 2nd Dan, 3rd, or perhaps 4th where most can have their own school (at least in Korea) and be called Master?  How about being a Grand Master?  Must one be there before being an expert?
> 
> What do others of you think?  Are we wasting time by not narrowly defining our discussion to MA?  Can we agree at what level a person becomes an expert?


I think we all consider ourselves pretty good when we achieve our black belt and in a sporting context it is often true. The longer you stay in training the more you see and the more you learn. With 20/20 hindsight 1st dan is just a short step along a very long path. As I said before, assessment is relative. To some people I could be considered an expert. There is no way I would think of myself that way. Competent, sure .. but not expert. There are a few people I really look at as experts and they are way ahead of me.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> While all experts will have practical experience, not everyone with practical experience will be an expert.



I've already given you an example of an expert with no practical experience.


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> I'll use LE as an example.  Let's say you're in the police academy.  It's time to head to the range and do some shooting.  Your instructor for the lesson has extensively researched guns, ding back to the very first gun, all the way to present day.  He knows about the range of the gun, the stopping power, you name it, he knows it.  But he states that during his research, he's never once, actually fired a gun.
> 
> You're the new recruit.  Would you want to be instructed by this guy?
> 
> On the flip side, if the instructor was former military, would you want to be taught by him?  And I know that the skill set that the average officer gets, compared to what a Marine sniper would get, will be different, and probably wouldn't apply to the average LEO, but the fact remains, you'd still be getting trained by someone who's fired a wide array of weapons.



Your a recruit it doesn't matter who you want to be trainedby you don't get a choice.  Its also an impossible scenario since to be a MD law enforcement certified fire arms instructor you have to shoot a gun and qualify as part of the class.  When I went they only kept you in the class if you scored above a 96%. Every time we shot.  You dropped below you were removed from the instructors class.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I've already given you an example of an expert with no practical experience.


Yeah, and I responded at least twice.  Your views are perfectly valid and much of what is being discussed here is opinion.  But, hey.  If you think you've won the thread, be my guest.  Post it on Facebook and be on your merry way.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Your a recruit it doesn't matter who you want to be trainedby you don't get a choice.  Its also an impossible scenario since to be a MD law enforcement certified fire arms instructor you have to shoot a gun and qualify as part of the class.  When I went they only kept you in the class if you scored above a 96%. Every time we shot.  You dropped below you were removed from the instructors class.


Wait.. you mean, you had to shoot the gun to qualify as an instructor?  Crazy talk.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

EddieCyrax said:


> Given the vast volume of techniques tought in most all MAs, how many real life conflicts must a person be in to be an "expert"?  How many techniques must they have demonstrated? ...



You only need to be good in one thing and you are "expert" in that one thing. For example, if you are good in "single leg", everybody who wants to learn "single leg" will come to you, you are an expert in "single leg". Our life are too short trying to be good on everything. If we try to be good on everything, we will end with nothing.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Wait.. you mean, you had to shoot the gun to qualify as an instructor?  Crazy talk.



Let's talk about that then.  I've taught hundreds of people to shoot.  I've never started a class by showing them my targets or shooting a gun.  Most have never seen me shoot so does it really matter that I have since they have never seen it so what's the point?  2nd. We teach then to shoot to save lives and by shooting I'm talking about shhoting a person to stop a threat.  We have 8 firearms teachers in my department.  Of us only myself and one other have ever actually shot at a live person.  Yet we all teach it in training.  So only 2 of us have real world experience the rest are only training and we only teach by training not by real life experience.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Yeah, and I responded at least twice.  Your views are perfectly valid and much of what is being discussed here is opinion.  But, hey.  If you think you've won the thread, be my guest.  Post it on Facebook and be on your merry way.



Don't be an ***  you want to talk to just take shot at people that disagree


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Don't be an ***  you want to talk to just take shot at people that disagree


You call me an *** and then accuse me of taking shots?


----------



## Tgace

Well....my. 02

While it may not currently be necessary to be experienced to be an expert...I think someone professing to be an expert SHOULD be able to "walk the walk". While I may never shoot in front of a student I am indeed an "experienced" shooter. But I have never had to shoot anybody as of yet...so I'm not "experienced" at that.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> You call me an *** and then accuse me of taking shots?



Yep


----------



## ballen0351

Tgace said:


> Well....my. 02
> 
> While it may not currently be necessary to be experienced to be an expert...I think someone professing to be an expert SHOULD be able to "walk the walk". While I may never shoot in front of a student I am indeed an "experienced" shooter. But I have never had to shoot anybody as of yet...so I'm not "experienced" at that.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



I agree having experience doesn't hurt but at the end of the day does it even matter how would anyone know.  I have told trainees that were struggling with shooting and I believed it was more mental block then skill issue ive told them ive failed to qualify before to show them not to stress its not a big deal butin reality ive never not qualifies but they dont know that so does my practical shooting experience matter?  Not so much in that case.


----------



## Tgace

Well. I'm not saying its "necessary" ...as long as the student can pass to standard at the end of instruction than mission accomplished. But then instructors like Kyle Lamb who will demonstrate and even compete with students on courses of fire are a whole other level of instruction. 

The effect of a competent and experienced instructor who can show what skills he/she is trying to impart is something spectacular but rare in a lot of modern training IMO. Of course training new shooters is different from training SWAT coppers....or at least it should be IMO. New shooters tend to be easier to train through "tell me" methods. Advanced students tend to respond better to "show me"...at least I do.

I'm no DELTA trooper, but even as the team commander (who never does entry anymore) I still get on the range and in the shoot house for a stage or two simply to show that I can walk the talk.

Not that I'm arguing with ya...  ...just rambling through a train of thought.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

Tgace said:


> Well. I'm not saying its "necessary" ...as long as the student can pass to standard at the end of instruction than mission accomplished. But tben instructors like Kyle Lamb who will demonstrate and even compete with students on courses of fire are a whole other level of instruction.


Its not that I can't shoot with them or won'tbut we are usually in a ttime crunch or last few years ammo shortage crunch where we as instructors just don't shoot.


> The effect of a competent and experienced instructor who can show what skills he/she is trying to impart is something spectacular but rare in a lot of modern training IMO. Of course training new shooters is different from training SWAT coppers....or at least it should be IMO. New shooters tend to be easier to train through "tell me" methods. Advanced students tend to respond better to "show me"...at least I do.
> 
> I'm no DELTA trooper, but even as the team commander (who never does entry anymore.I still get on the range and in the shoot house for a stage or two simply to show that I can walk the talk.
> 
> Not that I'm arguing with ya...  ...just rambling through a train of thought.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


a leader and an expert are two different things.  You going to be a leader and send me into something serious like a swat raid then yes id expect you to have had exp. Teaching a class on self defense where if bad guy does ABC you do XYZ  to me as long as XYZ looks like it will work i dont care if you have ever tried it for real.  
Plenty of guys teach rape prevention that have never been raped.  Are they not experts because they have never defended against a rape?


----------



## jks9199

Folks,
Watch the heat.  I don't think anyone is intending to make this personal -- and if they are, they need to stop.


----------



## Steve

EddieCyrax said:


> This is where I stuggle.  Define "Actually Done".
> 
> Perhaps it is better to say that there is no such thing as an expert.  Perhaps this term is used for system/company marketing or to reflect one's ego.
> 
> For example.  Let's say a 1st Dan (you choose the MA) has trained for 7 years, and has proven his skills as a fighter in the ring and on the job as a LEO. Does this make them an expert in his MA?
> 
> hmmmm....not sure I know the answer based on the discussion.


I think that there are experts, but that it's worth taking a few moments to identify the areas of expertise.  Any conversation or debate on the subject of self defense suffers from a lack of specificity.  As I've said many times, the term is so vague as to be worthless.  The conversations inevitably deteriorate because everyone has something different in mind when they think of "self defense." 

But, a 5th degree black belt in Judo is, I believe, clearly an expert Judoka and likely a very credible resource if you're looking for self defense training.  A former Navy Seal would be an expert in a completely different piece of the puzzle.  While you could say that they're both "self defense" experts, I think it's much better to be more specific.

The Judoka may never have been in a self defense situation in his life, so claiming to be an expert in self defense would be wrong, IMO.  But, that doesn't mean he has nothing to offer.  His expertise in Judo is unimpeachable and valuable.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Its not that I can't shoot with them or won'tbut we are usually in a ttime crunch or last few years ammo shortage crunch where we as instructors just don't shoot.
> 
> a leader and an expert are two different things.  You going to be a leader and send me into something serious like a swat raid then yes id expect you to have had exp. Teaching a class on self defense where if bad guy does ABC you do XYZ  to me as long as XYZ looks like it will work i dont care if you have ever tried it for real.
> Plenty of guys teach rape prevention that have never been raped.  Are they not experts because they have never defended against a rape?


I think there's another good question here that you're raising, Ballen.  Do you have to be an expert in order to be an effective instructor? 

I'd say that it depends upon the level of the instruction.  Several years ago, I took a jiu jitsu seminar as a white belt from a 3rd degree BJJ black belt.  Honestly, while a great experience, the only thing I took away from that experience were awesome memories.  The actual instruction was so far above my skill level that I lacked the context to even remember it.  The purple belts, however, gained a TON, because they could appreciate and benefit from the depth of the instructor's expertise.

But that's a different question than whether or not the person is an expert or the degree of expertise the person has.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Well. I'm not saying its "necessary" ...as long as the student can pass to standard at the end of instruction than mission accomplished. But then instructors like Kyle Lamb who will demonstrate and even compete with students on courses of fire are a whole other level of instruction.
> 
> The effect of a competent and experienced instructor who can show what skills he/she is trying to impart is something spectacular but rare in a lot of modern training IMO. Of course training new shooters is different from training SWAT coppers....or at least it should be IMO. New shooters tend to be easier to train through "tell me" methods. Advanced students tend to respond better to "show me"...at least I do.
> 
> I'm no DELTA trooper, but even as the team commander (who never does entry anymore) I still get on the range and in the shoot house for a stage or two simply to show that I can walk the talk.
> 
> Not that I'm arguing with ya...  ...just rambling through a train of thought.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


Just a question to throw out to the group.  In the scenario above, you are talking about something pretty specific.  What would you think about a guy who had nailed every single officer and SWAT training course, top of the class, but had never worked as a cop?  This guy could recite every rule and regulation, and holds the course records for every training exercise at every level, including advanced training courses.  What if that guy was your new commander.  

Would you consider him to be an expert?  I wouldn't, although he would probably be a very well trained, highly capable rookie.


----------



## DennisBreene

Steve said:


> Just a question to throw out to the group.  In the scenario above, you are talking about something pretty specific.  What would you think about a guy who had nailed every single officer and SWAT training course, top of the class, but had never worked as a cop?  This guy could recite every rule and regulation, and holds the course records for every training exercise at every level, including advanced training courses.  What if that guy was your new commander.
> 
> Would you consider him to be an expert?  I wouldn't, although he would probably be a very well trained, highly capable rookie.



I think the answer lies somewhere in that persistent problem of defining expertise.  Clearly this individual is expert in the training concepts and  has not been field tested.  So, I think it would be fair to say he is not expert in field application.  It's splitting hairs admittedly and it's those fine distinctions in the attempt to arrive at an acceptable working definition for expertise in self defense that seem to hang up the discussion.  Is it reasonable to say that someone can be recognized as an expert in aspects of self defense for the purpose of general discussion, and that their contribution has merit, and also recognize that there are experts who's particular expertise includes experience with field application?  Both experts can have something to contribute to the discussion. The expert with field experience may have more specific insight when the discussion turns to issues related to field application if his experience includes the techniques under discussion.  If his experience  does not include a specific situation, his insight may be of less value, but still have some merit in both theory and in experience with applications that are similar enough to be relevant.  I doubt you will find a single "expert" who can speak with authority and from personal experience about every potential type of situation.  I would think that a panel of experts, all contributing their insights, would be more likely to give a balanced presentation of relevant aspects of self defense issues for different categories of self defense.  So in practice; you might need the input from several experts to cover personal street defense and another group of experts covering defense with certain weapon types and so forth.

In my experience, in medical conferences, I rarely saw a topic covered by one individual.  A panel discussion simply brought more collective wisdom to the issues under review.  The audience member then has the opportunity and responsibility to take those insights and apply them in whatever way seems appropriate to that audience members personal situation.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Just a question to throw out to the group.  In the scenario above, you are talking about something pretty specific.  What would you think about a guy who had nailed every single officer and SWAT training course, top of the class, but had never worked as a cop?  This guy could recite every rule and regulation, and holds the course records for every training exercise at every level, including advanced training courses.  What if that guy was your new commander.
> 
> Would you consider him to be an expert?  I wouldn't, although he would probably be a very well trained, highly capable rookie.


Its an impossible question since I don't know of any scenario where someone would a a police swat commander and have never been a cop.  However I'd consider him a expert in tactics but not a leader


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I think there's another good question here that you're raising, Ballen.  Do you have to be an expert in order to be an effective instructor?
> 
> I'd say that it depends upon the level of the instruction.  Several years ago, I took a jiu jitsu seminar as a white belt from a 3rd degree BJJ black belt.  Honestly, while a great experience, the only thing I took away from that experience were awesome memories.  The actual instruction was so far above my skill level that I lacked the context to even remember it.  The purple belts, however, gained a TON, because they could appreciate and benefit from the depth of the instructor's expertise.
> 
> But that's a different question than whether or not the person is an expert or the degree of expertise the person has.


I don't think you need to be an expert to teach.  I teach a lot of things but I'm not an expert at anything


----------



## Hyoho

My menkyo maiden certificate translated into English sums it up. It says I still have a lot to learn.


----------



## wingchun100

Tough call, and an interesting thread. I didn't have time to read all the other posts, nor did I want to because I wanted to share my own opinion with no influence from the others.

I train in wing chun. In advertisement Sifu calls it "an intelligent system of self-defense." Or at least, he did back in the day. He used to even have different class times: 6-7 was wing chun, 7-8 was self-defense. Now he has dropped that. I am not sure how many street fights or self-defense situations he may have been in, but I think he dropped it because he knows teaching a style and teaching a self-defense class are two different things.

If I were to open a school, I would definitely stress the difference. Yes, wing chun is a martial art...yes, martial arts can be applied to self-defense situations...but I am NOT teaching a self-defense course. From the ones I have attended, self-defense courses teach some techniques to diffuse situations that could lead to a fistfight, or worse. They include some physical activity, but not much. There is no principle or theory taught. In wing chun, you have nothing BUT theory. You aren't just learning moves, but you are also learning why you are doing them, what makes them effective.

And not for nothing, but if I have never been in a street fight where my wing chun skills were proven to be great, why would I say I am teaching self-defense?


----------



## ballen0351

wingchun100 said:


> Tough call, and an interesting thread. I didn't have time to read all the other posts, nor did I want to because I wanted to share my own opinion with no influence from the others.
> 
> I train in wing chun. In advertisement Sifu calls it "an intelligent system of self-defense." Or at least, he did back in the day. He used to even have different class times: 6-7 was wing chun, 7-8 was self-defense. Now he has dropped that. I am not sure how many street fights or self-defense situations he may have been in, but I think he dropped it because he knows teaching a style and teaching a self-defense class are two different things.
> 
> If I were to open a school, I would definitely stress the difference. Yes, wing chun is a martial art...yes, martial arts can be applied to self-defense situations...but I am NOT teaching a self-defense course. From the ones I have attended, self-defense courses teach some techniques to diffuse situations that could lead to a fistfight, or worse. They include some physical activity, but not much. There is no principle or theory taught. In wing chun, you have nothing BUT theory. You aren't just learning moves, but you are also learning why you are doing them, what makes them effective.
> 
> And not for nothing, but if I have never been in a street fight where my wing chun skills were proven to be great, why would I say I am teaching self-defense?


Teaching slef defense and being an expert at self defense are two different things.  Unless you believe that you much be an expert before you can teach something.


----------



## K-man

wingchun100 said:


> I train in wing chun. In advertisement Sifu calls it "an intelligent system of self-defense." Or at least, he did back in the day. He used to even have different class times: 6-7 was wing chun, 7-8 was self-defense. Now he has dropped that. I am not sure how many street fights or self-defense situations he may have been in, but I think he dropped it because he knows teaching a style and teaching a self-defense class are two different things.
> 
> If I were to open a school, I would definitely stress the difference. Yes, wing chun is a martial art...yes, martial arts can be applied to self-defense situations...but I am NOT teaching a self-defense course. From the ones I have attended, self-defense courses teach some techniques to diffuse situations that could lead to a fistfight, or worse. They include some physical activity, but not much. There is no principle or theory taught. In wing chun, you have nothing BUT theory. You aren't just learning moves, but you are also learning why you are doing them, what makes them effective.
> 
> And not for nothing, but if I have never been in a street fight where my wing chun skills were proven to be great, why would I say I am teaching self-defense?


I think this is totally irrelevant to the OP but interesting never the less. Could I ask, why do you train Wing Chun? If you train it because it is an interesting thing to do, a bit like the way most people train Tai Chi then fine, it has nothing to do with self defence. If you are training it as a fighting art then inherently it is for self defence or why else does it exist? If you were teaching a really short course of self defence you wouldn't teach Wing Chun, Karate, Aikido, BJJ etc because that takes too long, but if you are saying that within Wing Chun you haven't got the techniques to conduct a pretty comprehensive self defence course, I would question your Wing Chun training. I would suggest that a competent instructor in WC should be teaching SD at the same time. Whether or not he claims to be an expert in either is up to him.
:asian:


----------



## Steve

I think it makes perfect sense for him to distinguish between the two.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> I think it makes perfect sense for him to distinguish between the two.


Care to elaborate?


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Care to elaborate?



No keyboard, but if you go back and read the thread, I'm pretty sure you'll get the gist of it.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## RTKDCMB

The best way that I have heard of the word *expert *being defined is;

An *Ex *is a has-been and a *Spurt* is a drip under pressure.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> I think it makes perfect sense for him to distinguish between the two.


OK. 



> Originally Posted by wingchun100 ..I train in wing chun. In advertisement Sifu calls it "an intelligent system of self-defense." Or at least, he did back in the day. *He used to even have different class times: 6-7 was wing chun, 7-8 was self-defense.* Now he has dropped that. I am not sure how many street fights or self-defense situations he may have been in, but I think he dropped it *because he knows teaching a style and teaching a self-defense class are two different things*.
> 
> 
> If I were to open a school, I would definitely stress the difference. *Yes, wing chun is a martial art...yes, martial arts can be applied to self-defense situations...but I am NOT teaching a self-defense course*. From the ones I have attended, self-defense courses teach some techniques to diffuse situations that could lead to a fistfight, or worse. They include some physical activity, but not much. There is no principle or theory taught. In wing chun, you have nothing BUT theory. You aren't just learning moves, but you are also learning why you are doing them, what makes them effective.


So are you saying that learning Wing Chun is not learning self defence? It makes sense to you that a Sifu teaching a martial art has to teach teach self defence as well as his martial art? You are agreeing that even though you agree that WC can be applied to self defence situations teaching WC is not teaching a self defence course?

For comparison. Goju is also a martial art. It also has principles and theory. We also aren't just learning moves, but are also learning why you are doing them, what makes them effective. So why is it that in Goju every single thing I teach is targeted at self defence but WC is not doing the same thing?

I was just asking why you would find perfect sense in something that I find totally at odds with the reason most people learn a martial art and your response is to tell *me* to reread the thread!
:idunno:


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> Your a recruit it doesn't matter who you want to be trainedby you don't get a choice.  Its also an impossible scenario since to be a MD law enforcement certified fire arms instructor you have to shoot a gun and qualify as part of the class.  When I went they only kept you in the class if you scored above a 96%. Every time we shot.  You dropped below you were removed from the instructors class.



Ok, poor use of an example.  You're the person in charge of the academy.  Wouldn't you want the best possible instruction?  Would there be any scenario in which you'd want someone with more skill and knowledge?


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> OK.
> 
> So are you saying that learning Wing Chun is not learning self defence? It makes sense to you that a Sifu teaching a martial art has to teach teach self defence as well as his martial art? You are agreeing that even though you agree that WC can be applied to self defence situations teaching WC is not teaching a self defence course?
> 
> For comparison. Goju is also a martial art. It also has principles and theory. We also aren't just learning moves, but are also learning why you are doing them, what makes them effective. So why is it that in Goju every single thing I teach is targeted at self defence but WC is not doing the same thing?
> 
> I was just asking why you would find perfect sense in something that I find totally at odds with the reason most people learn a martial art and your response is to tell *me* to reread the thread!
> :idunno:



My opinion is that learning wing chun is just that: learning wing chun.  And really, to be more specific, you're learning a specific flavor of WC.

As with all martial arts styles, there are going to be some self defense applications, but my personal belief is that there is no style that teaches comprehensive self defense.  Everyone teaches a piece of the puzzle, some pieces are larger than others.

Earlier in the thread, I compared the term "self defense" to another abstract, "love."  In my opinion, you can't really teach people "self defense" because you can't teach people an abstract.  In the same way, you can't teach a young couple love.  You can't take two people and teach them to be in love.  

But you CAN teach a young couple how to be a better couple.  They can be taught how to better communicate with each other and how to avoid common pitfalls.  Problem areas, traps and pitfalls in their relationships can be identified and skills can be taught to help them manage those areas.  In other words, you can't teach people how to be in love, but you CAN teach them skills that could help them STAY in love.  And these skills are very specific.  Communications, financial management, career guidance, parenting, etc.

In the same way, you can't (IMO) teach self defense.  But you can teach skills that may (or may not) have some application in self defense. 

 If your question to me was genuine, I believe if you read my threads you understand my perspective, even if you disagree.  Without a keyboard, typing anything as lengthy as this response on a phone or tablet is tedious.  So, yeah.  Asking me the same question again, but with a little attitude doesn't change anything.  My intent wasn't to put you off, but it's a little irritating that you can't be bothered to read (or re-read if necessary) the damned thread.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> you can't really teach people "self defense" because you can't teach people an abstract.


Agree with you 100% on this. I teach people how to land their fists on their opponent's face. Whether they want to call that "self-defense", "sport", or "combat", I can't care less.


----------



## K-man

Remembering that the post I was referring to was not about being an expert but about self defence or even more specifically that learning WC not giving you self defence skills I have trawled back through all you posts and I'm sorry, I don't think you have posted anything in this thread that is really relevant to *wingchun100*'s post. 



Steve said:


> In the same way, we have a lot of people who teach self defense, who, like Chris, believe that studying something can lead to expertise.  I disagree.  You can get to the piont where you might be able to apply skills.  But that does not equal expert.



Vague association but assuming WC is a legitimate martial art, when you get to the point where you can apply the skills learned you should be able to defend yourself. I'm not sure whether your comment in your last post was suggesting that WC was not effective anyway._ "My opinion is that learning wing chun is just that: learning wing chun." _



Steve said:


> Most martial arts training stops somewhere between comprehension and application.  The transition you guys are talking about is exactly the transition between comprehension and application.  In adult learning and business training, this is the big challenge.  How to get people out of training and able to apply the skills on the job in the quickest, most eficient and reliable way.
> 
> But, in business, as in ANY human endeavor, competence is the FIRST step toward expertise.  In other words, a person who is an expert must be competent, but not every person who is competent is an expert.


So again ignoring the expert bit, I'm thinking that if you train in a martial art you become competent. If a martial art is actually a martial art and you are competent you should be able to defend yourself.



Steve said:


> This is what I was referring to in the other thread.  If you're training in goju ryu karate, you can certainly become an expert in that system.   If Chris Parker or RTKDCMB teaches a defined curriculum with standards and measures of proficiency, then of course students could advance within the system and become experts.



If you become expert in a system that was created for self defence as the Chinese and Okinawan systems were, and you are saying here that you can become an expert in that system. So why would you even consider teaching self defence separately?



Steve said:


> What I hear you saying is that, in addition to experience, you need to be well trained.  I agree.



So assuming the Sifu is well trained in a martial art, which was designed to provide self defence why does he teach self defence as a separate thing?



Steve said:


> I just want to point out to you guys that you're specifically talking about the act of doing what you've trained to do.  In a combat unit, is the guy fresh out of training considered an expert?  Nothing left for him to learn?
> 
> If you're thinking, "Yes, of course there's more for him to learn," then we are in complete agreement.  I would say that a highly capable, fully trained combat soldier coming out of training and into his first unit is likely competent.  But, do you guys really think he's an expert?
> 
> On the bloom's taxonomy model I mentioned earlier (Knowledge - Comprehension - Application - Analysis - Synthesis - Evalution), I'd put the new guy right on the hyphen between Comprehension and Application.  Doing it is "application" level.  NCOs with years in the trade are moving up beyond simple competence.



This might be more like it. So some one comes out of training in a combat unit is competent to go into combat but someone coming out of training for WC who is competent in WC is not ready to defend themselves in a fight. Mmm?



Steve said:


> So, you're saying that the trainees aren't experts, and even some of their trainers weren't experts, either?  But, I bet the trainers were well trained in the specific training model.  Right?  They may not have been expert paratroopers, but they were probably excellent trainers.
> 
> So, let's apply this to martial arts:  Let's say there's a "self defense" boot camp.  The trainer isn't a "Self Defense" expert (in the same way that some of the instructors at Jump School weren't experts).  But he's an expert in the system.  What is he teaching you?  The system.  What are you becoming competent in?  The system.  And when you "graduate" from the training, you may be competent in the system and may have learned some VERY solid techniques that can help you defend yourself.  But, you're not a self defense expert.  And neither was your instructor.



Not an expert, but surely you should have some idea of how to defend yourself? 



Steve said:


> Here's the main point.  Training, no matter how good, can only prepare you for competence.
> 
> Not everyone will work in trade that will take them to a level of expertise.
> 
> Abd to be clear, for most people, this is plenty.  The danger is when a competent expert creates a system and then people start misrepresenting the system.  A guy creates a system and then traces another guy, abd that guy things that he's a self defense expert because he's an expert in the system.  I would suggest that the two are not the same.



A bit confusing. A few posts back you could be competent but now you are only prepared for competence. 



Steve said:


> The point, though, where this experienced person puts together his/her system, the training becomes codified and specific.  In other words, he's not teaching "self defense".  He's teaching his system.  And while this won't make any difference in the short term, I believe that down the road it does.  A question I posed in the other thread was how many generations from practical expertise have to occur before the efficacy of the training will suffer?   Let's say you are an experienced guy with a lot of practical, hands on knowledge of a subject.  Using your expertise, you put together a training curriculum that is practical and effective and you begin teaching people.  They, in turn, become experts in your system and begin teaching other people.  And so on.  This is how martial arts work.  A guy develops his system.  He teaches people, who teach people, who teach people.
> 
> The simple point I'm making is that they are specifically teaching people the system.  The expertise being gained isn't "self defense."  It's the system.  And, at some point, I believe that without reality checks, the system will suffer from the presumption of efficacy.


This might be closer. But here we would be saying WC is a system, the guy teaching the system learned from a guy teaching the system, it was never tested so now it may not work. But what if it had been tested along the way. What if there was input from real life situations that validate the system?



Steve said:


> Totally agree, and this was the genesis of the original thread.  Self Defense is so vague that I don't think it's very useful.  BJJ doesn't, IMO, teach self defense, although some of the skills are certainly useful.  MMA doesn't teach self defense, either, although once again, some of the skills can be useful.
> 
> But, Krav Maga doesn't teach self defense, either.  In exactly the same way BJJ/MMA/Boxing etc teach the system, Krav Maga teaches a method.  Without the reality checks and practical experience, the best someone can hope for out of their training is expertise within the system, and... maybe... competent defense skills.   But an expert in Krav Maga, Systema or whatever, is not necessarily an expert in self defense.  Might be, but not necessarily.
> 
> Why is this?  I believe it's because "self defense" is a sales pitch.



Ant thus is important. BJJ and MMA are teaching for sport. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be useful for SD but you are confusing two different things. TMAs are designed to teach self defence. Sport styles are training you for competition. Because you perceive your training to lack the SD component doesn't mean the others do.

And no, self defence is just that. Learning to defend yourself. As I tell everyone, if you think there is anything I teach that you can't use in a pub brawl, let me know and I'll chuck it out. And your comment about Krav and Systema is so far from accurate it doesn't require comment.



Steve said:


> I would say that if you train in a specific martial art, regardless of which art, you are working on becoming an expert in that specific system.  Where "expert" falls and how it's defined will be specific to that art.  The fundamental point here is that, you cannot become an expert in Goju Ryu Karate by studying (no matter how diligently) BJJ.  You cannot become an expert in Budo Taijutsu by studying Judo.  Simply put, you cannot become an expert in one thing by studying something else.  It seems obvious, I know.
> 
> Self Defense is vague.  It's like saying "love."  Love means something different to everyone... and so does "self defense."  People don't train self defense.  People train in systems.



This seems to be saying if you study one thing (WC) you can't become an expert in another (SD) but when WC=SD your comment doesn't make sense.



Steve said:


> I believe that every martial art system, sport or non-sport, has strengths and weaknesses.  There is no perfect system.
> 
> Is BJJ good for self defense or bad for self defense?  The answer is it's both good and bad.  There are good things and bad things taught in BJJ that might apply to self defense.  Same for MMA.  And, here's the key.  It's the same for all arts.
> 
> Now, this isn't to say that all arts are equal.  Quality training can make a big difference.  I'm not suggesting that all training is equally effective.  I'm simply saying that training can only take you, at best, to the cusp of competence.  In order to become competent (which is the first step on the road to becoming an expert), you have to apply the skills outside of training.  And for most people, this is plenty.
> 
> Ballen pointed out a guy he respects who teaches a system that he believes is VERY effective for him.  How is ballen able to say this?  Because ballen uses the system in real life.  He's making the leap from comprehension to application and then to evaluation.  While is friend is an expert in the system he teaches, I'd argue that the person who is becoming a real expert is ballen, since he's developing skills within the system AND accumulating experience applying the skills outside of training.  And, the best possible instruction I could receive would be from someone who is an expert in the system AND ALSO has the tacit knowledge that can only be learned over time with experience.



Speak for BJJ but not for others. You have no idea of TMA training except in the sporting context which is why we are having this discussion. If *ballen*'s system works my system works.




Steve said:


> I think that there are experts, but that it's worth taking a few moments to identify the areas of expertise.  Any conversation or debate on the subject of self defense suffers from a lack of specificity.  As I've said many times, the term is so vague as to be worthless.  The conversations inevitably deteriorate because everyone has something different in mind when they think of "self defense."
> 
> But, a 5th degree black belt in Judo is, I believe, clearly an expert Judoka and likely a very credible resource if you're looking for self defense training.  A former Navy Seal would be an expert in a completely different piece of the puzzle.  While you could say that they're both "self defense" experts, I think it's much better to be more specific.
> 
> The Judoka may never have been in a self defense situation in his life, so claiming to be an expert in self defense would be wrong, IMO.  But, that doesn't mean he has nothing to offer.  His expertise in Judo is unimpeachable and valuable.





Steve said:


> My opinion is that learning wing chun is just that: learning wing chun.  And really, to be more specific, you're learning a specific flavor of WC.
> 
> As with all martial arts styles, there are going to be some self defense applications, but my personal belief is that there is no style that teaches comprehensive self defense.  Everyone teaches a piece of the puzzle, some pieces are larger than others.
> 
> Earlier in the thread, I compared the term "self defense" to another abstract, "love."  In my opinion, you can't really teach people "self defense" because you can't teach people an abstract.  In the same way, you can't teach a young couple love.  You can't take two people and teach them to be in love.
> 
> But you CAN teach a young couple how to be a better couple.  They can be taught how to better communicate with each other and how to avoid common pitfalls.  Problem areas, traps and pitfalls in their relationships can be identified and skills can be taught to help them manage those areas.  In other words, you can't teach people how to be in love, but you CAN teach them skills that could help them STAY in love.  And these skills are very specific.  Communications, financial management, career guidance, parenting, etc.
> 
> In the same way, you can't (IMO) teach self defense.  But you can teach skills that may (or may not) have some application in self defense.
> 
> If your question to me was genuine, I believe if you read my threads you understand my perspective, even if you disagree.  Without a keyboard, typing anything as lengthy as this response on a phone or tablet is tedious.  So, yeah.  Asking me the same question again, but with a little attitude doesn't change anything.  My intent wasn't to put you off, but it's a little irritating that you can't be bothered to read (or re-read if necessary) the damned thread.


I had heaps more but I've run out of time. I'm sorry if I demonstrated attitude but my question related to one post, not the entire thread. But, I reread all your posts. They didn't clarify anything but they did identify that you don't think BJJ or MMA teach SD and by association nothing else does either. That is where we will have to disagree.
:asian:


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Remembering that the post I was referring to was not about being an expert but about self defence or even more specifically that learning WC not giving you self defence skills I have trawled back through all you posts and I'm sorry, I don't think you have posted anything in this thread that is really relevant to *wingchun100*'s post.
> 
> 
> 
> Vague association but assuming WC is a legitimate martial art, when you get to the point where you can apply the skills learned you should be able to defend yourself. I'm not sure whether your comment in your last post was suggesting that WC was not effective anyway._ "My opinion is that learning wing chun is just that: learning wing chun." _
> 
> 
> So again ignoring the expert bit, I'm thinking that if you train in a martial art you become competent. If a martial art is actually a martial art and you are competent you should be able to defend yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> If you become expert in a system that was created for self defence as the Chinese and Okinawan systems were, and you are saying here that you can become an expert in that system. So why would you even consider teaching self defence separately?
> 
> 
> 
> So assuming the Sifu is well trained in a martial art, which was designed to provide self defence why does he teach self defence as a separate thing?
> 
> 
> 
> This might be more like it. So some one comes out of training in a combat unit is competent to go into combat but someone coming out of training for WC who is competent in WC is not ready to defend themselves in a fight. Mmm?
> 
> 
> 
> Not an expert, but surely you should have some idea of how to defend yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> A bit confusing. A few posts back you could be competent but now you are only prepared for competence.
> 
> 
> This might be closer. But here we would be saying WC is a system, the guy teaching the system learned from a guy teaching the system, it was never tested so now it may not work. But what if it had been tested along the way. What if there was input from real life situations that validate the system?
> 
> 
> 
> Ant thus is important. BJJ and MMA are teaching for sport. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be useful for SD but you are confusing two different things. TMAs are designed to teach self defence. Sport styles are training you for competition. Because you perceive your training to lack the SD component doesn't mean the others do.
> 
> And no, self defence is just that. Learning to defend yourself. As I tell everyone, if you think there is anything I teach that you can't use in a pub brawl, let me know and I'll chuck it out. And your comment about Krav and Systema is so far from accurate it doesn't require comment.
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to be saying if you study one thing (WC) you can't become an expert in another (SD) but when WC=SD your comment doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for BJJ but not for others. You have no idea of TMA training except in the sporting context which is why we are having this discussion. If *ballen*'s system works my system works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had heaps more but I've run out of time. I'm sorry if I demonstrated attitude but my question related to one post, not the entire thread. But, I reread all your posts. They didn't clarify anything but they did identify that you don't think BJJ or MMA teach SD and by association nothing else does either. That is where we will have to disagree.
> :asian:



Kman, you seem to be a little defensive.  I see plenty of relevance, but if you're determined not to see it, nothing I say will change your mind.

I'm pretty sure I'm not bashing you or your school, or your system for that matter.  Many agree that you fight how you train.  I agree.  You will do what you are training to do.  Every style, however, trains you to do different things.  

Just think about this.  Defending yourself is only one small part of self defense, just as financial management is only one small part of a successful marriage.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Just for clarification I wasn't learning a system from a friend in my example.  Unless I'm lost here.  My post was about a class I went to taught by an analyst from the FBI that was an expert on officer safety issues.  It wasn't a self defense class in the way of if bad guy does this you do that.  It was if you see this that and then this get ready your about to be attacked or bad guys are more inclined to attack cops that do XYZ. And will usually not attackbcops that do ABC.  He's still an expert and has zero street exp.  And has never been a cop


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Just for clarification I wasn't learning a system from a friend in my example.  Unless I'm lost here.  My post was about a class I went to taught by an analyst from the FBI that was an expert on officer safety issues.  It wasn't a self defense class in the way of if bad guy does this you do that.  It was if you see this that and then this get ready your about to be attacked or bad guys are more inclined to attack cops that do XYZ. And will usually not attackbcops that do ABC.  He's still an expert and has zero street exp.  And has never been a cop



He still sounds like an academic to me.  Expert, sure, but in the same way a historian might be an expert on medieval warfare strategy.  A historian might know everything there is to know about a trebuchet, but that doesn't mean he could build or operate one.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> He still sounds like an academic to me.  Expert, sure, but in the same way a historian might be an expert on medieval warfare strategy.  A historian might know everything there is to know about a trebuchet, but that doesn't mean he could build or operate one.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



An expert is an expert is an expert.  I'm not sure what more you want him to do.  You asked can you be an expert on a topic and not actually preform the topic.  Well the answer is yes.


----------



## CNida

ballen0351 said:


> An expert is an expert is an expert.  I'm not sure what more you want him to do.  You asked can you be an expert on a topic and not actually preform the topic.  Well the answer is yes.



I fail to see how.

I actually don't understand where the argument comes from for the OP's question. 

Someone claiming to be an expert in self defense without ever actually having to have defended themselves in a altercation would be the same as someone claiming to be an Olympic swimmer but have never actually gone swimming, or even know how to swim for that matter.

I just don't see how.

I may know all 178 different techniques for a certain martial art, but that doesn't make me an expert in doing them. 

It all comes down to the difference between knowledge and wisdom IMO. Not that my opinion is worth much. 


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> An expert is an expert is an expert.  I'm not sure what more you want him to do.  You asked can you be an expert on a topic and not actually preform the topic.  Well the answer is yes.



Whether he's an expert isn't the question.  Clearly, if you think he's credible, he knows a lot about the subject.  But can he do it?  You've acknowledged that he can't.  He's an analyst 

What specifically is his expertise?  That's the question.  

And, I didn't ask whether you can be an expert on a topic.  That's a given.   Knowledge is a matter of research.  I can read all of the instructional books on bjj abd memorize then all.  I could study and become an expert on the subject of bjj.  But does that mean I can execute any of those techniques?  I would argue that I would be functionally incompetent to execute even the simplest of them.

Surely you understand t he difference.  An academic knows all about something, but can't necessarily do it.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

the question was can you be an expert in self defense without doing it. He is an expert in officer survival or in other words self defense.  He is not and never has been a police officer. Maybe you dont consider him an expert but i do and the 100 other cops in that room did and since he traveled all over the US teaching officer survival skills many other people considered him an expert


----------



## seasoned

Then of course there are the experts that are expert at cranking someones chain......


----------



## Steve

Can he walk the talk, as tgace put it?   If not, his expertise is academic.  That doesn't mean it is without value.  It just means he can't do it.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Can he walk the talk, as tgace put it?   If not, his expertise is academic.  That doesn't mean it is without value.  It just means he can't do it.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


You dont need to do it.  At least not to me I could care less if you can do it as long as what your teaching is sound.   I dont need to hear your super cop stories first to make me listen to you.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> You dont need to do it.  At least not to me I could care less if you can do it as long as what your teaching is sound.   I dont need to hear your super cop stories first to make me listen to you.



But what is the difference between someone who knows a lot and someone who can do it?

Edit.  Nevermind.  As I said before, you argue just to argue. You win.  If you actually want to discuss something, let me know.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> But what is the difference between someone who knows a lot and someone who can do it?
> 
> Edit.  Nevermind.  As I said before, you argue just to argue. You win.  If you actually want to discuss something, let me know.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk



Why do you care if the guy teaching it can do it as long as what hes teaching is correct.  One of my best teachers in the police academy was in a wheel chair.  He was in a motorcycle accident and lost the use of his legs.  He cant walk the talk anymore but he knew more about undercover drug work then anyone Ive ever met and Ive meet many deep cover officers this guy was the best.  Does it matter that he cant do it anymore?

And I thought we were discussing things dont get your undies in a bunch


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Why do you care if the guy teaching it can do it as long as what hes teaching is correct.  One of my best teachers in the police academy was in a wheel chair.  He was in a motorcycle accident and lost the use of his legs.  He cant walk the talk anymore but he knew more about undercover drug work then anyone Ive ever met and Ive meet many deep cover officers this guy was the best.  Does it matter that he cant do it anymore?



So you're saying he was experienced.   I see a clear difference between this guy and the analyst.  Both might have valuable information to share.

You're grasping at straws, Ballen.   I don't believe that you don't get the point.  I just don't believe you don't see the difference between this guy and your analyst.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> So you're saying he was experienced.   I see a clear difference between this guy and the analyst.  Both might have valuable information to share.
> 
> You're grasping at straws, Ballen.   I don't believe that you don't get the point.  I just don't believe you don't see the difference between this guy and your analyst.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


there is no difference. Why does it matter to you if a guy teaching you something has actually done it if what hes teaching works?


----------



## ballen0351

I guess the part I dont understand is If Im the expert teaching a self defense class.  I teach bad guy punches at you, you do the following X,Y,Z.  If your think yeah X,Y,Z makes total sense #1 why would you care if the teacher tried it before #2 how would you even know if he has done it unless he tells you, #3 if he did tell you how do you know hes telling the truth.  Id rather look at whats being taught, I dont really care about the person teaching it.  Ive been to so many cop classes where the teacher spends the first 2 hours telling "one time at band camp" stories.  I dont care about your stories just teach the class


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Kman, you seem to be a little defensive.  I see plenty of relevance, but if you're determined not to see it, nothing I say will change your mind.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I'm not bashing you or your school, or your system for that matter.  Many agree that you fight how you train.  I agree.  You will do what you are training to do.  Every style, however, trains you to do different things.
> 
> Just think about this.  Defending yourself is only one small part of self defense, just as financial management is only one small part of a successful marriage.


Mate I'm not being defensive defensive at all and I'm not thinking at all that you are bashing my system. The post that *wingchun100* posted was off topic but deserving of a reply, which I did. You responded with a one liner to which I asked you to clarify. You referred me back to the beginning of the thread so I would get the gist of your response. I did. I read every one of your posts on a different issue and didn't find any that really fitted with the post I was responding to. So I still don't know why you disagree.

But that aside, now you say defending yourself is only a small part of self defence. I disagree. Defending yourself, as in taking responsibility for your own safety, begins the moment you step outside your door and continues until you are home again. Self defence is a small but important part of defending yourself. You could even argue that you are defending yourself with the precautions taken when you are at home, so definition is important.



> Self Defence
> *
> The protection of one's person or property against some injury attempted by another.*
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense
> 
> 
> n
> 1. the act of defending oneself, one's actions, ideas, etc.
> 2. (Individual Sports & Recreations / Boxing) boxing as a means of defending the person (esp in the phrase noble art of self-defence)
> 3. (Law) *Law the right to defend one's person, family, or property against attack or threat of attack by the use of no more force than is reasonable*
> self-defensive  adj
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-defence
> 
> 
> 
> : the act of defending yourself, your property, etc.
> 
> 
> : skills that make you capable of protecting yourself during an attack
> 
> Full Definition of SELF-DEFENSE
> 
> 
> 1
> :  a plea of justification for the use of force or for homicide
> 2
> :*  the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative*
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-defense
> 
> noun
> 1.
> *the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant: the art of self-defense.*
> 2.
> a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack: He shot the man who was trying to stab him and pleaded self-defense at the murder trial.
> 3.
> an act or instance of defending or protecting one's own interests, property, ideas, etc., as by argument or strategy.
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-defense


So it seems that the legal definition of 'self defence' is the actual protection of the person, not the additional steps that can be taken to try to avoid a physical confrontation.

Now let's look at what constitutes a martial art according to the dictionary.




> martial art
> n.
> *Any of several Asian arts of combat or self-defense*, such as aikido, karate, judo, or tae kwon do, usually practiced as sport. Often used in the plural.
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/martial+art
> 
> 
> martial arts
> noun
> *any of the traditional forms of Oriental self-defense or combat* that utilize physical skill and coordination without weapons, as karate, aikido, judo, or kung fu, often practiced as sport.



Mmm! They all seem to include self defence in the definition of Martial Art.

So I say that teaching a martial art *is* teaching self defence. *wingchun100*'s Sifu teaches self defence separate to Wing Chun. To me that opens a number of possibilities ...
     1. Wing Chun is not a martial art.
     2. Wing Chun is a martial art but is ineffective.
     3. The Sifu teaching Wing Chun is not teaching it properly.

Which of these four positions do you agree with?
:asian:


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Mate I'm not being defensive defensive at all and I'm not thinking at all that you are bashing my system. The post that *wingchun100* posted was off topic but deserving of a reply, which I did. You responded with a one liner to which I asked you to clarify. You referred me back to the beginning of the thread so I would get the gist of your response. I did. I read every one of your posts on a different issue and didn't find any that really fitted with the post I was responding to. So I still don't know why you disagree.
> 
> But that aside, now you say defending yourself is only a small part of self defence. I disagree. Defending yourself, as in taking responsibility for your own safety, begins the moment you step outside your door and continues until you are home again. Self defence is a small but important part of defending yourself. You could even argue that you are defending yourself with the precautions taken when you are at home, so definition is important.
> 
> 
> So it seems that the legal definition of 'self defence' is the actual protection of the person, not the additional steps that can be taken to try to avoid a physical confrontation.
> 
> Now let's look at what constitutes a martial art according to the dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm! They all seem to include self defence in the definition of Martial Art.
> 
> So I say that teaching a martial art *is* teaching self defence. *wingchun100*'s Sifu teaches self defence separate to Wing Chun. To me that opens a number of possibilities ...
> 1. Wing Chun is not a martial art.
> 2. Wing Chun is a martial art but is ineffective.
> 3. The Sifu teaching Wing Chun is not teaching it properly.
> 
> Which of these four positions do you agree with?
> :asian:


I think we might have to agree to disagree, because this is likely to hijack the thread.  And also because i believe that communication skills are part of self defense.  Situational awareness is part of self defense, too, as are common sense, fighting ability and many other things.  If being able to defend oneself is the only measure, than MMA has to be among the best styles  for it.  But many would argue otherwise.

One could spend a lifetime studying any of these things.

Regarding your four choices, I think I'll take the fourth one, which I think you forgot to write.  Which is that he is teaching wing chun, which, depending on the student may have some application for self defense.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> I think we might have to agree to disagree, because this is likely to hijack the thread.  And also because i believe that communication skills are part of self defense.  Situational awareness is part of self defense, too, as are common sense, fighting ability and many other things.  If being able to defend oneself is the only measure, than MMA has to be among the best styles  for it.  But many would argue otherwise.
> 
> One could spend a lifetime studying any of these things.
> 
> Regarding your four choices, I think I'll take the fourth one, which I think you forgot to write.  Which is that he is teaching wing chun, which, depending on the student may have some application for self defense.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Mmm! That was number five.   Number one was that teaching a martial art is teaching self defence, my position.  The other three applied to the situation that *wingchun100* finds himself in. Interesting to see your perspective though. Thank you for answering the question.
:asian:


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Mmm! That was number five.   Number one was that teaching a martial art is teaching self defence, my position.  The other three applied to the situation that *wingchun100* finds himself in. Interesting to see your perspective though. Thank you for answering the question.
> :asian:



Okay.  Number five then. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## CNida

Definition of expert (n)
ex·pert
somebody skilled or knowledgeable:somebody with a great deal of knowledge about, or skill, training, or experience in, a particular field or activity

By this definition of the word, one can be an expert in something by simply knowing about it.

In my opinion there is a huge difference between knowledge and application. An expert has the knowledge but a "veteran" or "master" has the knowledge AND the ability to apply it.

Case in point, I might be an expert in self defense simply because I know X, Y, and Z techniques will work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I can use them or that I am a self defense veteran


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## ballen0351

CNida said:


> Definition of expert (n)
> ex·pert
> somebody skilled or knowledgeable:somebody with a great deal of knowledge about, or skill, training, or experience in, a particular field or activity
> 
> By this definition of the word, one can be an expert in something by simply knowing about it.
> 
> In my opinion there is a huge difference between knowledge and application. An expert has the knowledge but a "veteran" or "master" has the knowledge AND the ability to apply it.
> 
> Case in point, I might be an expert in self defense simply because I know X, Y, and Z techniques will work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I can use them or that I am a self defense veteran
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> "A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


I guess the point is does it even matter if the expert can do XYZ ?  If he can teach you XYZ and you can use it why do you care if he can do it?


----------



## CNida

ballen0351 said:


> I guess the point is does it even matter if the expert can do XYZ ?  If he can teach you XYZ and you can use it why do you care if he can do it?



Normally? I don't much care if the teacher has any actual experience in the subject matter: when it comes to things like baking or chemistry. I can read in a book that mixing acids and bases is no bueno and that's good enough for me. So no, I don't care if my chemistry teacher has ever actually practiced any chemistry. 

But when it comes to self defense? It's much easier to believe in something when I -know- that the person teaching it has verifiable experience in using the techniques they are teaching.

If it was good enough to just study statistics about self defense, then everyone who could read a book could be an "expert".


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## ballen0351

CNida said:


> Normally? I don't much care if the teacher has any actual experience in the subject matter: when it comes to things like baking or chemistry. I can read in a book that mixing acids and bases is no bueno and that's good enough for me. So no, I don't care if my chemistry teacher has ever actually practiced any chemistry.
> 
> But when it comes to self defense? It's much easier to believe in something when I -know- that the person teaching it has verifiable experience in using the techniques they are teaching.
> 
> If it was good enough to just study statistics about self defense, then everyone who could read a book could be an "expert".
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> "A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


So how would you know if he's done it or not?  Just because he tells you?  There are lots of people that lie all the time.  Stolen Valor Facebook page posts phony war hero's everyday.  Guys out there claiming experience they don't have and teaching classes and other jobs using this fake experiences.  Other guys with real true experiences are out there that you would never know about they don't talk about it.  I was training with a guy in Judo for like 6 months I had no idea he was a legit Silver star wearing purple heart owning special forces guy a real war hero.  I only found out because I googled these supplements he was using and I found out he was a spokesman for them.  Then all these stories about him and the things he did were popping up.  He was the real deal and never once mentioned it.  When I asked him he just said yeah but its no big deal and changed the topic.  I don't think he liked talking about it so I dropped it.


----------



## CNida

ballen0351 said:


> So how would you know if he's done it or not?  Just because he tells you?  There are lots of people that lie all the time.  Stolen Valor Facebook page posts phony war hero's everyday.  Guys out there claiming experience they don't have and teaching classes and other jobs using this fake experiences.  Other guys with real true experiences are out there that you would never know about they don't talk about it.  I was training with a guy in Judo for like 6 months I had no idea he was a legit Silver star wearing purple heart owning special forces guy a real war hero.  I only found out because I googled these supplements he was using and I found out he was a spokesman for them.  Then all these stories about him and the things he did were popping up.  He was the real deal and never once mentioned it.  When I asked him he just said yeah but its no big deal and changed the topic.  I don't think he liked talking about it so I dropped it.



I don't have much experience in Martial Arts or self defense, but I think I know enough to tell when someone is qualified to teach me stuff. If I go to a self defense class and the guy is able to show me he can apply the techniques he is teaching me, then it's good enough to me. Otherwise, you're right. I can't know for sure if he can't prove it.

But what we are talking about here is the difference between a guy who's only experience in self defense is what he sees in statistics records or youtube versus a guy who can prove that the stuff he is teaching works.

I will go with the guy who can prove himself in application over the guy who can show me a statistic about why a technique works. 


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## ballen0351

CNida said:


> I don't have much experience in Martial Arts or self defense, but I think I know enough to tell when someone is qualified to teach me stuff. If I go to a self defense class and the guy is able to show me he can apply the techniques he is teaching me, then it's good enough to me. Otherwise, you're right. I can't know for sure if he can't prove it.
> 
> But what we are talking about here is the difference between a guy who's only experience in self defense is what he sees in statistics records or youtube versus a guy who can prove that the stuff he is teaching works.
> 
> I will go with the guy who can prove himself in application over the guy who can show me a statistic about why a technique works.
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> "A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous



So how does one prove themselves?


----------



## CNida

ballen0351 said:


> So how does one prove themselves?



A guy proves he can do an armbar by doing an armbar. 


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## ballen0351

CNida said:


> A guy proves he can do an armbar by doing an armbar.
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> "A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous



Right in class.  Not in real life


----------



## K-man

CNida said:


> A guy proves he can do an armbar by doing an armbar.


I think this is a valid point. Expert or not, an instructor can teach you a particular technique. If taught correctly the technique will work if applied correctly, so the onus is then on the student to apply the technique.

The real test is on the street but even then a technique may fail under real pressure depending on how the individual responds in that situation. 

Not necessarily, strictly on topic but an interesting aside.


----------



## CNida

ballen0351 said:


> Right in class.  Not in real life



We aren't talking about the effectiveness of a technique in real life though. We are discussing whether or not someone can be an "expert" in self defense without ever having exercised the techniques.



K-man said:


> I think this is a valid point. Expert or not, an instructor can teach you a particular technique. If taught correctly the technique will work if applied correctly, so the onus is then on the student to apply the technique.
> 
> The real test is on the street but even then a technique may fail under real pressure depending on how the individual responds in that situation.
> 
> Not necessarily, strictly on topic but an interesting aside.



Exactly. The true test for self defense techniques is to actually use them in a legitimate situation. Not everyone has experienced a true self defense scenario, so that means you can either put your stock in the "expert" who get all his knowledge from strict observation, or you put your faith in a scarred old man who shows you how to choke someone out by actually practicing the technique in the dojo.

To me it's a no brainer. And that's not an angled comment. There is nothing illegitimate about knowing alot about an art, but I am much more comfortable with the instructor who knows AND does, not just simply "knows".


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## ballen0351

CNida said:


> We aren't talking about the effectiveness of a technique in real life though. We are discussing whether or not someone can be an "expert" in self defense without ever having exercised the techniques.


No the question was can some one be an expert with no real life experience.  In a class room or dojo is not real life but if I can teach you the best arm bar known to man why does it matter if I've ever applied in outside the dojo.  If it works it works.  On the flip side just because I can execute something in the real world doesn't mean you could do the same thing and just because I can't execute something in the real world doesn't mean couldn't pull it off.  So real life experience isn't needed.  Is it a added bonus sure but not a must have.  At least to me its not.  I don't care if you can walk the talk as long as the talk is sound and works.


> Exactly. The true test for self defense techniques is to actually use them in a legitimate situation. Not everyone has experienced a true self defense scenario, so that means you can either put your stock in the "expert" who get all his knowledge from strict observation, or you put your faith in a scarred old man who shows you how to choke someone out by actually practicing the technique in the dojo.
> 
> To me it's a no brainer. And that's not an angled comment. There is nothing illegitimate about knowing alot about an art, but I am much more comfortable with the instructor who knows AND does, not just simply "knows".
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> "A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous



So then how many of these old men in dojo's do you think are out there.  And again how do you know if the old mans stories are real?


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> I think this is a valid point. Expert or not, an instructor can teach you a particular technique. If taught correctly the technique will work if applied correctly, so the onus is then on the student to apply the technique.
> 
> The real test is on the street but even then a technique may fail under real pressure depending on how the individual responds in that situation.
> 
> Not necessarily, strictly on topic but an interesting aside.


Right the technique working or not has nothing to do with the teachers past.  Just because my teacher snapped 79 arms via arm bars in real fights growing up that helps me none when its my turn to defend myself.


----------



## CNida

ballen0351 said:


> No the question was can some one be an expert with no real life experience.  In a class room or dojo is not real life but if I can teach you the best arm bar known to man why does it matter if I've ever applied in outside the dojo.  If it works it works.  On the flip side just because I can execute something in the real world doesn't mean you could do the same thing and just because I can't execute something in the real world doesn't mean couldn't pull it off.  So real life experience isn't needed.  Is it a added bonus sure but not a must have.  At least to me its not.  I don't care if you can walk the talk as long as the talk is sound and works.
> 
> 
> So then how many of these old men in dojo's do you think are out there.  And again how do you know if the old mans stories are real?



No. A dojo isn't real life but I find what I learn in practical exercise to be far more efficient than learning it from a book or a statistic.

The only way you can be absolutely certain the "old man" is legitimate is to actually have witnessed him in a self defense scenario. Which brings me back to the point I made earlier, you can't be sure anyone is who they say they are, or that they can do what they say they can.

If your stereotypical bookworm comes to me and says that he has read that Technique A works 95% of the time and I can verify what he read, then good. Does this make him a master martial artist or even an expert on that technique? No. It just means that he read the book. Is he less credible? Not at all. 

On the other hand, a grizzled old man can tell me a story of a situation he had encountered before, show me the technique he used by either applying it on myself or someone else, and thus proving that the technique is mechanically sound. Im my opinion that means so much more than what some guy read in a book somewhere.

I am not going to get into the semantics of who has more street credibility, because that would be an endless argument.

The OP's question was can you be an expert without actually practicing. In my opinion, to be THAT kind of expert, you actually have to train in self defense. 

Noone won a gold medal in skiing without skiing once or twice beforehand. Show me otherwise. And if it applies for an Olympic sport then you have to imagine it would apply just as much in a self defense situation.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## Tgace

Just to add to the conversation...why are Spec Ops guys like Larry Vickers, Kyle Lamb, Travis Haley, etc all in such high demand as tactical/firearms instructors? What makes them stand out over other, less well known but just as competent instructors?


----------



## CNida

Tgace said:


> Just to add to the conversation...why are Spec Ops guys like Larry Vickers, Kyle Lamb, Travis Haley, etc all in such high demand as tactical/firearms instructors? What makes them stand out over other, less well known but just as competent instructors?



Could be lots of reasons. I don't know any of those guys. But if a firearms/tactics instructor can show me credentials showing he was Special Forces or SEALs, then I would consider him a legitimate source of knowledge to tap into.

It's really quite easy to prove too, in my opinion. A DD214 should show your MOS and how long you were in service, and it should show what theaters you served in too. So its not necessarily a difficult thing to verify.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## ballen0351

Tgace said:


> Just to add to the conversation...why are Spec Ops guys like Larry Vickers, Kyle Lamb, Travis Haley, etc all in such high demand as tactical/firearms instructors? What makes them stand out over other, less well known but just as competent instructors?



Because people love war stories.  I'm not saying having experience isn't a good thing.  I'm say its not a must have to know what your talking about.  They are telling great stories doesn't mean they are better shooters or better teachers.  Its like why are attractive people treated differently then less attractive people.  Same thing guys with cooler stories are more sought after.


----------



## Tgace

ballen0351 said:


> Because people love war stories.  I'm not saying having experience isn't a good thing.  I'm say its not a must have to know what your talking about.  They are telling great stories doesn't mean they are better shooters or better teachers.  Its like why are attractive people treated differently then less attractive people.  Same thing guys with cooler stories are more sought after.



I agree in part, but there is no denying that a Delta soldier has some shooting skill creds. Teaching creds? Different story, but combine demonstrateable skill with teaching ability and the "been there done that" experience of having applied that skill "real world" and there's a value added aspect to these guys.

BUT. Combat experienced shooters are more easily findable these days than guys who can claim real world h2h experience.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Chris Parker

Hmm.... this might take a bit... and get a bit repetitive... but, as I was mentioned a few times, might as well enter into it... 



MJS said:


> In the Sport and TMA...Again thread, (man that thread gets a lot of attention ) Chris and Steve were having an interesting debate and something that was said, caught my eye.
> 
> Steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Yes. We disagree completely. You cannot be an expert in self defence without practical, real world experience in the field applying the techniques. You CAN become an expert in a system. Call it Parker-fu, put whatever techniques you want, apply measures for proficiency and teach people to an expert level in your system. Because THAT'S what they're learning and applying. They are not defending themselves in your class. They are applying your system._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To which Chris replied:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisParker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Yes, you can. Many are. It comes down to understanding what the needs are first and foremost, and continuing from there. I mean, most self defence isn't anything to do with any physical techniques at all... so there's nothing to go and test. It actually is far more an academic area than you're thinking it is. Forget the idea of techniques, you're focusing on the wrong thing, and honestly, I don't think you know what you're arguing against._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what does everyone think?  Can you become an expert or authority on SD, with no real world experience?  Sure, of course, one of the most effective tools of SD is avoidance.  Is there something you can potentially do to avoid a situation?  If you can avoid something altogether, you're better off.  Of course, in the perfect world, sometimes things aren't that easy, so physical skills are necessary.  But having experience in hands on skill, I feel is important.  Would you want to go in for surgery and know that you will be the first patient that this new doctor has ever worked on?  How about the pilot flying the plane you're on?  I'd like to know that my flight isn't this guys first solo flight. LOL.
> 
> I'd like to think that if we took 2 people, 1 with no experience at all, and then someone like Rory Miller, that it should be a no brainer.
Click to expand...


Can you be an expert or authority on self defence without real world experience at defending yourself? Yes. Is it easier/enhanced with some personal experience to back up your expertise? Yes. But, and here's the thing, only when there is already a fair degree of expertise attained. And, honestly, the surgeon and pilot are rather false analogies, when it comes down to it. Neither are an "expert" in the same vein.. a pilot is a pilot, not an expert on aeroplanes or flight, a surgeon is a surgeon, not an expert on surgeries (they may well be a specialist, which can make them an expert in that area, but simply being a surgeon does not equate to being an expert in and of itself).

So, really, there are two initial questions. What is an expert, and what is the field of self defence? That then leads to asking how expertise in the field of self defence manifests. 



RTKDCMB said:


> Maybe instead of saying that someone is an expert in self defence they can say they are an expert in self defence training or self defence techniques and strategies. May be then there will be less disagreements on the subject.



Is there really a difference there, though?



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like to look at this from the probability projection. If you have knocked/taken 100 guys down, the chance that you may knock/take your next opponent down will be high. The question is where will you be able to accumulate your 100 successful experience if not from "sport"? Can you consider "sport" real world?



No. Sport is neither "real world", nor genuinely related to self defence at all. The idea of being able to apply techniques as being equal to self defence is to not understand the topic.



Steve said:


> I would say that one can gain experience without being an expert.  Where this really matters is when someone begins teaching others.
> 
> Can you take CPR lessons and remember the skills when you need them in a crisis?  Sure.  That's possible and happens all the time.  And, if you are diligent, take refresher courses and practice the skills, your chances of remembering them when you need them go up significantly.  But does this make you an expert in CPR?
> 
> Now, let's look at it from the other side.  Would you want to learn CPR from someone who is not even a qualified medical professional?
> 
> But, "self defence instructor" isn't as specific as CPR.  It's a skill set, similar to that of being a nurse practitioner.  Is a person who graduates from nursing school an expert? Would you take a nurse, who's never worked in a hospital or in any capacity as a nurse, and put that person in charge of teaching other nurses?
> 
> In the same way, we have a lot of people who teach self defense, who, like Chris, believe that studying something can lead to expertise.  I disagree.  You can get to the piont where you might be able to apply skills.  But that does not equal expert.



Why is being an "expert" (we'll come back to definitions of this in a bit) relevant here? A teacher/instructor isn't necessarily an "expert", they're a teacher. Was you 4th Grade teacher an "expert" in any of the subjects they taught you? Did they have phD's in any or all of the subjects taught? 

To take that to the CPR idea here, it's really not the same thing at all. Teaching CPR is teaching a mechanical method for a purpose (resuscitation), and is a specific skill/technique. Self defence is not. Self defence is an overall understanding of the realities of modern violence, assault, social structures, psychology, social anthropology, and more. Then, there can be some techniques. Maybe. As a last resort.

You're trying to equate self defence to only being that last part (the techniques). That's not what self defence is about. It's such a last-thought that the history of applying them "for real" is really besides the point. Expertise in self defence in in understanding... it's not a physical thing. Honestly, Steve, the biggest issue here, and in the previous thread about this, is that you frankly don't have the first clue of what self defence is, or what would make someone an expert in that field. That's because it's not something you've ever done, or had as a focus... you don't care about it... and, now, in these discussions, you're trying to relate it to what you think it is, based on what experience you do have (BJJ, sports etc). It's really nothing like what you think it is.



Steve said:


> The pilot, however, can be an expert pilot.  In fact, I'd argue that there are only a few "expert" crash landers among pilots.  There are, however, a lot of very experienced, competent, expert pilots.  And they are expert pilots precisely because their experience is not limited to simulators.
> 
> Once again, let's look at it from another perspective.  Let's say you have a guy who cn do anything in a simulator, but has never flown an ACTUAL plane.  Can a person become an expert pilot without ever flying a plane?  I would say no.  In order to make the leap between a competent trainee an an expert, there's a lot of hours logged in the pilot's seat of an actual plane.
> 
> Would that person be competent as a flight instructor?  I would say that there might be some limited, specific things he could competently share, but I'd be very uneasy if the pilot of my 747 to Orlando was brand new off the simulator having learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane, who himself learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane.
> 
> Sure, you can learn skills in a simulator.  I've said this many times in the past, but it's relevant here.  There's something called Bloom's taxonomy and it's very simple.  People learn things in predictable stages:
> 
> Knowledge -> Comprehension -> Application -> Analysis -> Synthesis -> Evaluation
> 
> Most martial arts training stops somewhere between comprehension and application.  The transition you guys are talking about is exactly the transition between comprehension and application.  In adult learning and business training, this is the big challenge.  How to get people out of training and able to apply the skills on the job in the quickest, most eficient and reliable way.
> 
> But, in business, as in ANY human endeavor, competence is the FIRST step toward expertise.  In other words, a person who is an expert must be competent, but not every person who is competent is an expert.



Again, the pilot is not an accurate analogue. The guy teaching about proper methods in an emergency is more what we're talking about here. The pilot might easily be able to perform "expertly", but that's quite a different application of the word.

With the Blooms Taxonomy, expertise in self defence (deep knowledge of the subject) is absolutely covering all the bases you list. First, you start with knowledge (learning about the different forms of violence, social and asocial, pre-fight triggers, the psychology of a predator, understanding body language and applications of tonality, recognizing social conventions, and knowing when to break them, and so on). Then you get to comprehension (where you can start to predict behaviour patterns through understanding the interplay of the learnt factors, and the knowledge gets solidified). Then it's application (which doesn't necessarily mean physical techniques, but can involve them; more realistically, it involves observation, awareness, predictive skills, verbal and non-verbal de-escalation, both passive and aggressive, and so on), which leads to analysis (the application of the knowledge, as detailed previously, is tested against comprehension [by ensuring and applying predictable behavioural responses and so on] in realistic fashion to ensure it matches and is correct/effective). That, through repetition, leads to synthesis, where the tactics and strategic application of the knowledge and comprehension is taken on in all aspects of daily life. Throughout all of this is constant evaluation, new information is absorbed (going back to the "knowledge" stage, creating a cycle, rather than a linear methodology), comprehended, applied, analysed, synthesised, and evaluated. And none of that involved going out cruising bars and picking fights with bikers.

And an expert doesn't have to be competent, for the record. They just have to be expert in their field... and, in self defence, that does not mean physical combative techniques.



Steve said:


> This is what I was referring to in the other thread.  If you're training in goju ryu karate, you can certainly become an expert in that system.   If Chris Parker or RTKDCMB teaches a defined curriculum with standards and measures of proficiency, then of course students could advance within the system and become experts.



And if that defined curriculum is a self defence one, what then? Or do you not think there could be one (here's a clue, there are many defined self defence curriculums, including the one I employ. They may not be exhaustive, but they are certainly defined curriculums)?



Steve said:


> Your imagination, no matter how vivid and detailed it may be, is not the same as real life.
> 
> Visualization is a terrific training tool.  However, it is specifically to assist with the transfer of training from comprehension to application.  It does not REPLACE application.  Only by applying skills can one progress beyond this stage of learning.
> 
> And there are stages beyond application.  Competence is application.  Expertise is a level of understanding beyond simple competence.



Visualisation can be perfectly valid in this area, though, Steve. Imagination is far more important when it comes to the comprehension, analysis, and evaluation stages of your cited Taxonomy than any physical experience. In science (which is really far closer to this than sports), they're called thought experiments. Again, though, you're thinking application applies to something it doesn't in this topic.



Hanzou said:


> Unless you're Batman, or some sort of vigilante, you're not an expert on self-defense. I would also say that law enforcement and ex-military aren't experts in self defense either. They're experts in law enforcement and military tactics respectively. Neither completely translates into self-defense tactics.



First sentence, completely wrong. The rest I agree with.



Steve said:


> Who said 100s?
> 
> I do agree that the term self defense is too broad.  It's hopelessly abstract.



No, it's not. You simply don't understand it.



Steve said:


> How many do you think, ballen?  Zero?  If it's any number above zero, we're in agreement.



Then let's take me. You've stated a number of times that I can't be able to teach self defence, I can only teach a "system", and that I can't be an "expert" on self defence... but I've had a number of experiences where I've had to defend myself, with varying degrees of success. I've had a five-on-one assault, where I simply wore a lot until I could get away. I've been threatened and knocked someone out pre-emptively. I've applied restraint and removal (think "Security hold") methods on a guest at a friends party. I've verbally and physically de-escalated. And I've pre-emptively stopped an assault from happening by removing the element of surprise. I've used my awareness to know when to leave a location (pointing out the drunk guy wearing knives to the security before I left... I had no reason to engage him). I haven't dealt with a gun, but my instructor has. I haven't disarmed a knife assault, but one of my students has, using what I taught him. Many other students of mine have stories of verbal de-escalation (some from as recent as last week), or physical de-escalation, or, in a couple of cases, physical techniques being employed.

My numbers I'd count at about 15 different encounters, with only about 4 of those getting physical. My guys would number another few dozen encounters.

How's my pedigree for self defence now?



ballen0351 said:


> So once is good enough?  I think it can be zero with other means of Intel. that's why I'm asking your opinion.



I'm agreeing. I have experience to back up what I teach, but the majority of my teachings are from understanding and knowledge/insight, rather than any actual "real world" experience.



Steve said:


> I think that it depends upon the activity, but that it's always more than zero.
> 
> Now, to be clear, we cultivate expertise in things we do, and as you said, the issue is one of specificity.  What I mean is, if your goal is to be an academic, the experience you would accumulate would be research.  However, if your goal is to be an expert in DOING something, you must do that thing.
> 
> We see this all the time on the internet.  There are guys who know everything there is to know about MMA and BJJ.  They can talk about strategy or technique all day long, but after a while, it becomes clear to those of us who actually train that they don't.  They are academics, and knowing the steps involved isn't the same as doing those steps.



Yeah... you're looking at self defence wrong. It's far more in line with the "research" side of things, than the "MMA" side of things. And I'd still argue that you're confusing being an expert, and doing things expertly.



Steve said:


> What I hear you saying is that, in addition to experience, you need to be well trained.  I agree.



I really didn't get that from what was said. At all. I wonder if you're just reading things you want to see...



Steve said:


> I think that everything you're saying makes perfect sense.  I don't know how to say it in a way that is more clear.  Nothing you say above is in conflict with anything I've said.  Once again, being well trained is the first step toward becoming an expert in something.
> 
> There's something else here that's important to remember.  Talking about pilots or LEO or nurses or airborne infantry is different than talking about crash landings, CPR, or parachute malfunctions.  In the former group, we're talking about a broad skill set.  In the latter, we're talking about a specific skill.
> 
> In any broad skill set or profession, the experience gained in the core skill set of the profession will be the foundation for success when encountering something outside the norm.  For example, an inexperienced pilot will be well trained in emergency procedures.  But when US Airways flight 1549 struck a flock of Canadian Geese on take off,  don't you think Capt. Sullenberger's 20,000 flight hours and almost 5,000 hours in that specific model aircraft were salient to the successful crash landing?
> 
> Here's the real question.  Do you guys believe that there's no practical difference between an experienced pilot like Capt. Sullenberger or someone who's logged 20,000 hours in a simulator?  If you were thinking about attending a seminar on the realities of handling an in-flight emergency and water landing, would you find a guy who's run all the simulations to be equivalent to someone who's actually done it?



I'd go to the guy who can teach it better, and knows all the variables, knowing what to focus on, and what is of less importance. And, frankly, that's more likely to be the guy that's done the research than the guy who's done it in one set of circumstances only. The guy who's done it can certainly add valuable insight into the mental process that goes on, or how he coped with the stress, but that makes him experienced, not an expert.



Steve said:


> I just want to point out to you guys that you're specifically talking about the act of doing what you've trained to do.  In a combat unit, is the guy fresh out of training considered an expert?  Nothing left for him to learn?
> 
> If you're thinking, "Yes, of course there's more for him to learn," then we are in complete agreement.  I would say that a highly capable, fully trained combat soldier coming out of training and into his first unit is likely competent.  But, do you guys really think he's an expert?
> 
> On the bloom's taxonomy model I mentioned earlier (Knowledge - Comprehension - Application - Analysis - Synthesis - Evalution), I'd put the new guy right on the hyphen between Comprehension and Application.  Doing it is "application" level.  NCOs with years in the trade are moving up beyond simple competence.



None of the people you mention here are experts. They are people with differing levels of experience. To be an expert is something rather different.



Steve said:


> Sounds to me like he was an expert.  You can be an academic.  And I'm sure his advice was sound, as it was based upon his specific area of expertise.  But, in spite of his academic expertise, do you think he could be given a gun and perform as well as you in the field?



That's two different things, Steve. That's what you're missing.



Steve said:


> So, you're saying that the trainees aren't experts, and even some of their trainers weren't experts, either?  But, I bet the trainers were well trained in the specific training model.  Right?  They may not have been expert paratroopers, but they were probably excellent trainers.
> 
> So, let's apply this to martial arts:  Let's say there's a "self defense" boot camp.  The trainer isn't a "Self Defense" expert (in the same way that some of the instructors at Jump School weren't experts).  But he's an expert in the system.  What is he teaching you?  The system.  What are you becoming competent in?  The system.  And when you "graduate" from the training, you may be competent in the system and may have learned some VERY solid techniques that can help you defend yourself.  But, you're not a self defense expert.  And neither was your instructor.



This is a pointless hypothetical. You've already decided what the instructor is, and what he isn't.... as well as deciding that they're mutually exclusive. Again, let's take me as an example. I can teach you some near-onto a dozen different systems, some weaponry, some unarmed, some both, and so on. I'm not about to claim to be an expert in anything, but hey, we'll pretend I am, for this. I then run a self defence boot camp. What am I teaching you? Again, here's a clue... it's not any of the systems I have.

And, again, teacher does not equal expert. Trying to link them in this way is not realistic, or really a fair way to discuss the idea of expertise.



Steve said:


> Well, sure they're different.  But he was an expert... just not an expert cop.  He was an expert analyst.  Why?  Because that's what he did. Yes!  We're getting somewhere!  Doing the job in the field doesn't necessarily make you an expert.  Certainly doesn't make you an expert analyst.
> 
> Man, seriously.  The world would be a MUCH better place if people understood the simple distinction you're making above.  Respect people's area of expertise and it makes all the difference.  An analyst is an expert analyst.  Could he do your job?  No.  But he can help you do your job better, if that's his area of expertise.



That's the thing, Steve, you're not respecting other people's areas of expertise. You've decided that they can't actually be experts in their areas of expertise because you don't understand what that area of expertise is.

Oh, and for the record, I really don't think Ballen was agreeing with you there... your take has been that "real experience" is needed. He was pointing out that real experience isn't really any guarantee, and therefore is not an accurate or adequate criteria. You need to look at other criteria... so, if you actually agree with that, why would you be still thinking that the experience is part of the essential aspect?



Steve said:


> Exactly, tgace.  What kind of a pilot would he be if he didn't actually fly the damned plane?  But, that's EXACTLY what we're talking about here with regards to self defense. No problem.



No, it's really not, Steve. Again, you don't seem to get what self defence is. Flying the plane isn't being an expert, it's being a pilot. Flying a plane expertly is being a skilled pilot. Being an expert in regards to piloting would mean you would know all about the different forms of planes, the different flight paths, the different methods of take-off and landing, and so on. When it comes to self defence, it's really not the same thing at all. I mean, flying a plane is largely a routine sequence, often repeated with slight variations. Self defence is kinda, well, opposite. As well as not being a physical skill.



Steve said:


> Well, there's a great question.  However, before we start tackling the question of cataloging experience within the field of self defense, can we first agree that experience is necessary?
> 
> I know Chris Parker has alleged multiple times that experience is not necessary in order to become a self defense expert.



I haven't alleged, I've stated it bluntly. And I maintain it. 



Steve said:


> Yes.  And I put a link to it in the sport vs tma thread.  I don't honestly think I can say it much differently than I did in that thread....  I  haven't seen anything that has changed my mind.  Human beings all accumulate experience in the same way.  There are no short cuts to expertise.  You have to log the hours.



True, but you're focusing on the wrong thing that you're logging the hours in.



Tgace said:


> As I said in:
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=108916
> 
> Someone...somewhere...within a reasonable timeframe should have "done" what is being taught as a self defense technique. The core of this discussion isnt so much about the individual practitioner having had "experience" as it is about a systems combative foundation.



Hmm... no. I can't agree with that. For one thing, it's impossible to quantify the applicability of every "technique" that can be taught... but all techniques can (and should) be pressure tested to the point of breaking in order to ensure they match and work within the context.

I'll put it this way. In a knife defence program, I might teach some half-dozen "techniques". If you learn them, and someone pulls a knife on you, you might use one... you're not going to use all six. So, does that mean I should only teach that one, because now we know it "worked", and we don't have that for the others? How about if it didn't work so well, not due to the technique, but due to your execution? Do we just drop it immediately? Or do we re-assess why it didn't work, and improve to make sure it has a higher return in future?

The point is, you simply can't have all techniques having been "done". It's just not practical or possible. This is yet another reason you can't insist on experience for expertise in this area.



Steve said:


> Here's the main point.  Training, no matter how good, can only prepare you for competence.
> 
> Not everyone will work in trade that will take them to a level of expertise.
> 
> Abd to be clear, for most people, this is plenty.  The danger is when a competent expert creates a system and then people start misrepresenting the system.  A guy creates a system and then traces another guy, abd that guy things that he's a self defense expert because he's an expert in the system.  I would suggest that the two are not the same.



We must train in very different ways, Steve. We train to application, not just competence. And, again, if the system is a self defence one, what then?



Steve said:


> The point, though, where this experienced person puts together his/her system, the training becomes codified and specific.  In other words, he's not teaching "self defense".  He's teaching his system.  And while this won't make any difference in the short term, I believe that down the road it does.  A question I posed in the other thread was how many generations from practical expertise have to occur before the efficacy of the training will suffer?   Let's say you are an experienced guy with a lot of practical, hands on knowledge of a subject.  Using your expertise, you put together a training curriculum that is practical and effective and you begin teaching people.  They, in turn, become experts in your system and begin teaching other people.  And so on.  This is how martial arts work.  A guy develops his system.  He teaches people, who teach people, who teach people.
> 
> The simple point I'm making is that they are specifically teaching people the system.  The expertise being gained isn't "self defense."  It's the system.  And, at some point, I believe that without reality checks, the system will suffer from the presumption of efficacy.
> 
> Looking once again at the pilot, if Capt. Sullenberger trained a pilot who never flew a plane (simulators only), that student is still benefiting from his instructor's expertise.  But, there are a million little things that Sulley knows that a trainee won't.  Things that you only get by doing.  And, so when that student becomes an instructor, teaching Sulley's method for flying a plane (without ever actually flying a plane), he will not pass those things on.  And his students become instructors... and pretty soon, we have thousands of schools popping up all over the world teaching people to fly planes without actually flying planes.  Are any of these people expert pilots?  I'd argue that they are not.  Rather, they are experts in Sulley's flightless pilot training system.



Then what, in a codified system, makes it not self defence? I'm curious as to what you think stops it from being possible to have a codified self defence system here.... bearing in mind, of course, that codified doesn't necessarily mean set in stone... any more than BJJ is both codified and not set in stone.



Steve said:


> In the other thread, Tgace posted a link to an article where a guy discusses the difference between some firearms.  I might be remembering it wrong, but the gist of it as I recall was that he was training SWAT guys, and in the course of the training, some would have really expensive, shiny, firearms that were showy, but not reliable.  He then went on about which firearms he preferred and why.  The choice of the showy, expensive firearms on the part of the trainees had everything to do with their lack of experience.  And his choices, and the depth of his rationale behind his choices, had everything to do with the depth of his experience.  You can't teach experience.  And you can't be an expert without it.
> 
> As ballen and others are, I think, beginning to understand, it's about being aware of exactly what one's areas of expertise really are.



You can give experience. And you can be an expert without it (in the context of self defence training). I'm more than aware of what my areas of expertise are... are you aware of where your experience might be leading you to less-than-expert assessments?



Steve said:


> Totally agree, and this was the genesis of the original thread.  Self Defense is so vague that I don't think it's very useful.  BJJ doesn't, IMO, teach self defense, although some of the skills are certainly useful.  MMA doesn't teach self defense, either, although once again, some of the skills can be useful.
> 
> But, Krav Maga doesn't teach self defense, either.  In exactly the same way BJJ/MMA/Boxing etc teach the system, Krav Maga teaches a method.  Without the reality checks and practical experience, the best someone can hope for out of their training is expertise within the system, and... maybe... competent defense skills.   But an expert in Krav Maga, Systema or whatever, is not necessarily an expert in self defense.  Might be, but not necessarily.
> 
> Why is this?  I believe it's because "self defense" is a sales pitch.



Self defence is not vague, Steve. You not understanding what it is doesn't make it vague. It's broad, but that's something entirely different. Again, you're deciding what these systems are without knowing what they are... and you're deciding what they aren't without knowing what the thing you say they aren't actually is.

That said, I agree that many arts/teachers use the idea of "self defence" as a marketing tag, or sales line, without thinking it's anything more than physical (fighting) techniques. And I'm one of the first to point out the discrepancy. But to say they're not teaching self defence because it's a system is rather presumptive, don't you think?



Steve said:


> It would be hard.  I'm not suggesting that schools do this. There are two ways to approach this.  First, and probably the easiest, is for a school to simply be more specific and up front about what they're teaching and what they're not teaching.  If an instructor has no practical experience, maybe touting him as an expert is wrong.
> 
> Second is to make a show of giving students large sums of cash in high crime neighborhood and then see if they can walk out without being killed.



The first is basically you claiming that your idea of no schools actually teaching self defence is correct (it's not), and the second is not self defence, it's provoking fights. Neither are accurate.



Steve said:


> I would say that if you train in a specific martial art, regardless of which art, you are working on becoming an expert in that specific system.  Where "expert" falls and how it's defined will be specific to that art.  The fundamental point here is that, you cannot become an expert in Goju Ryu Karate by studying (no matter how diligently) BJJ.  You cannot become an expert in Budo Taijutsu by studying Judo.  Simply put, you cannot become an expert in one thing by studying something else.  It seems obvious, I know.
> 
> Self Defense is vague.  It's like saying "love."  Love means something different to everyone... and so does "self defense."  People don't train self defense.  People train in systems.



Self defence is not vague, it's broad. Big difference.



Steve said:


> I would agree with this.  While all experts will have practical experience, not everyone with practical experience will be an expert.
> 
> The first step to expertise is competence.  While anyone can make a mistake, if the mistakes are due to a lack of competence (skills gaps, chronic apathy/complacence or whatever), then a person cannot be an expert, by definition.



Okay, then, define "expert".



oftheherd1 said:


> Sounds like a good start:  you can only be an expert in a system you have trained in.  Do all MA, at least the oriental if not others, train in any way in self defense?



Not even close. I'd say, as a martial art, none of them do. They may have aspects that can be applied, but that's not the same thing.



Steve said:


> My opinion is that the term "self defense' is so abstract as to be worthless.  A LEO might have a lot of valuable and useful information to share based upon his/her experience and training.  While there may be some overlap, a bouncer would have slightly different (but perhaps equally valuable and useful) information to share.  A sport fighter would have a different piece of the puzzle.
> 
> Which is best for self defense?  Well, that depends as much on the student as the system.  Remember, I'm not saying you can't get to the point where you could likely use your skills when necessary.  Excellent training will get you very, very close to competent.  What I'm saying is that you can't progress beyond that point without applying the skills in the wild (so to speak).
> 
> Of course not.  I agree completely.  I have said repeatedly that while I believe *all* experts have experience, not everyone with experience is an expert.
> 
> The tricky part sometimes is accurately identifying the area of expertise.  Dennisbreene brought up the point that there are experts and then there are EXPERTS among the experts.  Expertise IS subjective and represents a range of experience, skill and ability.



I think this is the issue, Steve. You've been argued against, been given evidence and statements against a lot of these ideas and yet you're still sticking to the same thing. That's fine, but it doesn't mean that others agree with you, or think you've been listening when you just keep repeating the same again.



Steve said:


> I think that it's entirely possible to create an effective curriculum.  Honestly, the sticking point for me isn't quality of training.  The part I think is a little alarming is the idea that people mistake the training for the skill.  Can a solid curriculum teach practical skills to a lay person?  Sure.  Of course.  A person might, through years of diligent training, get to the point where he or she is an expert _in that system.
> _
> Will that person be able to apply those skills outside of training?  We can say maybe.  We might even be able to say probably.  but you can't legitimately claim to be an expert in something you've never actually done.



Again, you're focused on the idea that a system can't be self defence, to which I'd ask "Why not?", as well as the idea that training isn't actual experience. Again, what if that system is self defence? What then?



Steve said:


> I think that there are experts, but that it's worth taking a few moments to identify the areas of expertise.  Any conversation or debate on the subject of self defense suffers from a lack of specificity.  As I've said many times, the term is so vague as to be worthless.  The conversations inevitably deteriorate because everyone has something different in mind when they think of "self defense."
> 
> But, a 5th degree black belt in Judo is, I believe, clearly an expert Judoka and likely a very credible resource if you're looking for self defense training.  A former Navy Seal would be an expert in a completely different piece of the puzzle.  While you could say that they're both "self defense" experts, I think it's much better to be more specific.
> 
> The Judoka may never have been in a self defense situation in his life, so claiming to be an expert in self defense would be wrong, IMO.  But, that doesn't mean he has nothing to offer.  His expertise in Judo is unimpeachable and valuable.



What if the Judoka is an expert in self defence? How do you separate them out? Can't he be both?



Steve said:


> I think there's another good question here that you're raising, Ballen.  Do you have to be an expert in order to be an effective instructor?
> 
> I'd say that it depends upon the level of the instruction.  Several years ago, I took a jiu jitsu seminar as a white belt from a 3rd degree BJJ black belt.  Honestly, while a great experience, the only thing I took away from that experience were awesome memories.  The actual instruction was so far above my skill level that I lacked the context to even remember it.  The purple belts, however, gained a TON, because they could appreciate and benefit from the depth of the instructor's expertise.
> 
> But that's a different question than whether or not the person is an expert or the degree of expertise the person has.



Sure... so, do you want to answer the actual question? Does a teacher need to be an expert? 



Steve said:


> Just a question to throw out to the group.  In the scenario above, you are talking about something pretty specific.  What would you think about a guy who had nailed every single officer and SWAT training course, top of the class, but
> had never worked as a cop?  This guy could recite every rule and regulation, and holds the course records for every training exercise at every level, including advanced training courses.  What if that guy was your new commander.
> 
> Would you consider him to be an expert?  I wouldn't, although he would probably be a very well trained, highly capable rookie.



I wouldn't consider him experienced, as far as "expert", my question would be "expert in what?". Expert in procedure? Sure. Expert SWAT trainer? Probably, if he's accredited and accomplished there. 



Steve said:


> My opinion is that learning wing chun is just that: learning wing chun.  And really, to be more specific, you're learning a specific flavor of WC.
> 
> As with all martial arts styles, there are going to be some self defense applications, but my personal belief is that there is no style that teaches comprehensive self defense.  Everyone teaches a piece of the puzzle, some pieces are larger than others.
> 
> Earlier in the thread, I compared the term "self defense" to another abstract, "love."  In my opinion, you can't really teach people "self defense" because you can't teach people an abstract.  In the same way, you can't teach a young couple love.  You can't take two people and teach them to be in love.
> 
> But you CAN teach a young couple how to be a better couple.  They can be taught how to better communicate with each other and how to avoid common pitfalls.  Problem areas, traps and pitfalls in their relationships can be identified and skills can be taught to help them manage those areas.  In other words, you can't teach people how to be in love, but you CAN teach them skills that could help them STAY in love.  And these skills are very specific.  Communications, financial management, career guidance, parenting, etc.
> 
> In the same way, you can't (IMO) teach self defense.  But you can teach skills that may (or may not) have some application in self defense.
> 
> If your question to me was genuine, I believe if you read my threads you understand my perspective, even if you disagree.  Without a keyboard, typing anything as lengthy as this response on a phone or tablet is tedious.  So, yeah.  Asking me the same question again, but with a little attitude doesn't change anything.  My intent wasn't to put you off, but it's a little irritating that you can't be bothered to read (or re-read if necessary) the damned thread.



Again, the idea of self defence training and martial art training (while separate) are not mutually exclusive.

And, bluntly Steve, you can teach self defence. Believe me, I do it.



CNida said:


> I fail to see how.
> 
> I actually don't understand where the argument comes from for the OP's question.
> 
> Someone claiming to be an expert in self defense without ever actually having to have defended themselves in a altercation would be the same as someone claiming to be an Olympic swimmer but have never actually gone swimming, or even know how to swim for that matter.
> 
> I just don't see how.
> 
> I may know all 178 different techniques for a certain martial art, but that doesn't make me an expert in doing them.
> 
> It all comes down to the difference between knowledge and wisdom IMO. Not that my opinion is worth much.



No, it's not really anything like the Olympic swimming analogy. The swimming one is a measured result with a particular scale, self defence is a broad topic.



Steve said:


> Whether he's an expert isn't the question.  Clearly, if you think he's credible, he knows a lot about the subject.  But can he do it?  You've acknowledged that he can't.  He's an analyst
> 
> What specifically is his expertise?  That's the question.
> 
> And, I didn't ask whether you can be an expert on a topic.  That's a given.   Knowledge is a matter of research.  I can read all of the instructional books on bjj abd memorize then all.  I could study and become an expert on the subject of bjj.  But does that mean I can execute any of those techniques?  I would argue that I would be functionally incompetent to execute even the simplest of them.
> 
> Surely you understand t he difference.  An academic knows all about something, but can't necessarily do it.



You're still making the same false connection, though. Self defence is not a physical skill, it's an over-arching, broad topic.



Steve said:


> Can he walk the talk, as tgace put it?   If not, his expertise is academic.  That doesn't mean it is without value.  It just means he can't do it.



Self defence is a largely academic topic, though. That's where you've missed the boat.



Steve said:


> But what is the difference between someone who knows a lot and someone who can do it?
> 
> Edit.  Nevermind.  As I said before, you argue just to argue. You win.  If you actually want to discuss something, let me know.



No, Steve, Ballen was trying to discuss, I as I was with you earlier. You still haven't listened to what has been said, mate.



Steve said:


> So you're saying he was experienced.   I see a clear difference between this guy and the analyst.  Both might have valuable information to share.
> 
> You're grasping at straws, Ballen.   I don't believe that you don't get the point.  I just don't believe you don't see the difference between this guy and your analyst.



You still haven't clarified the idea of "expert", nor understood that self defence isn't a physical skill set (the physical skills are a minor sub-set of self defence).



CNida said:


> Definition of expert (n)
> ex·pert
> somebody skilled or knowledgeable:somebody with a great deal of knowledge about, or skill, training, or experience in, a particular field or activity
> 
> By this definition of the word, one can be an expert in something by simply knowing about it.
> 
> In my opinion there is a huge difference between knowledge and application. An expert has the knowledge but a "veteran" or "master" has the knowledge AND the ability to apply it.
> 
> Case in point, I might be an expert in self defense simply because I know X, Y, and Z techniques will work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I can use them or that I am a self defense veteran



Agreed!



CNida said:


> A guy proves he can do an armbar by doing an armbar.



Er... proves what?


----------



## Tgace

Except in the context of this conversation we seem to be talking about martial arts instructors teaching "unarmed self-defense", not non physical personal security measures. There's a difference between me teaching a class on "rape prevention" as a self-defense "expert" and my teaching unarmed defensive tactics to women as a "martial arts expert". I would expect the martial arts "expert" to be able to physically demonstrate what he claims to be an expert at....which is grantedly different from having used the art in a real encounter.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> Again, the pilot is not an accurate analogue. The guy teaching about proper methods in an emergency is more what we're talking about here. The pilot might easily be able to perform "expertly", but that's quite a different application of the word.
> 
> With the Blooms Taxonomy, expertise in self defence (deep knowledge of the subject) is absolutely covering all the bases you list. First, you start with knowledge (learning about the different forms of violence, social and asocial, pre-fight triggers, the psychology of a predator, understanding body language and applications of tonality, recognizing social conventions, and knowing when to break them, and so on). Then you get to comprehension (where you can start to predict behaviour patterns through understanding the interplay of the learnt factors, and the knowledge gets solidified). Then it's application (which doesn't necessarily mean physical techniques, but can involve them; more realistically, it involves observation, awareness, predictive skills, verbal and non-verbal de-escalation, both passive and aggressive, and so on), which leads to analysis (the application of the knowledge, as detailed previously, is tested against comprehension [by ensuring and applying predictable behavioural responses and so on] in realistic fashion to ensure it matches and is correct/effective). That, through repetition, leads to synthesis, where the tactics and strategic application of the knowledge and comprehension is taken on in all aspects of daily life. Throughout all of this is constant evaluation, new information is absorbed (going back to the "knowledge" stage, creating a cycle, rather than a linear methodology), comprehended, applied, analysed, synthesised, and evaluated. And none of that involved going out cruising bars and picking fights with bikers.


This is a distinction that I was trying to highlight with ballen.  As you point out, Bloom's Taxonomy does apply to academic pursuits.  But,there's a very, very important distinction to be drawn between an academic expert and a practical expert.  And, as with every field of expertise, there are experts, and then there are those whom the experts call experts.  It works the same. 

What is different is that an academic can't DO what they know.  Or, more accurately, their knowledge far outstrips their ability.  


> And an expert doesn't have to be competent, for the record. They just have to be expert in their field... and, in self defence, that does not mean physical combative techniques.


I completely disagree.  Whether one's expertise is academic or otherwise, in order to become an expert, one must first be competent.  If your pursuit is academic, then, as you point out above, you will move right on through Bloom's Taxonomy. 


> You still haven't clarified the idea of "expert", nor understood that self defence isn't a physical skill set (the physical skills are a minor sub-set of self defence).


I understand that you think self defense is an academic pursuit.  That's actually very helpful to know.  And, if you're simply teaching strategy and theory, then, it makes sense to me that you could become expert and teach it.  I don't think I agree with you, though.  

I do agree with you that "self defense" is an umbrella term.  Unlike you, though, I don't think there is one definition.  It's clear that you believe your definition to be the only right one, but I think that if you ask 100 people, you'll get 100 different answers.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Except in the context of this conversation we seem to be talking about martial arts instructors teaching "unarmed self-defense", not non physical personal security measures. There's a difference between me teaching a class on "rape prevention" as a self-defense "expert" and my teaching unarmed defensive tactics to women as a "martial arts expert". I would expect the martial arts "expert" to be able to physically demonstrate what he claims to be an expert at....which is grantedly different from having used the art in a real encounter.


For some reason, as I read through this thread, the cliche "Easier said than done," keeps coming to mind.


----------



## ballen0351

Tgace said:


> Except in the context of this conversation we seem to be talking about martial arts instructors teaching "unarmed self-defense", not non physical personal security measures. There's a difference between me teaching a class on "rape prevention" as a self-defense "expert" and my teaching unarmed defensive tactics to women as a "martial arts expert". I would expect the martial arts "expert" to be able to physically demonstrate what he claims to be an expert at....which is grantedly different from having used the art in a real encounter.


Physically demonstrate to the class in a class setting yes.  Tell a war story about this one time in a bar fight no its not needed and means nothing


----------



## Tgace

In the Filipino MA world there's the mystique of some "masters" having participated in "death matches" or having had to leave the country due to having killed someone and various other BTDT memes. Of course the reality is that many of these "death matches" were anything but and some creative license is in play to make people seem "dangerous".

The "thing" with talking about "experience" in unarmed fighting is that most of the people who actually have it are going to be people you probably wouldn't/shouldn't associate with in the first place. 

Some "DT Experts" like Marc "Animal" MacYoung use their "street cred" and "bad *** background" as a self-promotion point for their books/seminars/etc. Of course, short of running his criminal history or police contact history how do you verify ones "street cred as a badass"?


----------



## ballen0351

That's the main reason I say real street experience isn't needed.  There is no way to verify it so why does it matter.  I follow the stolen valor site on Facebook. Every day they post another guy that's claiming spec ops and all this experience and they have none.   So teach me in class show me what to do and spare me the one time in band camp stories


----------



## Tgace

ballen0351 said:


> That's the main reason I say real street experience isn't needed.  There is no way to verify it so why does it matter.  I follow the stolen valor site on Facebook. Every day they post another guy that's claiming spec ops and all this experience and they have none.   So teach me in class show me what to do and spare me the one time in band camp stories



A DD214 can clear up/verify that quite quick...


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Physically demonstrate to the class in a class setting yes.  Tell a war story about this one time in a bar fight no its not needed and means nothing


You keep bringing up the "war story" thing, but unless I missed something, you're the only one in this entire mega-thread who's talking about sitting around telling war stories.

I see it like a house.  Most people never really see the foundation of a house.  But you sure find out, usually at the worst possible moment, when the foundation is unstable.


----------



## ballen0351

Tgace said:


> A DD214 can clear up/verify that quite quick...



Yeah but when your being taught a class do you really ask for it?  And in this context of self defense there is no Dd214 for bar fights and defensive use of your art.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> You keep bringing up the "war story" thing, but unless I missed something, you're the only one in this entire mega-thread who's talking about sitting around telling war stories.
> 
> I see it like a house.  Most people never really see the foundation of a house.  But you sure find out, usually at the worst possible moment, when the foundation is unstable.


You keep harping on knowing that the expert has walked the talk.  How else will you know unless they tell you?


----------



## Dmar

Only an absolute moron would think a person could become an expert in anything other than hypothetical badassery without any real world experience! C.nida and I routinely defend ourselves and others from violent psychotics and people under the influence of mind altering substances for a living. Experts? Maybe, maybe not. A hell of a lot closer than most of you who obviously have become experts @ posting on internet forums, but then again when it comes to that you definitely have us beat on experience.


----------



## ballen0351

Dmar said:


> Only an absolute moron would think a person could become an expert in anything other than hypothetical badassery without any real world experience! C.nida and I routinely defend ourselves and others from violent psychotics and people under the influence of mind altering substances for a living. Experts? Maybe, maybe not. A hell of a lot closer than most of you who obviously have become experts @ posting on internet forums, but then again when it comes to that you definitely have us beat on experience.



Rambo?  Is that you?  How about you drop by the intro thread and say hi and tell us more about yourself


----------



## Dmar

I could care less what your opinion is of me. You have told us all about yourself and what you do so I dont really understand what point your trying to make with that comment. Whatever the point is, it doesn't change the FACT a person cannot be an expert @ something they have never done. Functional if they r Lucky maybe. Expert not possible.


----------



## ballen0351

Dmar said:


> I could care less what your opinion is of me. You have told us all about yourself and what you do so I dont really understand what point your trying to make with that comment. Whatever the point is, it doesn't change the FACT a person cannot be an expert @ something they have never done. Functional if they r Lucky maybe. Expert not possible.


OK Rambo but your wrong


----------



## Dmar

ballen0351 said:


> OK Rambo but your wrong



What world are you living in? Because in reality when u refer to expertise it implies a good deal of actual experience. Until you've done something for real and demonstrated repeatable skill it isn't possible to claim the title of expert. You may learn how to do something without doing something but a person can't master it without experience. To give an example take practicing air kenpo and then practicing on a resisting opponent. World of difference right? The real thing will be just every bit as different from your pressure test in the dojo. To say the least. In all your vast experience don't you find that to be true? (Since yours is the only experience you like talking about) Or did your formal martial arts/DT training prepare you for all the variables you have encountered in your daily life/line of duty? If not how important were the lessons learned from said variables provided by experience?


----------



## ballen0351

Dmar said:


> What world are you living in? Because in reality when u refer to expertise it implies a good deal of actual experience. Until you've done something for real and demonstrated repeatable skill it isn't possible to claim the title of expert. You may learn how to do something without doing something but a person can't master it without experience. To give an example take practicing air kenpo and then practicing on a resisting opponent. World of difference right? The real thing will be just every bit as different from your pressure test in the dojo. To say the least. In all your vast experience don't you find that to be true? (Since yours is the only experience you like talking about) Or did your formal martial arts/DT training prepare you for all the variables you have encountered in your daily life/line of duty? If not how important were the lessons learned from said variables provided by experience?



Answer a simple question.  Can you be an expert in rape prevention tactics if you have never been raped?


  Answer is yes there are experts that teach woman all over the country that have never had to fight off a rapist.  So like I said your wrong


----------



## Dmar

They may not have been raped but most of them have used the defensive tactics they are teaching. Your example is stupid in every sense of the word. A good portion of what is taught by people who have not been in real defensive situation will get a woman hurt an maybe killed. If you are involved in law enforcement you know dang good and well a lot of what gets taught is junk and its your type of mind set that allows it! Do you remember in the late 80's when it was popular for said experts to teach women that it was good tactic to go to the ground, lay flat on their back and kick @ their attacker because " a woman is stronger in her lower body"? How many rapes do you think that prevented? Those are your type of experts and you continue to prove yourself wrong. Anyone can claim to be an expert but it takes experience to actually become one.


----------



## Dmar

I





ballen0351 said:


> Answer a simple question.  Can you be an expert in rape prevention tactics if you have never been raped?
> 
> 
> Answer is yes there are experts that teach woman all over the country that have never had to fight off a rapist.  So like I said your wrong



I can't get over this stupidity of this comment. Now you are trying to sub divide self defense?! Really? Rape defense, mugging defense, assault defense. To be an expert in any of it you need experience defending yourself!


----------



## ballen0351

> They may not have been raped but most of them have used the defensive tactics they are teaching


Where ?  How do you know?  Did you see it or just another war stories u know kinda like how you started your first post what was it you said you daily defend yourself against mind altered zombies or some nonsense like that.


> . Your example is stupid in every sense of the word. A good portion of what is taught by people who have not been in real defensive situation will get a woman hurt an maybe killed.


No actually I'm talking about real legit experts in the field see I have access to some of the top law enforcement trainers and self defense trainers in the country due to my job and I'm not as busy as you fighting off hords of mind altered thugs so I get to travel to attend training with them.


> If you are involved in law enforcement you know dang good and well a lot of what gets taught is junk and its your type of mind set that allows it!


Sure do and I also know there is a lot of legit stuff out there as well.  And the difference between the two has nothing to do with the teacher having slapped an arm bar on some punk at a bar fight or not.  It comes down to case study and research seeing what works and what doesn't.  


> Do you remember in the late 80's when it was popular for said experts to teach women that it was good tactic to go to the ground, lay flat on their back and kick @ their attacker because " a woman is stronger in her lower body"? How many rapes do you think that prevented?


Naa I was in school in the 80s I didn't concern myself with rape prevention back then.


> Those are your type of experts and you continue to prove yourself wrong. Anyone can claim to be an expert but it takes experience to actually become one.


You have no idea what my type of expert is.  And again your wrong and repeating it over and over wont change that


----------



## ballen0351

Dmar said:


> I
> 
> I can't get over this stupidity of this comment. Now you are trying to sub divide self defense?! Really? Rape defense, mugging defense, assault defense. To be an expert in any of it you need experience defending yourself!


Well yes you do need to subdivide self defense.  It's different for everyone.  I for example have no need to learn rape prevention because I'm a big ugly dude not too may folks are out to rape me.  I as a police officer have different self defense needs then you as a zombie hunter.  A solider in the battle field has different self defense needs then a college female on campus who has different needs then a father at the mall with his kids or a woman at the groceries store.


----------



## Dmar

You don't even have the good sense to admit it was a bad example ? Instead you try to make it seem valid. Ok yes some people's needs are different but the skills to be successful at self defense are the same!  Can you be a expert bronc rider if you have never been rode? Yes if you have experience and success @ riding broncs! That's what your example is like.


----------



## ballen0351

Dmar said:


> You don't even have the good sense to admit it was a bad example ? Instead you try to make it seem valid. Ok yes some people's needs are different but the skills to be successful at self defense are the same!  Can you be a expert bronc rider if you have never been rode? Yes if you have experience and success @ riding broncs! That's what your example is like.


So you say its a bad example and then say I'm right.  OK then. LOL. Your not very good at this but keep trying.

How's this one then. Can Someone be a defensive hand gun instructor if they have never shot a real person.  Because remember you said real life is way different then the dojo.  Well the range and paper targets are the dojo for shooters and so real life would be so much harder. So can you be an expert in handgun self defense if you never shot anyone?

On the reverse since I actually have shot someone in real life am I an expert now?  Or is my shift partner even more of an expert because he has shot 2 people so he must be a double expert.


----------



## Dmar

Steve said:


> Your imagination, no matter how vivid and detailed it may be, is not the same as real life.
> 
> Visualization is a terrific training tool.  However, it is specifically to assist with the transfer of training from comprehension to application.  It does not REPLACE application.  Only by applying skills can one progress beyond this stage of learning.
> 
> And there are stages beyond application.  Competence is application.  Expertise is a level of understanding beyond simple competence.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD





ballen0351 said:


> So you say its a bad example and then say I'm right.  OK then. LOL. Your not very good at this but keep trying.
> 
> How's this one then. Can Someone be a defensive hand gun instructor if they have never shot a real person.  Because remember you said real life is way different then the dojo.  Well the range and paper targets are the dojo for shooters and so real life would be so much harder. So can you be an expert in handgun self defense if you never shot anyone?
> 
> On the reverse since I actually have shot someone in real life am I an expert now?  Or is my shift partner even more of an expert because he has shot 2 people so he must be a double expert.



I think the only thing your an expert at is being a dumba**. Did you miss the part where I said the skills were the same? One vehicle takes you many places.I said from the beginning that training can make functional but not an expert. On the firing range you can learn the tactics but you will not become an expert gunfighter there. For the record in my opinion a it takes doing something more than once or twice to be an expert so you and your partner are out of luck there too. And you are right I am not as good at posting on here as you are, you totally have me beat @ the hypothetical badassery. Who's telling war stories again?


----------



## ballen0351

Dmar said:


> I think the only thing your an expert at is being a dumba**. Did you miss the part where I said the skills were the same? One vehicle takes you many places.I said from the beginning that training can make functional but not an expert. On the firing range you can learn the tactics but you will not become an expert gunfighter there. For the record in my opinion a it takes doing something more than once or twice to be an expert so you and your partner are out of luck there too. And you are right I am not as good at posting on here as you are, you totally have me beat @ the hypothetical badassery. Who's telling war stories again?



Lol ok Rambo.  You were doing better until Rambo came back.  Ok kid your most bad assed of all the internets well you and chuck norris but mostly you.  I thought you were here to discuss a topic not demand we agree with you or else.  Have fun this is a nice place lots of real live experts in lots of different fields.  Guys with decades of Martial Arts, military, and law enforcemnt.  Sadly you come here acting like a thug you won't be here long enough to learn anything.  See ya Rambo it's nap time for me.


----------



## jks9199

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
Asst. Administrator


----------



## Dmar

E





ballen0351 said:


> Lol ok Rambo.  You were doing better until Rambo came back.  Ok kid your most bad assed of all the internets well you and chuck norris but mostly you.  I thought you were here to discuss a topic not demand we agree with you or else.  Have fun this is a nice place lots of real live experts in lots of different fields.  Guys with decades of Martial Arts, military, and law enforcemnt.  Sadly you come here acting like a thug you won't be here long enough to learn anything.  See ya Rambo it's nap time for me.



Your the only one who has been telling war stories. I have purposely avoided referring to any of my experience or occupation since the my opening post. There is some really knowledgeable people here unfortunately there are a lot of people on here with inflated egos too. I may be around longer than you think I will heed admins warning and unlike you I understand its the guys with decades of experience are the ones to listen to. Since you already said you were in school in the 80s your definitely not in that category Lucky.


----------



## ballen0351

Dmar said:


> E
> 
> Your the only one who has been telling war stories. I have purposely avoided referring to any of my experience or occupation since the my opening post



Yes what's left to say after that first post lol...



> . There is some really knowledgeable people here unfortunately there are a lot of people on here with inflated egos too. I may be around longer than you think I will heed admins warning and unlike you I understand its the guys with decades of experience are the ones to listen to. Since you already said you were in school in the 80s your definitely not in that category Lucky.


Lol ok...
So tell me what you consider an expert in self defense? How much experience is enough?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So tell me what you consider an expert in self defense? How much experience is enough?



More than none.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> More than none.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Ok so how much.  And how do you know how much they really have?


----------



## CNida

ballen0351 said:


> Ok so how much.  And how do you know how much they really have?



Okay lets look at it your way for a sec. It doesn't matter if the guy teaching you the technique has ever done the technique, as you are suggesting, as long as said technique works, right?

How do you know the technique this guy is teaching you works?


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## ballen0351

CNida said:


> Okay lets look at it your way for a sec. It doesn't matter if the guy teaching you the technique has ever done the technique, as you are suggesting, as long as said technique works, right?
> 
> How do you know the technique this guy is teaching you works?
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> "A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous



You can look at most things and say hmmmm that looks effective or hmmm that's silly.  If the foundation and principals are sound then it should work.  I say should because there is never a 100%.  You test it in class, you break it down and look at the fundamentals.  What you don't do is take my word for it because I tell u I tried it 10 times in real life and it works.  
Reverse that however just because I stand in font of the class and show you how I did a flying reverse 360 back kick transferred into a headlock and its awesome I did it in 50 bar fights and never lost does that mean your going to pull it off and it works?

Funny thing about the term expert is it really means nothing.  You can have 2 experts on the same topic give you totally opposite answers to the same problem.  I see it in court all the time.  You have your experts I have mine and we let the Jury decide who's experts are prettier and can entertain better.  So of this is an opinion argument anyway.

My example to Steve was an FBI analyst that studied 1000s of Officer murders and assault and teaches an Officer safety class on it.  To me he's an expert well to a lot of people hes an expert but to Steve hes not.  That's ok its his choice.  All an expert can do is give an opinion anyway.  

Another Class I went to was with the head of the FBI's chemical agent program.  Dude knew more about OC Spray, CN , CS gas, Mace, you name it if its a chemical that hurts he knew about it.  Dudes not even in Law enforcement.  He was deputized as a US Marshall because he transports large amounts of chemical agents all over the country to teach but he has no police powers he has never used the stuff on a real bad guy.  He was at Waco however and the FBI trusted his Expertise to decide how much gas and where to pump it.  Again not a cop at all yet trains 1000's of them.  To me hes an expert.  To some here because he never sprayed a real bad guy hes not.  Your opinion but Id say your wrong


----------



## CNida

ballen0351 said:


> You can look at most things and say hmmmm that looks effective or hmmm that's silly.  If the foundation and principals are sound then it should work.  I say should because there is never a 100%.  You test it in class, you break it down and look at the fundamentals.  What you don't do is take my word for it because I tell u I tried it 10 times in real life and it works.
> Reverse that however just because I stand in font of the class and show you how I did a flying reverse 360 back kick transferred into a headlock and its awesome I did it in 50 bar fights and never lost does that mean your going to pull it off and it works?
> 
> Funny thing about the term expert is it really means nothing.  You can have 2 experts on the same topic give you totally opposite answers to the same problem.  I see it in court all the time.  You have your experts I have mine and we let the Jury decide who's experts are prettier and can entertain better.  So of this is an opinion argument anyway.
> 
> My example to Steve was an FBI analyst that studied 1000s of Officer murders and assault and teaches an Officer safety class on it.  To me he's an expert well to a lot of people hes an expert but to Steve hes not.  That's ok its his choice.  All an expert can do is give an opinion anyway.
> 
> Another Class I went to was with the head of the FBI's chemical agent program.  Dude knew more about OC Spray, CN , CS gas, Mace, you name it if its a chemical that hurts he knew about it.  Dudes not even in Law enforcement.  He was deputized as a US Marshall because he transports large amounts of chemical agents all over the country to teach but he has no police powers he has never used the stuff on a real bad guy.  He was at Waco however and the FBI trusted his Expertise to decide how much gas and where to pump it.  Again not a cop at all yet trains 1000's of them.  To me hes an expert.  To some here because he never sprayed a real bad guy hes not.  Your opinion but Id say your wrong



Youre absolutely right. There are different types of "experts". 

The guy you're talking about? I would argue that he does know what he is talking about if he really studied all that stuff. 

And to cite you're own point, you can never be 100% about anyones credibility. Even the expert who studied 1000s of cases.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## ballen0351

CNida said:


> Youre absolutely right. There are different types of "experts".
> 
> The guy you're talking about? I would argue that he does know what he is talking about if he really studied all that stuff.
> 
> And to cite you're own point, you can never be 100% about anyones credibility. Even the expert who studied 1000s of cases.
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> "A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


So Then you agree its possible to be an expert in something you have never done in real life.  Im not saying Real life exp. isn't good but its also not always a must.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Ok so how much.  And how do you know how much they really have?



More than zero is the answer.  Not none.   How much depends.   You're being obstinate on purpose, I think.  

Whether you can tell someone is an expert has nothing to do with whether they are one.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

CNida said:


> Youre absolutely right. There are different types of "experts".
> 
> The guy you're talking about? I would argue that he does know what he is talking about if he really studied all that stuff.
> 
> And to cite you're own point, you can never be 100% about anyones credibility. Even the expert who studied 1000s of cases.
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> "A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous



He knows the distinction between academic expertise and practical expertise.  He just won't admit it.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> He knows the distinction between academic expertise and practical expertise.  He just won't admit it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Dude an expert is an expert.  You said you can't be an expert without doing it for real.  That's a false statement.  Academic or practical your still an EXPERT


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> More than zero is the answer.  Not none.   How much depends.   You're being obstinate on purpose, I think.
> 
> Whether you can tell someone is an expert has nothing to do with whether they are one.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



No not at all I was responding to Rambo when he said once or Twice wwasn't good enough according to him.  You answered for him with a BS no answer.  And still refuse to answer which is your M.O.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Dude an expert is an expert.  You said you can't be an expert without doing it for real.  That's a false statement.  Academic or practical your still an EXPERT


This is the crux of it.  An expert is not an expert.  It's clear you think you've scored,some kind of victory, but I can't for the life of me figure out what you think you've won.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> No not at all I was responding to Rambo when he said once or Twice wwasn't good enough according to him.  You answered for him with a BS no answer.  And still refuse to answer which is your M.O.



Now you're just being petty.i answer every question you ask.  I just don't indulge your childish games.  Sorry.  False dichotomies and other logical fallacies don't do it for me, like they do for you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> This is the crux of it.  An expert is not an expert.  It's clear you think you've scored,some kind of victory, but I can't for the life of me figure out what you think you've won.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Oh see I didn't know an expert wasn't an expert it all makes sense now.  Lol whatever dude


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Now you're just being petty.i answer every question you ask.  I just don't indulge your childish games.  Sorry.  False dichotomies and other logical fallacies don't do it for me, like they do for you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Nothing false about it.  You said it takes actual experience to be an expert I asked how many and you have no answer.

So I'll ask you can a guy that's never been raped be an expert at rape prevention techniques?


----------



## CNida

ballen0351 said:


> So Then you agree its possible to be an expert in something you have never done in real life.  Im not saying Real life exp. isn't good but its also not always a must.



By the technical, dictionary definition? Yes.

Real life experience? No, not an absolute must. Just very highly preferred over the academic who is merely an observer of facts and records.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Nothing false about it.  You said it takes actual experience to be an expert I asked how many and you have no answer.
> 
> So I'll ask you can a guy that's never been raped be an expert at rape prevention techniques?



I do have an answer.  More than zero.  I ran this by my five year old and she gets it.  
 Dude, you can have the last word here, too.  It gets to a point where I really think you're just arguing for its own sake.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I do have an answer.  More than zero.  I ran this by my five year old and she gets it.
> Dude, you can have the last word here, too.  It gets to a point where I really think you're just arguing for its own sake.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



So 1. Got it

And you still didn't answer the rape question but that's no surprise


----------



## Dmar

ballen0351 said:


> You can look at most things and say hmmmm that looks effective or hmmm that's silly.  If the foundation and principals are sound then it should work.  I say should because there is never a 100%.  You test it in class, you break it down and look at the fundamentals.  What you don't do is take my word for it because I tell u I tried it 10 times in real life and it works.
> Reverse that however just because I stand in font of the class and show you how I did a flying reverse 360 back kick transferred into a headlock and its awesome I did it in 50 bar fights and never lost does that mean your going to pull it off and it works?
> 
> Funny thing about the term expert is it really means nothing.  You can have 2 experts on the same topic give you totally opposite answers to the same problem.  I see it in court all the time.  You have your experts I have mine and we let the Jury decide who's experts are prettier and can entertain better.  So of this is an opinion argument anyway.
> 
> My example to Steve was an FBI analyst that studied 1000s of Officer murders and assault and teaches an Officer safety class on it.  To me he's an expert well to a lot of people hes an expert but to Steve hes not.  That's ok its his choice.  All an expert can do is give an opinion anyway.
> 
> Another Class I went to was with the head of the FBI's chemical agent program.  Dude knew more about OC Spray, CN , CS gas, Mace, you name it if its a chemical that hurts he knew about it.  Dudes not even in Law enforcement.  He was deputized as a US Marshall because he transports large amounts of chemical agents all over the country to teach but he has no police powers he has never used the stuff on a real bad guy.  He was at Waco however and the FBI trusted his Expertise to decide how much gas and where to pump it.  Again not a cop at all yet trains 1000's of them.  To me hes an expert.  To some here because he never sprayed a real bad guy hes not.  Your opinion but Id say your wrong



Wasn't the fire @ Waco linked to they type of gas grenades used? Uh maybe should of listned to someone with real world experience.


----------



## Dmar

Dmar said:


> Wasn't the fire @ Waco linked to they type of gas grenades used? Uh maybe should of listned to someone with real world experience.





ballen0351 said:


> So 1. Got it
> 
> And you still didn't answer the rape question but that's no surprise



I already answered the rape question. I would have thought i demonstrated how truly dumb a question it was even to you, but you refuse to submit to reality.


----------



## ballen0351

Dmar said:


> Wasn't the fire @ Waco linked to they type of gas grenades used? .



No it wasnt


----------



## ballen0351

Dmar said:


> I already answered the rape question. I would have thought i demonstrated how truly dumb a question it was even to you, but you refuse to submit to reality.



Yeah I heard your reality.  Navy Seals and houses moms all need to do the same training and have the same needs for self defense.  That's some reality you live in.  Must be all the mentally unstable guys you fight everyday


----------



## Dmar

ballen0351 said:


> No it wasnt





renades at Waco

By Martin McLaughlin 27 August 1999

Officials of the FBI and Justice Department admitted Wednesday that tear gas grenades with potentially incendiary effect were used in the final assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas six years ago. The fire that erupted in the compound killed 80 members of the religious sect.

The admission marked an abrupt reversal after more than six years of adamant claims by officials from Attorney General Janet Reno on down that nothing done by the FBI and other federal agencies involved in the Waco siege could have caused the fire.

Yet again you prove that you do not know what you are talking about. I have made my point, the only person silly enough to believe that experience isn't needed for expertise is people who have no experience. Now try to reply with something solid instead of putting words in my mouth or coming off like a smug juvinile.


----------



## Dmar

re Early of Waco Tear Gas

1993 Lab Report Shows FBI Knew of Military Tear Gas Projectiles

By JOHN SOLOMON

.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Sept. 10) - A lab document that the Justice Department failed to give Congress discloses that the FBI knew within eight months of the fiery end of the Branch Davidian siege that military tear gas projectiles were used, The Associated Press has learned.

A key final page from a 49-page FBI lab report was turned over to the House Government Reform Committee this week, along with an internal Justice Department memo acknowledging it ''was not produced to Congress'' during the 1995 investigations into the tragedy near Waco, Texas.

The first 48 pages of the lab report, dated Dec. 6, 1993, had been turned over to lawmakers years ago, absent the mention of the military-style tear gas that government officials for years had denied using.

The 49th page, obtained Friday by AP, discloses that FBI investigators who examined the scene at Waco found a ''fired US military 40 mm shell casing which originally contained a CS gas round,'' and two ''expended 40mm tear gas projectiles.''

The report is likely to become a key piece of evidence in the independent inquiry ordered by Attorney General Janet Reno and separate congressional investigations into whether government officials tried to cover up the use of potentially incendiary tear gas on the final day of the siege.

Justice Department and FBI officials denied for years that such tear gas grenades were used on April 19, 1993, the day the Davidian compound went up in flames. They abruptly reversed course earlier this month and acknowledged a ''very limited number'' of such devices were fired hours before the fatal fire.

The government continues to maintain that religious sect members set the fire, and federal agents did not contribute to it. They have said the tear gas canisters bounced off a roof of a concrete bunker and into a field. Sect leader David Koresh and some 80 followers perished during a later blaze in a wooden structure away from the bunker.

Justice spokesman Myron Marlin said Friday night that former Republican Sen. John Danforth, who is heading an independent inquiry into Waco, will have to examine why the crucial page of the report did not reach Congress earlier. Marlin noted, however, that the page was properly turned over to lawyers in criminal and civil cases involving Waco survivors.

''Whether it was an adminstrative error is something that the special counsel will have to look at,'' he said. ''But we know that the plaintiff and defendants counsel received it.''

The lab report does not specifically state whether the gas in the shells was incendiary or when they had been fired. But the potentially flammable M651 tear gas canisters that the FBI belatedly acknowledged using on the final day of the siege are 40mm military shells like those described in the lab report.

The FBI has always acknowledged firing one other type of 40 mm round that contained nonflammable tear gas.

A Sept. 2, 1999 Justice Department memo on the history of the lab document notes that the department's document database ''contains multiple copies of this document, most of which contain all 49 pages.'' It said only four copies of the report were missing the last page.

''It appears that the page on which mention is made of a shell casing for a military CS round and the expended tear gas projectiles was not produced to Congress,'' trial attorney James G. Touhey Jr. wrote.

During congressional probes, the FBI would typically forward its documents to the Justice Department, which would then produce the documents to lawmakers.

Danforth, a former Missouri attorney general, was named Thursday to oversee the independent inquiry. He promised to investigate whether government officials were responsible for the fatal fire and tried to cover it up. Also Friday, congressional aides sifted through documents subpoenaed from the Texas Rangers dealing with the fiery end of the 51-day siege.

The documents were subpoenaed last week by the House Government Reform Committee and included a previously unreleased Rangers report on ordnance used by the FBI in the final hours of the siege, a congressional aide said.

Texas Department of Public Safety spokesman Tom Vinger, whose agency oversees the Rangers, said the report represents ''an extremely exhaustive look at some of the controversial evidence.''

''When you get right down to it, it is very narrow in focus,'' Vinger said. He declined to be more specific.

The Rangers, who have stored tons of evidence collected from the Davidians' charred compound, began re-examining their holdings in June after learning that military pyrotechnic tear gas canisters were fired in the siege's waning hours.

AP-NY-09-10-99 2000EDT


----------



## Dmar

ballen0351 said:


> No it wasnt



Not @ all linked huh??
Funny when you referenced an incident that occurred with a supposed expert with no experience you brought up one of the biggest failures of the FBI's history. Do you know any " experts" that didn't have any experience @ Ruby Ridge too?


----------



## ballen0351

Ha. OK buddy stop speaking of things you know nothing about.  I know people that were actually there


Although several of the surviving Branch Davidians insist that they did not start the fire, a panel of arson investigators concluded that the Davidians were responsible for igniting it, simultaneously, in at least three different areas of the compound. Unless they were deliberatley set, the probability of the three fires starting almost simultaneously was highly unlikely, according to fire experts. Furthermore, the videotapes show the use of accelerants that strongly increased the spread of the fire. Although one Branch Davidian stated that a FBI tank had tipped over a lantern, videotapes show that the tank had struck the building a minute and a half before the fire began. Also some of the surviving Davidians' clothing showed evidence of lighter fluid and other accelerants. In addition, FBI listening devices seemed to establish that the Davidians were overheard making statements such as, "Spread the fuel," some six hours before the fires began. (Joint Hearing of the Crime Subcommittee July 1995.)


----------



## ballen0351

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/topten2.html

Link didn't post


----------



## ballen0351

I've also fired the same 40mm gas rounds into houses on a few occasions and guess what no fire.  I have started a fire with a flash bang but not gas rounds.  Some gas rounds can cause fires it depends on the type but its rare


----------



## jks9199

I'm trying to figure out what several posts about the events at Waco have to do with whether or not you can be an expert...  Maybe we can pull this back on track?


----------



## Dmar

ballen0351 said:


> I've also fired the same 40mm gas rounds into houses on a few occasions and guess what no fire.  I have started a fire with a flash bang but not gas rounds.  Some gas rounds can cause fires it depends on the type but its rare


 
What? You have experience and that means you know what your talking about? Lol. Seems to me your making my arguement for me. I think you and everyone else know that if you don't have any experience all you got is theory and b.s. Heck that's pretty much what you just said in your last couple posts. Steve was right you just like to argue for arguements sake. I'm done.


----------



## ballen0351

Dmar said:


> What? You have experience and that means you know what your talking about? Lol. Seems to me your making my arguement for me. I think you and everyone else know that if you don't have any experience all you got is theory and b.s. Heck that's pretty much what you just said in your last couple posts. Steve was right you just like to argue for arguements sake. I'm done.



Ummm guess who taught me to use that equipment?  That expert that you claim isn't one.  So I was taught and instructed by a civilian Expert with no law enforcement experience.


----------



## ballen0351

Again it comes down to the word expert.  There is no expert licensing bureau.  So someone I consider an Expert you may not.  Someone you consider an expert I may not.  It all opinion.  If Steve believes only people that are experts are guys that have done it so be it that's his opinion to me that is not the case.  Dmar thinks you need lots of real world experience that's his opinion and using his standards I don't think there are any experts in self defense.  His opinion I think he's wrong.  That's my opinion


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Again it comes down to the word expert.  There is no expert licensing bureau.  So someone I consider an Expert you may not.  Someone you consider an expert I may not.  It all opinion.  If Steve believes only people that are experts are guys that have done it so be it that's his opinion to me that is not the case.  Dmar thinks you need lots of real world experience that's his opinion and using his standards I don't think there are any experts in self defense.  His opinion I think he's wrong.  That's my opinion


LOL.  Posts like this make it clear you don't understand my opinion, ballen.  but, dmar, I'd appreciate it if you let me speak for myself.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> LOL.  Posts like this make it clear you don't understand my opinion, ballen.  but, dmar, I'd appreciate it if you let me speak for myself.



Your opinion is just that an opinion.  You can't tell me who is and is not an expert. Its my opinion on who I consider an expert.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Your opinion is just that an opinion.  You can't tell me who is and is not an expert. Its my opinion on who I consider an expert.


You misunderstood again.  It's not that I think my opinion is more than an opinion.  It's that you don't understand what my opinion is.  I will usually take all the responsibility for that, because, after all, it falls to me to explain myself clearly.  But, damn.  Ballen, at some point, if you don't understand my position, it's on you.

Simply put, when you try to restate my opinion, it's very clear you don't get it.  And, frankly, I don't think you want to.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> You misunderstood again.  It's not that I think my opinion is more than an opinion.  It's that you don't understand what my opinion is.  I will usually take all the responsibility for that, because, after all, it falls to me to explain myself clearly.  But, damn.  Ballen, at some point, if you don't understand my position, it's on you.
> 
> Simply put, when you try to restate my opinion, it's very clear you don't get it.  And, frankly, I don't think you want to.



Your opinion is just different then mine.  The point is however there is no "expert" license or degree. There is no place you can go and register as an expert.   So if I consider someone to be an expert it doesn't matter if you agree or not they are still an expert to me.  So if I consider someone a self defense expert that has no real life use of what they teach your opinion doesn't matter.  In other words the title "expert" is nothing more then someone's opinion of you.  Like I'm an expert in street lvl drug sales but I've had defense lawyers challenge my expert standing in court and I've had them bring in other experts that disagree with my opinion.  The judge or jury then decides who's expert opinion carried more weight


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Your opinion is just different then mine.  The point is however there is no "expert" license or degree. There is no place you can go and register as an expert.   So if I consider someone to be an expert it doesn't matter if you agree or not they are still an expert to me.  So if I consider someone a self defense expert that has no real life use of what they teach your opinion doesn't matter.  In other words the title "expert" is nothing more then someone's opinion of you.  Like I'm an expert in street lvl drug sales but I've had defense lawyers challenge my expert standing in court and I've had them bring in other experts that disagree with my opinion.  The judge or jury then decides who's expert opinion carried more weight


Regarding licenses or degrees, this really depends.  There are all sorts of sanctioning bodies in various fields.  Whether it's a diploma, board certification, an endorsement, or some other documentation, there are a myriad of ways to demonstrate one's bone fides as an expert.  

The reason I find this topic so interesting within the martial arts community is that, to most, and particularly to the lay person outside of the MA community, a black belt is exactly this kind of endorsement as an expert.   Regardless of how one describes the black belt, or even what you believe a black belt to mean (or not mean), it is an indication to many that you are an "expert" in that style, particularly when you start selling your wares to the public.  "I'm Steve, and I'm going to teach you self defense."  "Really?  What are your credentials." "I'm a black belt in TKD and Shotokan Karate."  "Oh, wow.  You're a real expert."

The point I've been trying to make is that in most cases, I would argue that a black belt is NOT an indication of expertise in self defense, regardless of the style.  And, in some cases, it's not even an indication that one is an expert in the specific style.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Regarding licenses or degrees, this really depends.  There are all sorts of sanctioning bodies in various fields.  Whether it's a diploma, board certification, an endorsement, or some other documentation, there are a myriad of ways to demonstrate one's bone fides as an expert.
> 
> The reason I find this topic so interesting within the martial arts community is that, to most, and particularly to the lay person outside of the MA community, a black belt is exactly this kind of endorsement as an expert.   Regardless of how one describes the black belt, or even what you believe a black belt to mean (or not mean), it is an indication to many that you are an "expert" in that style, particularly when you start selling your wares to the public.  "I'm Steve, and I'm going to teach you self defense."  "Really?  What are your credentials." "I'm a black belt in TKD and Shotokan Karate."  "Oh, wow.  You're a real expert."
> 
> The point I've been trying to make is that in most cases, I would argue that a black belt is NOT an indication of expertise in self defense, regardless of the style.  And, in some cases, it's not even an indication that one is an expert in the specific style.


I agree with that just being a black belt doesn't mean anything in the grand sscheme of self defense expert.  I don't even consider a black belt as being an expert in that style.  You can get there for example Morio Higaonna in my opinion is an expert in Goju Ryu.  But even then other Goju guys may say no way.  I'd also consider him a self defense expert and I have no idea if he's ever used his Goju in real life.  I know I've been dropped to my knees in pain by him and I know his methods work so I don't need much more proof.


----------



## Tgace

Read this and see if you can find any parallels:

http://tomnichols.net/blog/2013/12/11/the-death-of-expertise/


----------



## Dmar

Tgace said:


> Read this and see if you can find any parallels:
> 
> http://tomnichols.net/blog/2013/12/11/the-death-of-expertise/




That certainly articulates things better than I ever could. Some of it reminds me of what Dr. Ron Chapel so often attempts to convey on the other forum. Everyone has an opinion but they are not equally valid. What is the ultimate testiment to credibility? Experience.


----------



## CNida

Dmar said:


> That certainly articulates things better than I ever could. Some of it reminds me of what Dr. Ron Chapel so often attempts to convey on the other forum. Everyone has an opinion but they are not equally valid. What is the ultimate testiment to credibility? Experience.



Well said, partner.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Dmar said:


> Everyone has an opinion but they are not equally valid. What is the ultimate testiment to credibility? Experience.


IMO, if one wants to participate in any open discussion, he should not depend on his age, number years of training to support his opinion. Instead, he should provide enough evidence. This is why I don't think to make your "age", "belt ranking (other forum does)" to appear in your post is a good idea.

It may be silly for a 60 years old to argue with a 20 years old, or a 7th degree black belt to argue with a white belt. But on internet, everybody are equal and all opinions are valid.


----------



## CNida

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, if one wants to participate in any open discussion, he should not depend on his age, number years of training to support his opinion. Instead, he should provide enough evidence. This is why I don't think to make your "age", "belt ranking (other forum does)" to appear in your post is a good idea.
> 
> It may be silly for a 60 years old to argue with a 20 years old, or a 7th degree black belt to argue with a white belt. But on internet, everybody are equal and all opinions are valid.



I can think of someone who will disagree with that.

It's not me though because I make a habit to remind people that I generally don't know much of anything when it comes to Martial Arts or self defense.

In the words of some that automatically makes anything that comes out of my mouth "wrong". 

Anyway, well said, and I agree.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## Tgace

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *But on internet*, everybody are equal and *all opinions are valid*.



:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU

MJS said:


> In the Sport and TMA...Again thread, (man that thread gets a lot of attention ) Chris and Steve were having an interesting debate and something that was said, caught my eye.
> 
> Steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> To which Chris replied:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does everyone think?  Can you become an expert or authority on SD, with no real world experience?  Sure, of course, one of the most effective tools of SD is avoidance.  Is there something you can potentially do to avoid a situation?  If you can avoid something altogether, you're better off.  Of course, in the perfect world, sometimes things aren't that easy, so physical skills are necessary.  But having experience in hands on skill, I feel is important.  Would you want to go in for surgery and know that you will be the first patient that this new doctor has ever worked on?  How about the pilot flying the plane you're on?  I'd like to know that my flight isn't this guys first solo flight. LOL.
> 
> I'd like to think that if we took 2 people, 1 with no experience at all, and then someone like Rory Miller, that it should be a no brainer.









From Aikikenjitsu
Yes you can teach a system of s-d and your student will be very effective in defending themselves. You must teach the system the proper way and then you will be teaching it like the way the Master put it together with his life experience.


----------



## drop bear

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> From Aikikenjitsu
> Yes you can teach a system of s-d and your student will be very effective in defending themselves. You must teach the system the proper way and then you will be teaching it like the way the Master put it together with his life experience.




How do you define effective in defending yourself?


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> How do you define effective in defending yourself?



When someone attacks you and you don't get killed or seriously hurt.


----------



## Balrog

MJS said:


> So, what does everyone think?  Can you become an expert or authority on SD, with no real world experience?



Every day that goes by that you don't get into a fight is real world experience of the finest kind.  You are controlling your environment and yourself.
Remember what Sun Tzu said:



> Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles
> is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists
> in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.


----------



## Steve

With the discussions ongoing regarding effective techniques and such, the term "expert" is being used again.  I continue to have concerns regarding the use of the term "expert" to include people who have little to no practical experience using the techniques that they teach.

While I will readily agree that a person can learn practical skills and prepare in classes using a variety of training modalities, including drills, scenarios and such, I really question whether someone can become an "expert" in self defense without extensive experience.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> With the discussions ongoing regarding effective techniques and such, the term "expert" is being used again.  I continue to have concerns regarding the use of the term "expert" to include people who have little to no practical experience using the techniques that they teach.
> 
> While I will readily agree that a person can learn practical skills and prepare in classes using a variety of training modalities, including drills, scenarios and such, I really question whether someone can become an "expert" in self defense without extensive experience.



Then by your definition, I'm an expert. But I sure don't consider myself one.


----------



## Steve

Expertise is relative.  Compared to someone with no practical experience, you are an expert.  Compared to someone with extensive practical experience, maybe not so much.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> Expertise is relative.  Compared to someone with no practical experience, you are an expert.  Compared to someone with extensive practical experience, maybe not so much.



Well, define "extensive practical experience"?


----------



## Aiki Lee

Steve said:


> With the discussions ongoing regarding effective techniques and such, the term "expert" is being used again.  I continue to have concerns regarding the use of the term "expert" to include people who have little to no practical experience using the techniques that they teach.



In your opinion would someone have to have shot and killed a man to be considered an expert marksman?



Steve said:


> While I will readily agree that a person can learn practical skills and prepare in classes using a variety of training modalities, including drills, scenarios and such, I really question whether someone can become an "expert" in self defense without extensive experience.



I believe with appropriate training you can have _expert knowledge_ in something without having to actually apply it in a real situation, but training conditions must address the reality of such situations based off the experiences of those who know or through appropriate research of those situations if you are going to claim "expertise" in the field.

For example I would trust that a heart surgeon who has never performed an operation before would have expert knowledge and would trust that knowledge, and he may even perfectly perform his first surgery. But an expert requires experience under real conditions.

I guess the question for me is can expertise be obtained through simulated conditions or must they be experienced through actual conditions?


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, define "extensive practical experience"?


As I said, it's relative.  More than zero would be a place to start.

in any field, there are those who come out of training and are, at best, consciously competent.  In other words, they can do the job (provided the training is solid) but aren't experts by any stretch.  Over time, applying the skills in context, these trainees become experts.  The difference is experience.  There are surgeons, and then there are the guys who have so much knowledge and accumulated expertise that other surgeons defer to them and learn from them. 

The key, though, is that experience comes AFTER training, applying skills learned in context.  Training cannot replace experience.


----------



## Steve

Himura Kenshin said:


> In your opinion would someone have to have shot and killed a man to be considered an expert marksman?


Of course not.  But being an expert marksman means just that.  Has anyone here been fired upon?  LEO or military or civilian?  If so, would you say that there is a practical difference between firing on the range and defending yourself while under fire?  I am guessing that there is a difference.   In the military I qualified with an M-16 and a 12 ga shot gun.  I never actually fired either in combat.  While pretty well trained, I think I would have been competent to do what needed to be done, I wouldn't want to be the guy teaching the class and certainly wouldn't claim to be an expert in military combat.

So, you bring up a great point.  It's really critical to understand what expertise you ACTUALLY have.  We're all experts in the things we do all the time.   I'm an expert at driving a stick shift in heavy traffic.  I grew up in Seattle, with lots of steep hills and very bad traffic.  I would have no reservations teaching other people how to drive a stick shift in tough conditions. 


> I believe with appropriate training you can have _expert knowledge_ in something without having to actually apply it in a real situation, but training conditions must address the reality of such situations based off the experiences of those who know or through appropriate research of those situations if you are going to claim "expertise" in the field.
> 
> For example I would trust that a heart surgeon who has never performed an operation before would have expert knowledge and would trust that knowledge, and he may even perfectly perform his first surgery. But an expert requires experience under real conditions.


Another great point.  There is such a thing as academic expertise.  Here on MT, we would call that person a keyboard warrior.  A historian can know a lot about midieval siege tactics without ever having laid siege to a castle.  But, can't we agree that knowing about it isn't the same as doing it?

Regarding the heart surgeon, in a pinch, with my life on the line, I'll take the heart surgeon who's never performed an actual surgery.  But I wouldn't consider him an expert.  That guy is a highly trained novice and I'm his first go.  Personally, I'd look for the guy who has successfully performed the specific surgery in question many times.  More is better.  Even better yet, I'd like to have the guy to whom other heart surgeons consult when they don't know what to do.  THAT guy is an expert among experts.


> I guess the question for me is can expertise be obtained through simulated conditions or must they be experienced through actual conditions?


Proficiency is not expertise.  One can become proficient with aptitude and sound training.  Expert?  I would say no.


----------



## Tgace

Don't you expect an "expert" mountaineer to have climbed a few mountains? I could teach you how to rappel, ascend a rope and tie knots....but I'm no mountaineer, let alone an expert one.


----------



## Paul_D

It's not how you define expert, it's how you define self defence.  Surely an expert in self defence is one who has never had to defend themselves becasue they have the knowledge to avoid dangerous people and dangerous situations and know how opportunist criminals select their victims, and can teach you how to avoid the body language they look for?

Self defence is not about fighting or physical techniques, self defence is about _avoiding_ situations which are dangerous, or dealing with them once they start, in such a way that they don't escalate to physical violence.

Physical techniques/fighting is what happens once your self defence has failed.  So if you have a self defence expert who has been in 15 street fights, he's the last person you I would want teaching me how to increase my personal safety, as he obviously doesn't have a clue becasue he keeps getting attacked.  Yes he can teach you violence, but being good at violence doesn't lessen the chance of you being attacked.  That's like learning how to cross the road form someone who has been run over 15 times.  The guy I want teaching me how to cross the road is the guy whose never been hit by a a car.

A self defence expert is someone who knows how  muggers select their victims, and can teach me what you need to do to avoid being selected by them as a victims, not the guy who doesn't have a clue but can teach me a knife disarm once it's too late and there si already a knife being pointed at you. 

I would say the Suzy Lamplaugh Trust has expert Self Defence advice, but it doesn't have any advice on physical techniques or fighting.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Paul_D said:


> It's not how you define expert, it's how you define self defence.



Did you actually read any of the thread? This discussion is about expertise, and what makes a person an expert. So yes, it is in point of fact _*exactly*_ about how you define expert.


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> It's not how you define expert, it's how you define self defence.  Surely an expert in self defence is one who has never had to defend themselves becasue they have the knowledge to avoid dangerous people and dangerous situations and know how opportunist criminals select their victims, and can teach you how to avoid the body language they look for?
> 
> Self defence is not about fighting or physical techniques, self defence is about _avoiding_ situations which are dangerous, or dealing with them once they start, in such a way that they don't escalate to physical violence.
> 
> Physical techniques/fighting is what happens once your self defence has failed.  So if you have a self defence expert who has been in 15 street fights, he's the last person you I would want teaching me how to increase my personal safety, as he obviously doesn't have a clue becasue he keeps getting attacked.  Yes he can teach you violence, but being good at violence doesn't lessen the chance of you being attacked.  That's like learning how to cross the road form someone who has been run over 15 times.  The guy I want teaching me how to cross the road is the guy whose never been hit by a a car.
> 
> A self defence expert is someone who knows how  muggers select their victims, and can teach me what you need to do to avoid being selected by them as a victims, not the guy who doesn't have a clue but can teach me a knife disarm once it's too late and there si already a knife being pointed at you.
> 
> I would say the Suzy Lamplaugh Trust has expert Self Defence advice, but it doesn't have any advice on physical techniques or fighting.


Over the course of this thread, I've said many times that the term "self defense" is so broad as to be unhelpful.  So, to an extent, I agree with you that how you define self defence matters a great deal.  There are a lot of problems that come about simply because people are using an abstract term to refer to something very specific.  "Self Defence" when they mean "situational awareness" or "de escalation techniques" or "how to fight x number of ninja in a dark alley."

I appreciate that you have shared what you have in mind when you think of self defence, and your definition seems very reasonable.  But that's not a shared definition.  When you look at a karate dojo or a krav maga school or a BJJ school and they advertise "Learn Self Defence," do you think they mean all of the things you mention above?  I'd say probably not.  They're probably advertising fighting skills with MAYBE an occasional lecture on not being a jerk and paying attention to what's going on around you.


----------



## Aiki Lee

So Steve, would it be accurate of me to say that you believe a person in any field no matter how knowledgeable or well trained should not be considered an expert because they have not performed their skills under real conditions?


----------



## drop bear

You would be an expert in exactly what you do. So a marksman is an expert marksman but not an expert killer. Who may find other ways to get bullets on target.


----------



## drop bear

Himura Kenshin said:


> So Steve, would it be accurate of me to say that you believe a person in any field no matter how knowledgeable or well trained should not be considered an expert because they have not performed their skills under real conditions?



in a field where you can perform the skills. I think a few endeavours are defined into theoretical experts and practical ones.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Yes, but not every expertly trained person is ever called to do what they were trained to do. So they have the skill but have not applied it. Are they experts because they have the skill or are they not experts because they have not performed the action under real world conditions?


----------



## Steve

Himura Kenshin said:


> So Steve, would it be accurate of me to say that you believe a person in any field no matter how knowledgeable or well trained should not be considered an expert because they have not performed their skills under real conditions?


Drop bear hit the nail on the head.   If I'm learning krav maga, I may be gaining skills that will help me to defend myself from an attack.  But I'm developing expertise in Krav Maga.  That's my area of expertise.  It's a fine distinction, but I think it's important, because there are guys who do Krav Maga who are bona fide experts in defense... and there are many who are not.  The difference is that the former had (through profession or bad luck or whatever) opportunities to apply the skills in context.  The latter did not.

Take a guy like Bas Rutten, who is well trained AND very experienced in all manner of violence from bouncing to bar fights to street brawls with multiple people to competitive violence in the form of combat sports.  He is trained, and his training helped him to defend himself.  But just as important, his experiences informed his training.  He knows what he knows because he is well trained AND because he has applied his training in a variety of contexts.   But even Bas Rutten should acknowledge that if he's training a LEO or a combat soldier, he can only teach him what he knows. 

If you train in a system, you are becoming an expert in that system.  You are developing skills and expertise in what you are doing.  And no more.


----------



## drop bear

Himura Kenshin said:


> Yes, but not every expertly trained person is ever called to do what they were trained to do. So they have the skill but have not applied it. Are they experts because they have the skill or are they not experts because they have not performed the action under real world conditions?



is there an example of that?


----------



## Steve

Himura Kenshin said:


> Yes, but not every expertly trained person is ever called to do what they were trained to do. So they have the skill but have not applied it. Are they experts because they have the skill or are they not experts because they have not performed the action under real world conditions?


You're right. Earlier in this thread, the idea of a pilot was brought up, specifically Capt. Sullenburger's miraculous landing in the Hudson.  Sulley is, I believe, an expert pilot.  An expert even among experts, I'd say.  

If Sulley opened a pilot school with no planes, but state of the art simulators, and started training pilots in his "system." Do you think that the pilots he trains would be competent to fly a plane?  Maybe so.  Honestly, their chances of being able to fly a plane would be pretty good, with Sulley teaching them.  Would they be expert pilots?  Would 20,000 hours in a simulator be able to replace 20,000 hours of actual flight time in a plane?  I don't think so. 

Now, what if Sulley retires and his students start opening schools and teaching others Sulley's flight system (flight school without planes, but with simulators).  Are they competent to do this?  I don't know.  Certainly, they are competent to teach the system, but are they competent to teach students to pilot a real plane?  I'd say the best answer is "maybe."  You can't say for sure that any of these guys, even the instructors, can actually fly a plane.  Why?  Because none of them has ever done it. 

So, even with that, sure, they might be able to fly a plane.  But are they experts?  I would say they are not.  And as each generation of student becomes instructor, I'd wager the odds of gaining practical, comprehensive instruction would go down. 

The model above is how almost every MA school is set up, regardless of style.


----------



## Steve

What's the main difference between the E-2 who just graduates from jump school, the E-4 who's been in the unit for a few years, and the E-5 or E-6 who runs the unit?  I'd say it's experience.  They have all had the same training.  The difference is that the longer you do something in real life, the more tacit knowledge you gain that just cannot be effectively taught in training.

For what it's worth, the tacit knowledge is the biggest piece of this puzzle.  It's everything that you learn by screwing things up and fixing them yourself.  It's the lessons learned, the rules of thumb, the "that's what the book says, but this way works better."  It's the reason you watch a home improvement show and think, 'That doesn't look hard," but make a giant mess when you try it yourself.


----------



## Aiki Lee

drop bear said:


> is there an example of that?



Supposed I'm trained in hostage negotiation. I undergo rigorous scenario training but never encounter a real hostage situation. Am I an expert because I have been trained to handle the situation if it arises or am I not an expert because it has not been done for real?

If the answer is the later, then how many times do I need to put my skills into practice in reality before I would be considered an expert? All crisis situations are different and what worked in one case may not work in another so the experiences obtained in one situation may not carry over ot the other.


----------



## Blindside

Himura Kenshin said:


> Supposed I'm trained in hostage negotiation. I undergo rigorous scenario training but never encounter a real hostage situation. Am I an expert because I have been trained to handle the situation if it arises or am I not an expert because it has not been done for real?
> 
> If the answer is the later, then how many times do I need to put my skills into practice in reality before I would be considered an expert? All crisis situations are different and what worked in one case may not work in another so the experiences obtained in one situation may not carry over ot the other.


 
I think that if you have been well trained but never put your stuff to the test, you would have a hard time calling yourself "competent."  How do you know you are good at this if you have never had to face the fire once, what if you fall apart under stress?  In the autobiography of Saburo Satai, one of the leading Japanese ace pilots of WWII, he talks about how during his first "kill" he would have been easy meat for his target because he got overly target fixated and did a number of stupid mistakes, what saved him was his more experienced wingmen who kept his target from turning on him.  He was an expertly trained pilot, but he wasn't an expert at that stage. 

One story I have heard (probably apocryphal) was that one of the reasons that the "ace" was set at 5 kills was because that is about the point where your training overcomes your instincts.


----------



## Tgace

Himura Kenshin said:


> Supposed I'm trained in hostage negotiation. I undergo rigorous scenario training but never encounter a real hostage situation. Am I an expert because I have been trained to handle the situation if it arises or am I not an expert because it has not been done for real?
> 
> If the answer is the later, then how many times do I need to put my skills into practice in reality before I would be considered an expert? All crisis situations are different and what worked in one case may not work in another so the experiences obtained in one situation may not carry over ot the other.


If you were that no Police Department would send officers to you for training...


----------



## Buka

"Expert" is a term of language, and kind of hard to pin down to one definition. In police work, if we were to bring in someone to teach, the word "expert" would not, has not, ever come up. You would bring in whoever it was you were bringing in, they would be known and accepted as a teacher by the profession you were part of. 

They would have extensive experience in the field with a record that reflected it. Most important, they would know how to teach. There's a whole lot of tough guys in police work, but most can't teach worth a damn. They can handle most everything in dangerous and violent situations, and they can do it well within the confines of the law, but they really couldn't show *you* _how_..... Are they "experts"?  Damned if I know. 
(I'm well aware of the term "expert witness", but that's in court, not on the street. Besides, it's pretty much an occupation these days.)

And, we, the guys that teach officers the things that will or will not save their lives, take that very seriously and are the ones who pick specialists to come in, as guests, to teach. Never heard them called experts. I think it's always a good idea to ask teachers/instructors "I want the best there is on the subject, who do I want?" If a dozen of them point to one guy, it's a safe bet we'll be looking at that guy first. Expert? Yeah, probably so.

Same thing in Martial Arts. If I ask ten under-belts to give me the name of an expert fighter I'll probably get different answers than I'd get from ten black belts. Ask the same question of ten professional fighters, probably going to get some different answers there as well. 

Personally, I'd rather listen to the fighters.


----------



## Paul_D

Dirty Dog said:


> Did you actually read any of the thread? This discussion is about expertise, and what makes a person an expert. So yes, it is in point of fact _*exactly*_ about how you define expert.


The point of the thread was to discuss the two differing opinions.  One stated that you cannot be a self defence expert without practical experience. 

My counter argument is that someone who has experienced lots of violence isn't an expert in self defence, as they clearly do not know how to avoid it, they are just an expert in violence.

My point is you need to define what is self defence before you can then define what an expert in it is.  Is a self defence expert someone with practical experience of numerous violent street encounters, or someone who has never had anyone becasue they know how to avoid them?

But thank you for implying I am some sort of idiot who just comments on threads without knowing what they are about, and thank you for completely ignoring (or completely missing) my point.  That was very helpful, and added greatly to the discussion.


----------



## Paul_D

Steve said:


> When you look at a karate dojo or a krav maga school or a BJJ school and they advertise "Learn Self Defence," do you think they mean all of the things you mention above?  I'd say probably not.  They're probably advertising fighting skills with MAYBE an occasional lecture on not being a jerk and paying attention to what's going on around you.


They don't mean the those things no you're correct, but putting Self Defence on your website is more to do with getting people through the door through I would say.


----------



## Steve

Absolutely agree, Paul.  Thing is, there are a lot of people around here, on these boards, and in martial arts in general who purport to be experts in "self defence" and are really experts in a system.   They're students of a system and the system says that they're "self defence" experts.

If when asked about your experience, you can only reference your years of training and that's it, you are not an expert in self defence, in my opinion.  This would go for pretty much any other thing as well.  Violence. Can you be an expert on reality based violence if you have no actual experience with it?  Can you be an expert on de-escalation if you are not routinely in a position to de-escalate potentially violent encounters?


----------



## Jaeimseu

Paul_D said:


> My point is you need to define what is self defence before you can then define what an expert in it is.  Is a self defence expert someone with practical experience of numerous violent street encounters, or someone who has never had anyone becasue they know how to .


The problem here is that it's impossible to know the reason that the "expert" has never had to defend him/herself. If that is the criteria, I am a self-defense expert. So is my younger sister who has received no training of any kind.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Paul_D said:


> The point of the thread was to discuss the two differing opinions.  One stated that you cannot be a self defence expert without practical experience.
> 
> My counter argument is that someone who has experienced lots of violence isn't an expert in self defence, as they clearly do not know how to avoid it, they are just an expert in violence.
> 
> My point is you need to define what is self defence before you can then define what an expert in it is.  Is a self defence expert someone with practical experience of numerous violent street encounters, or someone who has never had anyone becasue they know how to avoid them?
> 
> But thank you for implying I am some sort of idiot who just comments on threads without knowing what they are about, and thank you for completely ignoring (or completely missing) my point.  That was very helpful, and added greatly to the discussion.



OK, valid point. I'd still disagree. You can be an expert in self defense by any definition of self defense. But only if you define what an expert is.

Personally, I think both definitions are far too nebulous for there to ever be an answer.


----------



## Steve

Jaeimseu said:


> The problem here is that it's impossible to know the reason that the "expert" has never had to defend him/herself. If that is the criteria, I am a self-defense expert. So is my younger sister who has received no training of any kind.


Very interesting point!  My first thought was that training is often also critical to developing expertise.  Once again, take Bas Rutten as an example.  As I said before, Bas Rutten is both experienced AND well trained. I'm not suggesting that experience alone can supplant quality training.  Rather, that the two are both important ingredients. 

That said, of those two, I can envision an expert who has no formal training (however rare he or she might be), but I cannot envision an expert who has no practical experience.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> OK, valid point. I'd still disagree. You can be an expert in self defense by any definition of self defense. But only if you define what an expert is.
> 
> Personally, I think both definitions are far too nebulous for there to ever be an answer.


Defining "expert" can be tricky.  We know that an expert is an authority on something.  They are a resource for others.  

But learning is a spectrum upon which expertise falls.  Earlier in the thread, I mentioned Bloom's Taxonomy: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation. 

Training gets you somewhere in or around the gap between comprehension and application.  Excellent training may get you into rudimentary application, but can't take you much further.  But as you move past "application" you are in the stages of expertise.

The point is that we do know that there are some things that must be present in order for someone to be an expert.  Experience is one of those thing.  All experts are experienced, but not everyone with experience is an expert.  how much experience really depends, and c an be relative.  How many times must someone use the skills in context to be an expert?  I'd say it depends, but certainly more than one. 

Capt. Sullenburger is certainly an expert pilot.  But is he an expert crash lander?  Maybe.  He's done it once with good results.


----------



## Buka

Tgace said:


> Read this and see if you can find any parallels:
> 
> The Death of Expertise The War Room



That was really good. And so germane to this thread. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## Tez3

Buka said:


> That was really good. And so germane to this thread. Thanks for posting that.



A very good article indeed. Thanks from me too.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> For what it's worth, the tacit knowledge is the biggest piece of this puzzle.  It's everything that you learn by screwing things up and fixing them yourself.  It's the lessons learned, the rules of thumb, the "that's what the book says, but this way works better."



I don't think there's an expert in the world, in any field, that would argue that.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> For what it's worth, the tacit knowledge is the biggest piece of this puzzle.  It's everything that you learn by screwing things up and fixing them yourself.  It's the lessons learned, the rules of thumb, the "that's what the book says, but this way works better."



Then the book is screwed up and needs to be corrected.


----------



## Buka

Dirty Dog said:


> Then the book is screwed up and needs to be corrected.



I think it's in the "Man plans, God laughs" line of thinking. 

I'm sure there's many that didn't "go by the book" and regretted it, lost their jobs, or died. (know some)

I'm just as sure there's many (especially experts - oh, there's that word again!) that didn't "go by the book" in some unusual circumstances and survived, also saved the day, and saved lives...including their own. (know some)

D Dog, from reading all you've contributed over the years, I know that you know how to adapt and think on the fly, especially under stress in hairy situations. My guess is you've been outside the box and nailed it. And I'll bet you didn't even think about it.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Buka said:


> D Dog, from reading all you've contributed over the years, I know that you know how to adapt and think on the fly, especially under stress in hairy situations. My guess is you've been outside the box and nailed it. And I'll bet you didn't even think about it.



Sure. But I'm in a field where 'the book' is only an estimate. But I still think 'the book' needs to be updated.


----------



## Buka

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure. But I'm in a field where 'the book' is only an estimate. But I still think 'the book' needs to be updated.



I hear you, brother. Ain't that the truth. Probably should be a constant.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure. But I'm in a field where 'the book' is only an estimate. But I still think 'the book' needs to be updated.



It depends. What may work for you may not work for me.

rule of thirds


----------



## drop bear

Not the photography rule. The schizophrenia treatment rule.

Schizophrenia Treatment Without Antipsychotic Drugs - Mombu the Medicine Forum


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure. But I'm in a field where 'the book' is only an estimate. But I still think 'the book' needs to be updated.


Do you think _in any_ field, the book is more than an estimate?  When you start getting into skill sets and broader categories of expertise, I don't think so.  Even academics disagree fundamentally on issues.  In any complex skill set there is plenty of room for interpretation and decision making.  The quality of your interpretations and the wisdom of the decisions you make are a function of your training coupled with your experience.  Particularly in a crisis of any kind.

Or more to the issue, do you think that "the book" can entirely replace hands on experience?  I don't.  I believe that "the book" (i.e. training) does two things.  First, it prepares you for the hands on experience... gets you ready to do the thing.  And second, in some cases, training can occur after a period of time to further inform your experiences.  I don't think "the book" can ever replace experience.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Let me pose this question:

If a person with substantial experience teaches all he knows to a person with no experience can the person with no actual experience be an expert because his knowledge is based off the experiences of others?


----------



## Steve

Himura Kenshin said:


> Let me pose this question:
> 
> If a person with substantial experience teaches all he knows to a person with no experience can the person with no actual experience be an expert because his knowledge is based off the experiences of others?


Because we're specifically discussing a physical activity (self defense), can we agree that you are not referring to "academic" expertise?  We're talking about physically doing the thing.  Right?

With that, I think your premise is flawed.  A person cannot possibly teach all he knows.  There is so much we learn by doing that cannot be quantified.  I mentioned "tacit" knowledge before, and that is precisely the concern.  I think if you take a few minutes to read the link (or do your own research) on tacit knowledge, you'll understand where I'm coming from. 

A person with substantial experience might certainly train a person to a level of competent novice.  A person with substantial experience might also be able to create a system that can be taught by others, but I would argue that any competent instructor should independently cultivate their own expertise through experience.


----------



## Buka

Himura Kenshin said:


> Let me pose this question:
> 
> If a person with substantial experience teaches all he knows to a person with no experience can the person with no actual experience be an expert because his knowledge is based off the experiences of others?



No.


----------



## drop bear

Himura Kenshin said:


> Let me pose this question:
> 
> If a person with substantial experience teaches all he knows to a person with no experience can the person with no actual experience be an expert because his knowledge is based off the experiences of others?



I would judge it by this method.

Steps of the Scientific Method

So mabye. If you can show where the experiments have been done you could show a version of academic expertise.

But in general if you have missed those steps then not really.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Steve said:


> With that, I think your premise is flawed.  A person cannot possibly teach all he knows.  There is so much we learn by doing that cannot be quantified.  I mentioned "tacit" knowledge before, and that is precisely the concern.  I think if you take a few minutes to read the link (or do your own research) on tacit knowledge, you'll understand where I'm coming from.
> 
> A person with substantial experience might certainly train a person to a level of competent novice.  A person with substantial experience might also be able to create a system that can be taught by others, but I would argue that any competent instructor should independently cultivate their own expertise through experience.



From the wiki article "Some examples of daily activities and tacit knowledge are: riding a bike, playing the piano, driving a car, and hitting a nail with a hammer".
Tacit knowledge seems to imply that you do not learn some things without actually doing them, but in self-defense or martial arts you gain tacit knowledge through training under the guidance of someone who knows how it should be done. I would say that it would be impossible to perfectly recreate a self-defense situation one may have encountered in the past, but a teacher can replicate it well enough that I believe the scenario would be comparable to the real application. By guiding the student the teacher should encourage the student's own tacit knowledge by pointing out errors and making corrections until the student gains intuitive skill in the task being mastered.

Physical skills need to be developed in the person and tested, but expertise in these skills can be cultivated in others by those who came before. Isn't that the who purpose of training in the first place?



Buka said:


> No.



And that is because why exactly? I'm not saying your wrong; I would simply like to know your reasoning.



drop bear said:


> I would judge it by this method.
> 
> Steps of the Scientific Method
> 
> So mabye. If you can show where the experiments have been done you could show a version of academic expertise.
> 
> But in general if you have missed those steps then not really.



Can conditions ever be controlled enough to really do the scientific method justice for self-defense or martial arts? I would say a firm understanding of basic physics and human behavior would be more reliable in determining if something would work or not. The scientific method as it is meant to be used would be ideal, but I believe impossible to truly implement without serious flaws.


----------



## drop bear

Himura Kenshin said:


> From the wiki article "Some examples of daily activities and tacit knowledge are: riding a bike, playing the piano, driving a car, and hitting a nail with a hammer".
> Tacit knowledge seems to imply that you do not learn some things without actually doing them, but in self-defense or martial arts you gain tacit knowledge through training under the guidance of someone who knows how it should be done. I would say that it would be impossible to perfectly recreate a self-defense situation one may have encountered in the past, but a teacher can replicate it well enough that I believe the scenario would be comparable to the real application. By guiding the student the teacher should encourage the student's own tacit knowledge by pointing out errors and making corrections until the student gains intuitive skill in the task being mastered.
> 
> Physical skills need to be developed in the person and tested, but expertise in these skills can be cultivated in others by those who came before. Isn't that the who purpose of training in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> And that is because why exactly? I'm not saying your wrong; I would simply like to know your reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> Can conditions ever be controlled enough to really do the scientific method justice for self-defense or martial arts? I would say a firm understanding of basic physics and human behavior would be more reliable in determining if something would work or not. The scientific method as it is meant to be used would be ideal, but I believe impossible to truly implement without serious flaws.



i have a cage pads,gloves and a bunch of guys willing to bash me. It can test a fair bit of that basic physics.

Otherwise you are playing Chinese whispers a bit. And relying on what feels intuitive.

And that is not expertise.


----------



## Steve

Himura Kenshin said:


> From the wiki article "Some examples of daily activities and tacit knowledge are: riding a bike, playing the piano, driving a car, and hitting a nail with a hammer".
> Tacit knowledge seems to imply that you do not learn some things without actually doing them, but in self-defense or martial arts you gain tacit knowledge through training under the guidance of someone who knows how it should be done. I would say that it would be impossible to perfectly recreate a self-defense situation one may have encountered in the past, but a teacher can replicate it well enough that I believe the scenario would be comparable to the real application. By guiding the student the teacher should encourage the student's own tacit knowledge by pointing out errors and making corrections until the student gains intuitive skill in the task being mastered.
> 
> Physical skills need to be developed in the person and tested, but expertise in these skills can be cultivated in others by those who came before. Isn't that the who purpose of training in the first place?


the thing about tacit knowledge is that it cannot be taught.   That's the entire point.   There are a gazillion (roughly) things one learns through experience that are taken for granted... Things you don't even know that you know.

Training in bjj might make you capable of defending yourself, but a bjj black belt would not make you an expert in anything other than bjj.   You're right that the student is gaining experience, but the experience is in the system of training.  The student is becoming, if anything, an expert student in that system.  A black belt , or an instructor badge or whatever, is recognition of expertise in the system.  

Someone earlier said that "self defense" was a term used to get people through the door.   I agree.   There are people on this forum and throughout the martial arts world making a living teaching self defense, despite having little to no experience on the subject.  Would certainly affect their bottom line if their students understood this.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Aiki Lee

drop bear said:


> i have a cage pads,gloves and a bunch of guys willing to bash me. It can test a fair bit of that basic physics.
> 
> Otherwise you are playing Chinese whispers a bit. And relying on what feels intuitive.
> 
> And that is not expertise.



I agree with that. Testing under pressure is required to keep training honest and on the right track.


Steve said:


> the thing about tacit knowledge is that it cannot be taught.   That's the entire point.   There are a gazillion (roughly) things one learns through experience that are taken for granted... Things you don't even know that you know.
> 
> Training in bjj might make you capable of defending yourself, but a bjj black belt would not make you an expert in anything other than bjj.   You're right that the student is gaining experience, but the experience is in the system of training.  The student is becoming, if anything, an expert student in that system.  A black belt , or an instructor badge or whatever, is recognition of expertise in the system.
> 
> Someone earlier said that "self defense" was a term used to get people through the door.   I agree.   There are people on this forum and throughout the martial arts world making a living teaching self defense, despite having little to no experience on the subject.  Would certainly affect their bottom line if their students understood this.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I agree with this statement.


----------



## Buka

Himura Kenshin said:


> And that is because why exactly? I'm not saying your wrong; I would simply like to know your reasoning.



No worries about saying I'm wrong, brother, I'm married. I'm _always_ wrong.

Do you drive a car? Driving needs to be taught - then constantly repeated. Sure, anyone can watch someone else do it and mimic the basics, or read about it or watch a video and figure out how to get a car going in the direction you want. But real driving is different, especially when it involves many other cars, all of which are moving at sixty miles an hour, many of which are driven by idiots.

Let's say a person has been driving for a year, and is pretty good at it (for a rookie), but has been doing it only in southern California or Florida. Send them north, put them in snow. Especially, _different kinds of snow._ Suddenly, it's like they've never driven before, especially if you put them in a different car. Besides not being familiar with how your car behaves on crazy, slippery surfaces, you'll have no frame of reference to recognize potential mistakes that OTHER drivers are making, all of which are going to impact you. These things take hands-on experience to learn.

Let's up the ante a bit. You've been driving for five years, in all kinds of weather and gotten pretty good for the feel of your car, maybe even several different cars that you've driven. It's all good because driving is driving. 
Now - put yourself in a racing car, on a banked track, racing against professionals all of whom cruise at a hundred and fifty miles an hour. You can read about it all you want, someone can teach you about it all you want - it won't matter.

Do you play golf or billiards? Do you play well? How long did that take? There are certain finesses of movement that cannot be taught in any other manner other than experiencing them yourself over a considerable amount of time.

Do you roll? (free grappling) Do you contact spar? Especially with people better than you? And with people of varying weights and strength? No matter how much me or anyone else coaches you in the best way - it doesn't matter, you have to do it a LOT before you have a clue as to which way is up. And I mean a real lot.

Can you juggle? How was that at the beginning?  Do you shoot? Archery? Throw any projectiles? (pitching, bowling, football, basketball etc) Coaching, technique and study are all well and good, but you have to put in the years of actually doing it, and doing it properly. At least to do it on a high level.

Remember the first time you were intimate with another? (I think we can pretty much leave that one right there.)


----------



## Tgace

Buka said:


> No worries about saying I'm wrong, brother, I'm married. I'm _always_ wrong.
> 
> Do you drive a car? Driving needs to be taught - then constantly repeated. Sure, anyone can watch someone else do it and mimic the basics, or read about it or watch a video and figure out how to get a car going in the direction you want. But real driving is different, especially when it involves many other cars, all of which are moving at sixty miles an hour, many of which are driven by idiots.
> 
> Let's say a person has been driving for a year, and is pretty good at it (for a rookie), but has been doing it only in southern California or Florida. Send them north, put them in snow. Especially, _different kinds of snow._ Suddenly, it's like they've never driven before, especially if you put them in a different car. Besides not being familiar with how your car behaves on crazy, slippery surfaces, you'll have no frame of reference to recognize potential mistakes that OTHER drivers are making, all of which are going to impact you. These things take hands-on experience to learn.
> 
> Let's up the ante a bit. You've been driving for five years, in all kinds of weather and gotten pretty good for the feel of your car, maybe even several different cars that you've driven. It's all good because driving is driving.
> Now - put yourself in a racing car, on a banked track, racing against professionals all of whom cruise at a hundred and fifty miles an hour. You can read about it all you want, someone can teach you about it all you want - it won't matter.
> 
> Do you play golf or billiards? Do you play well? How long did that take? There are certain finesses of movement that cannot be taught in any other manner other than experiencing them yourself over a considerable amount of time.
> 
> Do you roll? (free grappling) Do you contact spar? Especially with people better than you? And with people of varying weights and strength? No matter how much me or anyone else coaches you in the best way - it doesn't matter, you have to do it a LOT before you have a clue as to which way is up. And I mean a real lot.
> 
> Can you juggle? How was that at the beginning?  Do you shoot? Archery? Throw any projectiles? (pitching, bowling, football, basketball etc) Coaching, technique and study are all well and good, but you have to put in the years of actually doing it, and doing it properly. At least to do it on a high level.
> 
> Remember the first time you were intimate with another? (I think we can pretty much leave that one right there.)



I have made an "experience analogy" to rock climbing in other posts on this subject that is similar:

_A while back I was involved in a debate over whether a martial arts instructor with “combat experience” (had been in fights) was superior to an instructor who had not. The debate raged between camps that argued that martial arts had already been “combat tested” through the centuries so it was the arts techniques that mattered, not the fighting experience of the instructor. Others stood on the premise that it was “the dog in the fight” that mattered. They said that the instructors experience gave him more insight in how to transmit the arts fighting skills. I argued that “Real world fighting experience” was a necessity when developing or advancing a new fighting system; as the focus of any system of combat should be “combat effectiveness”. But I added that it wasn’t “necessary” that the person teaching that system had to have used the techniques himself to be a valid instructor.

I made an analogy of the relationship between “combat experience” and martial arts instruction to a sport I used to participate in…rock climbing.

Climbing is a very technical sport. There are specific physical techniques for climbing different features and various ways to use your hands and feet to adhere to the rock. Beyond using your body, there are ropes and knots. There’s hardware with specific uses and precise applications; carabineers, descenders, cams+chocks, harnesses, chalk, webbing and on and on. Many climbers (me) start by top roping (rope goes from ground to top and back to climber, so you don’t fall more than a few feet) or gym climbing. This is a safe environment where you can practice technique, train with gear and even compete. Many climbers never leave this level and that’s OK, it’s as close to a real cliff as you can get without a real cliff. The skills built here can be applied to the “real thing”. Most walls are 50′-100′.

“Real” rock climbing is called lead climbing. A length of rope connects two climbers. One climbs up placing anchors and clipping the rope through them as he goes. The length of fall depends on how far back your last anchor is and if it holds. Once the rope runs out the leader sets up an anchor system called a belay and the second climber climbs up, removing the anchors and the system repeats. I’ve climbed faces as high as 800′-900′ and those are on the small side of average.

The first time I “lead” a climb, it was an eye-opener…. I had the technical skills; I knew the ropework, the knots, and the gear placement techniques. I could climb gym routes 2-3 grades higher than the cliff I was on BUT…. I could die here, I was getting way up, I was getting scared, my physical technique was degrading, I was clinging and scrambling more than I was climbing, I was slapping in anchors as quick as I could (OK was good enough, #@$% perfect). I learned that some techniques I could pull off in the gym I couldn’t do (yet) on the face so I tossed them. Many times I “just did things” without thought, sometimes there were moments of “wow I actually planned to do that and I did”. I did it though and made it to the top.

Did the gym training help? Couldn’t have done without it. Did it apply on the cliff? Yep. Did “real” climbing improve my technique? That is a qualified “yes”, yes in the sense that it gave me a better grasp on what I had to work on back in the gym. It gave me a different perspective on what my training produced and my “real” (current) ability to apply what I learned. Was the “real” climbing “necessary”? Obviously no. I did my first climb successfully with what I had. If I lived near real cliffs and could climb on them regularly I probably could have improved my technique with constant practice on them, if I survived. Did “real” climbing give me more clout in teaching a new climber? Not really, there are many climbers WAY better than me in the gym and on the cliff , BUT…I think I could give a new climber a better grasp on what the “real” thing is like and what he should know, at a minimum, to reach the top than a gym only climber. I would advise him to get better training on technique than I could provide though.

Now an analogy can’t be perfect in all its facets. I chose to climb, it wasn't something I was forced into or would rather have avoided like a fight. But this is as close to an explanation of “experience counts” as I can make right now.
_
Of course the topic here is about YOU needing experience or not in order to accomplish a physical task like climbing or fighting vs. claiming "expertise" to teach a subject, but I thought this would be an interesting point to interject.


----------



## tkdwarrior

Steve said:


> With the discussions ongoing regarding effective techniques and such, the term "expert" is being used again.  I continue to have concerns regarding the use of the term "expert" to include people who have little to no practical experience using the techniques that they teach.
> 
> While I will readily agree that a person can learn practical skills and prepare in classes using a variety of training modalities, including drills, scenarios and such, I really question whether someone can become an "expert" in self defense without extensive experience.


A friend once said "What is an advanced technique? An advanced technique is a perfected basic tecnique."

You "master" a technique until it becomes second nature and hopefully you are able to use it in a high stress situation.  That is why you drill it and drill it ad infinitum.

Then you become an expert of the technique. 

Now if you define an expert as one who teaches a fighting skill but has never fought...well there might be some truth to that but it does not mean that he has no capabilities.

And for me the greatest skill/expertise is winning a fight without ever fighting......


----------



## Buka

I started training in 1970. We would look at our instructor, and all the other instructors we'd meet at tournaments, seminars and such, as "experts". 

But that was 1970. The first Martial Arts school in the United States opened in 1946. If someone was there from the git-go they'd have 24 years experience by 1970.

Today, I must know a hundred guys with over thirty or forty or fifty years experience, you probably do, too. Maybe we know more "experts" than we realize.


----------



## Tez3

*This is not for political discussion* *but an awful example of an 'expert' who got it terribly wrong*. A man widely accepted as an expert makes a lot of erroneous statements, _which to be fair he did retract_ but it should shake your faith, if you have any, in 'experts'. It happens to be a rather contentious issue he's discussing but that's not my point. My point is that he didn't actually know what he was talking about but went on to say something anyway. A lot of people are self professed experts._ 
Btw the twitter comments are very funny, there's a lot online too._
Video Fox News terror expert says everyone in Birmingham is a Muslim - Telegraph


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> *This is not for political discussion* *but an awful example of an 'expert' who got it terribly wrong*. A man widely accepted as an expert makes a lot of erroneous statements, _which to be fair he did retract_ but it should shake your faith, if you have any, in 'experts'. It happens to be a rather contentious issue he's discussing but that's not my point. My point is that he didn't actually know what he was talking about but went on to say something anyway. A lot of people are self professed experts._
> Btw the twitter comments are very funny, there's a lot online too._
> Video Fox News terror expert says everyone in Birmingham is a Muslim - Telegraph


I appreciate the note, Tez3.  This brings up some interesting food for thought.  I don't know a lot about this guy, Steve Emerson.  Whatever his credentials on the topic of terrorism, he doesn't seem to be an expert on the UK. 

It seems to me that one lesson to be learned here is that expertise in one area doesn't make you an expert in all areas.  This can go right back to the earlier points made about the distinction between being a martial arts expert and a bona fide expert on real world violence (in general or within a specific context).  It is pretty easy for a 3rd degree black belt in a style of martial arts to begin pontificating on real world self defense without having any experience.  And to a lay person, they may be pretty darned convincing.


----------



## Matt Bryers

Hello all, I am new here, saw this post and had some thoughts on "expert" martial artists.

In my opinion the world "expert" is thrown around too much.  And from the outside looking in - most of you all would be considered experts by general civilians or people who don't train. 

But - to call yourself an "expert" I think is poor-conduct.

Again, IMO - a martial artist is someone who never happy with their current "state".  We're always looking to improve, enhance our skills, become more efficient and discover new concepts.  

My current "mantra" or thought process is: "The More I Know... The More I Suck".  Meaning, that I see martial arts as that a mountain that has no peak.  If any of you have ever done backpacking, you'll know the feeling that once you feel that you're actually getting to the top, you realize that there's SO much more to go.  Martial arts is the same.  Once I have developed a skill-set, it now opens up a whole other area of learning.

So - for me, if someone calls themselves "an expert" - I tune out.  If someone calls me or I refer to someone else as an expert - it's a compliment, but not something I would use for myself.  

I think "Professional" is a better word.  This means that I hold MYSELF to a higher-standard and act professionally in my school, with my students, with my training partners and in my life.  I do not mean "professional" fighter.  If you ever have read the book "The War of Art" (not "Art of War").  There is a good chapter in there about being a "Professional".

------------ sorry for the long post!


----------



## Steve

Great post, Matt!  Are there people whom you would consider "expert" in a field?  I think you make a great point about self perception and a drive for incremental and consistent improvement.  It might be bad form to refer to oneself as an expert.  But, isn't it just as poor form to knowingly fail to acknowledge the expertise of another?

I'm also very interested in your thoughts on the original question.  Do you think it's possible to be an expert in something you've never done?


----------



## drop bear

The funniest thing about the one guy i would consider an expert in martial arts is he knows so much about the subject that he cant be certain he is right.


----------



## Matt Bryers

Thanks Steve! 

To be completely honest, I don't think you can be proficient in self-defense or combatives without real world experience or fighting experience.  I spent 9 years working at a the top night club in Hartford, CT. Without that experience, I don't think I would understand the true... Chaos of actual combat. Nor would I be able to understand the fear that is involved and learning how to control and use that fear.  That understanding has better helped teach my students and get them trained. I also work with Police officers and SWAT team(s). And if you've ever worked with them you better know what you're doing and better be ready and able to "prove it". 

The only other way to experience this is to actually compete in a competitive martial art such as Jiu-Jitsu, MMA, boxing  kickboxing, etc. These experiences have also helped me further my understanding of a real fight. 

Now - I am not suggesting that you must go get into a street fight to learn.  But I do believe you need to train hard and fight hard to fully understand fear, chaos and the ability to fight and survive. 

So, the final answer to the question would be... I believe someone can be proficient in reality-based self defense, but only if they have experience in real combat or their training / sparring closely resembles real combat. 

For example in my Defence Lab DNA classes our sparring is rarely one on one. We do 2 vs 1, 3 vs 1 and sometimes 4 vs 1.  We fight with someone seated, pinned against the wall, etc. Sometimes I'll quietly slip one of my students a training blade, a clubbed weapon or a replica handgun. 

Just my opinion! 



Steve said:


> Great post, Matt!  Are there people whom you would consider "expert" in a field?  I think you make a great point about self perception and a drive for incremental and consistent improvement.  It might be bad form to refer to oneself as an expert.  But, isn't it just as poor form to knowingly fail to acknowledge the expertise of another?
> 
> I'm also very interested in your thoughts on the original question.  Do you think it's possible to be an expert in something you've never done?


----------



## Matt Bryers

Also - Yes I do recognize experts in my field. I have a 2x world BJJ champion Rafael Formiga Barbosa who is the head BJJ instructor at my school. He teaches 6 days a week and I believe he is a true expert in BJJ. 

I started training with Andy Norman from the Defence Lab about 3 years ago and travel to Spain regularly to train with him and his crew. He is a true combatives expert and innovator.


----------



## marques

No. Violence have too many faces. And it's bigger than anyone.


----------



## Chris Parker

And yet… that's not really what self defence is about… nor is it anything to do with being an expert in such (which, for the 107th time, is being a subject matter expert, which can contain practical experience or not).


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> And yet… that's not really what self defence is about… nor is it anything to do with being an expert in such (which, for the 107th time, is being a subject matter expert, which can contain practical experience or not).



Being a subject matter except would be a crime statistician or something though. Not someone who has read books about punching.


----------



## drop bear

Expert. Spell checker got me.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> Being a subject matter except would be a crime statistician or something though. Not someone who has read books about punching.



And, again, the reality is missed. That is, bluntly, nowhere near what I was meaning.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> And, again, the reality is missed. That is, bluntly, nowhere near what I was meaning.



Ok what did you mean?


----------



## Chris Parker

I meant what self defence actually incorporates. I was referring to what it means to be a self defence expert, trainer, teacher, and so on. And this has been explained ad nauseam, so frankly, I don't expect that, even if laid out in intricate detail (again) you'd get it.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> I meant what self defence actually incorporates. I was referring to what it means to be a self defence expert, trainer, teacher, and so on. And this has been explained ad nauseam, so frankly, I don't expect that, even if laid out in intricate detail (again) you'd get it.



You don't own the term self defence. There are different definitions.

I would not consider a person a self defence expert unless they have walked the walk.

Or again are some sort of crime statistician.


----------



## Chris Parker

And frankly, I don't consider the opinion of people who have no clue about the area.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> And frankly, I don't consider the opinion of people who have no clue about the area.



Why should I consider someone who has not walked the walk a self defence expert?


----------



## Chris Parker

Firstly, you'd need to come to grips with what it is to "walk the walk of a self defence expert"… because it ain't being a "fighter". Then, you'd need to be able to recognise same… once you do that, you might start to realise who you've been talking with… and I'm not talking about myself here.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Firstly, you'd need to come to grips with what it is to "walk the walk of a self defence expert"… because it ain't being a "fighter". Then, you'd need to be able to recognise same… once you do that, you might start to realise who you've been talking with… and I'm not talking about myself here.





Chris Parker said:


> Firstly, you'd need to come to grips with what it is to "walk the walk of a self defence expert"… because it ain't being a "fighter". Then, you'd need to be able to recognise same… once you do that, you might start to realise who you've been talking with… and I'm not talking about myself here.



You are being very mysterious. I cant really make sense of what you are saying.


----------



## Chris Parker

Then let's get blunt. 

You have a particular perspective which is based in absolutely no grasp of what self defence is, self defence training, or it's differences to simple "fighting". Until you allow yourself to be open to actually listening to what you've been told (numerous times), no amount of explanation would help or get through to you… but the reality is that none of your preconceptions are accurate. You don't know what it is to be a self defence expert. You don't know what it is to "walk the walk" of such a person. You think it's all about fighting. It's not.

As a result, your considering of someone who has "walked the walk" is based in you not knowing what that means… so you miss who actually has. And it really has little to nothing to do with being a crime statistician, outside of the particular arena and context that you (the teacher/expert) are dealing with.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Then let's get blunt.
> 
> You have a particular perspective which is based in absolutely no grasp of what self defence is, self defence training, or it's differences to simple "fighting". Until you allow yourself to be open to actually listening to what you've been told (numerous times), no amount of explanation would help or get through to you… but the reality is that none of your preconceptions are accurate. You don't know what it is to be a self defence expert. You don't know what it is to "walk the walk" of such a person. You think it's all about fighting. It's not.
> 
> As a result, your considering of someone who has "walked the walk" is based in you not knowing what that means… so you miss who actually has. And it really has little to nothing to do with being a crime statistician, outside of the particular arena and context that you (the teacher/expert) are dealing with.



My context is mostly as a security guard dealing with criminals and victims. De-escalating drunks and aggressives. Stopping crimes  preventing suicides, responding to break ins,fighting people. And generally doing stuff.

Training with some of the top ring fighters in Australia. Working with some of the top street fighters in the business.

I am more than happy to listen to people who fall outside that particular arena. 

But they would still have to demonstrate the have an idea that they know what they are on about. And not just be mysterious.


----------



## Chris Parker

I know your context. I also know how removed it is from self defence. And you have had it explained to you ad nauseam, to continue seems an exercise in futility. There's nothing mysterious here… just answers you won't see.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> I know your context. I also know how removed it is from self defence. And you have had it explained to you ad nauseam, to continue seems an exercise in futility. There's nothing mysterious here… just answers you won't see.



It really isn't removed from self defence. 

Basically it involves people who don't want to be robbed or raped,bashed or generally treated like dirt. People think self defence they think that kind of thing should be stopped.

You can redefine it all you want. But it does not make you an expert.

Seriously people have to over cook a pretty simple concept. And I don't understand why.


----------



## Chris Parker

Yeah… as I said, you really don't have the first understanding of what self defence actually is here… nor what being an expert in the field is. But here's the thing… I'm not redefining anything. I'm pointing out that you don't have an accurate grasp/definition yourself. This is not "overcooking" anything either, you realise… simply someone having a firmer and deeper understanding than you do… as it really is a lot more involved than you think.

But, to give you your first clue, your context is almost diametrically opposed to self defence. Figure out why and you might start to see the answers you've already been given.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah… as I said, you really don't have the first understanding of what self defence actually is here… nor what being an expert in the field is. But here's the thing… I'm not redefining anything. I'm pointing out that you don't have an accurate grasp/definition yourself. This is not "overcooking" anything either, you realise… simply someone having a firmer and deeper understanding than you do… as it really is a lot more involved than you think.
> 
> But, to give you your first clue, your context is almost diametrically opposed to self defence. Figure out why and you might start to see the answers you've already been given.



I know why. If self defence was a simple concept then you don't get to be an expert anymore.

Provided it is different and more complicated than anybody needs or wants you can bee the keeper of mysterious knowledge.

So self defence becomes something other than the simple idea of not being a victim and everybody with experience in that knows nothing.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Drop Bear,

In regards to self defense and personal protection I would advise that you do some reading.
Here are two books to take a look at:

Facing Violence by Rory Miller

Self Defense: What you need to know, when you need it by Marc MacYoung


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Drop Bear,
> 
> In regards to self defense and personal protection I would advise that you do some reading.
> Here are two books to take a look at:
> 
> Facing Violence by Rory Miller
> 
> Self Defense: What you need to know, when you need it by Marc MacYoung



What books did Rory and mark read to become experts?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Well Drop Bear,

Rory worked in corrections for years and also headed an extraction team.  He has real world personal protection skill sets.  As to his reading acumen you will have to ask him.

Marc MacYoung grew up in rougher areas of Los Angeles by all accounts and has lived a life full of violence.  Yet again, you will have to ask him what his reading acumen is.

I understand you have experience as a doorman and that is experience of a different kind that is work related.  Work related experience is important.  Real world violence experience is important.  Reading what other people have to say about violence and understanding it is important.  Personally, I do not take any one persons experience as the end all be all but instead utilize multiple sources to have a broad picture as well as brining my own personal experience with work related and non-work related violence. 

I offered you to read those books so that maybe you could do some reading, be inspired and see a different perspective!


----------



## jks9199

Both will share bibliographies. 

But here's the thing... Both will admit that they only know a slice of a huge puzzle. Both also are atypical in that they actually have thought about the whole picture of violencr, rather than simply doing stuff...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Well Drop Bear,
> 
> Rory worked in corrections for years and also headed an extraction team.  He has real world personal protection skill sets.  As to his reading acumen you will have to ask him.
> 
> Marc MacYoung grew up in rougher areas of Los Angeles by all accounts and has lived a life full of violence.  Yet again, you will have to ask him what his reading acumen is.
> 
> I understand you have experience as a doorman and that is experience of a different kind that is work related.  Work related experience is important.  Real world violence experience is important.  Reading what other people have to say about violence and understanding it is important.  Personally, I do not take any one persons experience as the end all be all but instead utilize multiple sources to have a broad picture as well as brining my own personal experience with work related and non-work related violence.
> 
> I offered you to read those books so that maybe you could do some reading, be inspired and see a different perspective!



Yeah and taken in a vacuum is good advice. And I will probably get on to them a bit. 
(I have read some mark mc young stuff)

Tacked on to this thread and it becomes a whole different matter.

I do have an issue with the well read and under experienced experts. That is my point about overcomplicating self defence.

It seems to purposely be raised to this academic mystery that served no other purpose than to feed egos.

Otherwise information on self defence is all over the place.

Lonely planet for info on scams and travel dangers.

Sales and pick up web sites for de-escalation tactics.

Websites on how to harden you home,how to carry money and stop theft as a business.

All of these quite mundane reference are the most boring but most applicable. Because the concepts overlap.

Eg. Bodyguard work is cool right? But money handling and transfer is a bit boring?

Yet it is the same method. Same route planning same threat stuff.


----------



## Steve

In the context of several other threads ongoing, I have been going back to re-read some older threads on the topic of self defense.  This was a good one, but ended on a doozy.  I literally laughed when I got to the last page and @drop bear shares his practical experience as a security guard, bouncer, and his training with top combat sports competitors, and Brian VanCise and Chris Parker brush it to the side and suggest he read a book.   I feel like that summed up the thread pretty well.

Anyway, some really good discussion in this thread, and some humor, as well.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> In the context of several other threads ongoing, I have been going back to re-read some older threads on the topic of self defense.  This was a good one, but ended on a doozy.  I literally laughed when I got to the last page and @drop bear shares his practical experience as a security guard, bouncer, and his training with top combat sports competitors, and Brian VanCise and Chris Parker brush it to the side and suggest he read a book.   I feel like that summed up the thread pretty well.
> 
> Anyway, some really good discussion in this thread, and some humor, as well.


Reminded of some very missed posters reading that lot. 
Drop Bear will always take the opposite view just for the craic. Arguing on here is meat and drink to him bless him  😋


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Reminded of some very missed posters reading that lot.
> Drop Bear will always take the opposite view just for the craic. Arguing on here is meat and drink to him bless him  😋


I miss some more than others, TBH.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

do you become an expert in self defense if you never have to use your system ??? **raised eyebrows**
cause if you use your system to avoid potential self defense situations you are still defending yourself


----------



## Tez3

Christopher Adamchek said:


> do you become an expert in self defense if you never have to use your system ??? **raised eyebrows**
> cause if you use your system to avoid potential self defense situations you are still defending yourself



This is similar to something the police often have with politicians who want to cut crime prevention measures to save money. There are no measurable actions that prove crime prevention campaigns and measures work, you can't count non crimes so often it's thought it's a pointless and expensive effort. You can point out that crime figures may go down but then that's put down to effective active policing not that crime prevention units work. 😕


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> This is similar to something the police often have with politicians who want to cut crime prevention measures to save money. There are no measurable actions that prove crime prevention campaigns and measures work, you can't count non crimes so often it's thought it's a pointless and expensive effort. You can point out that crime figures may go down but then that's put down to effective active policing not that crime prevention units work. 😕


I agree to a point.  I mean, with any government effort, there is a relatively predictable arc.  They start well funded and well staffed, with a lot of enthusiasm.   Politicians tout the results and campaign on the short term success.  Over time, the money is diverted, the staff dwindles, the program enthusiasm flags, and the effectiveness of the program wanes.  Politicians tout the government waste and campaign on promises to revamp or eliminate the program and start something new. 

This is a common and sadly effective political tactic.   The key, as you say, is to look at crime figures and broader data, and not get tricked or tripped up by anecdotes.  Said another way, a crime prevention campaign may be very effective, though some folks can still point to being mugged and argue that it didn't work for them in that moment.

I don't think it's like self defense, though, because self defense results are inherently anecdotal.  There is no data.  There is no broader starting point where you point to objective data and say, "here is a problem that we are going to try and fix."  And that is a breeding ground for unscrupulous people with questionable experience to make a living. 

And where there is objective data and a specific goal, in the one example I've been able to find over the years, it doesn't look like you might expect.  It's a relatively short, data driven program that emphasizes habits and behaviors, taught by people who have relevant expertise.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

MJS said:


> In the Sport and TMA...Again thread, (man that thread gets a lot of attention ) Chris and Steve were having an interesting debate and something that was said, caught my eye.
> 
> Steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> To which Chris replied:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does everyone think?  Can you become an expert or authority on SD, with no real world experience?  Sure, of course, one of the most effective tools of SD is avoidance.  Is there something you can potentially do to avoid a situation?  If you can avoid something altogether, you're better off.  Of course, in the perfect world, sometimes things aren't that easy, so physical skills are necessary.  But having experience in hands on skill, I feel is important.  Would you want to go in for surgery and know that you will be the first patient that this new doctor has ever worked on?  How about the pilot flying the plane you're on?  I'd like to know that my flight isn't this guys first solo flight. LOL.
> 
> I'd like to think that if we took 2 people, 1 with no experience at all, and then someone like Rory Miller, that it should be a no brainer.


It really depends how you phrase the subject of the expertise. To be an expert in self-defense, someone needs (in my opinion) to defend themselves a lot. To be an expert in teaching people to defend themselves, someone needs experience teaching that set of skills (which set is defined by how we define "self-defense", so can vary) with a track record of success. Defining "a track record of success" is difficult, since there's no reasonable way to measure self-defense oritented skills in the self-defense context. If I teach a bunch of guys who use their skills on the job (prison guard, bouncer, whatever), how can we know my teaching is what made them so effective? We can ask them about some of the interactions and what they used of their training, but even if they actually used some of those techniques and strategies, we can't know what the outcome would have been without them.

So, it's difficult for me to see anyone as an "expert" in this area. I teach with a self-defense orientation, but I don't teach "self-defense" - I teach skills that can be used for that purpose, but it's not the same thing (I don't think "self-defense" is a teaching topic, at all). Those skills are mostly methods for controlling, escaping, or ending physical conflict. I'm good at most of them, in the contexts I've managed to try them out (both normal training and sparring, as well as sparring with folks from outside my training group). Some of my students have opportunities to use them far more often than me (occupational hazards), and they tend to stick around longer than folks who don't, and report getting good results with what they use. But that's back to my prior caveat.

So I don't claim expertise in anything but the principles of what I teach. I'm really good at the principles and the technical bits, because I love working with that stuff.

Then we get to the term "authority". I think someone can be an authority on SD without any experience in actually defeniding themselves. They could do that by doing research (either original or survey of research) to gain information at a high enough level. But that person is an academic authority. I think anyone teaching with a SD orientation should be something of an authority on the topic. They should look at what evidence there is (it's not as much as we'd like) and deliver what actual information they can find to their students. There's far too much non-academic information passed around as if it were based in anything but conjecture, and that does a disservice to anyone learning from those instructors.


----------



## KenpoMaster805

Yes. We disagree completely. You cannot be an expert in self defence without practical, real world experience in the field applying the techniques. You CAN become an expert in a system. Call it Parker-fu, put whatever techniques you want, apply measures for proficiency and teach people to an expert level in your system. Because THAT'S what they're learning and applying. They are not defending themselves in your class. They are applying your system.

I agree


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> In the context of several other threads ongoing, I have been going back to re-read some older threads on the topic of self defense.  This was a good one, but ended on a doozy.  I literally laughed when I got to the last page and @drop bear shares his practical experience as a security guard, bouncer, and his training with top combat sports competitors, and Brian VanCise and Chris Parker brush it to the side and suggest he read a book.   I feel like that summed up the thread pretty well.
> 
> Anyway, some really good discussion in this thread, and some humor, as well.



The old "I've done the research" line.

Which has become pretty common since.

so you probably could be an academic expert. But I think you would have to be a real one. Not read the equivalent of a self help book, or watch a heap of world star.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> It really depends how you phrase the subject of the expertise. To be an expert in self-defense, someone needs (in my opinion) to defend themselves a lot. To be an expert in teaching people to defend themselves, someone needs experience teaching that set of skills (which set is defined by how we define "self-defense", so can vary) with a track record of success. Defining "a track record of success" is difficult, since there's no reasonable way to measure self-defense oritented skills in the self-defense context. If I teach a bunch of guys who use their skills on the job (prison guard, bouncer, whatever), how can we know my teaching is what made them so effective? We can ask them about some of the interactions and what they used of their training, but even if they actually used some of those techniques and strategies, we can't know what the outcome would have been without them.
> 
> So, it's difficult for me to see anyone as an "expert" in this area. I teach with a self-defense orientation, but I don't teach "self-defense" - I teach skills that can be used for that purpose, but it's not the same thing (I don't think "self-defense" is a teaching topic, at all). Those skills are mostly methods for controlling, escaping, or ending physical conflict. I'm good at most of them, in the contexts I've managed to try them out (both normal training and sparring, as well as sparring with folks from outside my training group). Some of my students have opportunities to use them far more often than me (occupational hazards), and they tend to stick around longer than folks who don't, and report getting good results with what they use. But that's back to my prior caveat.
> 
> So I don't claim expertise in anything but the principles of what I teach. I'm really good at the principles and the technical bits, because I love working with that stuff.



That all works for me.  



gpseymour said:


> Then we get to the term "authority". I think someone can be an authority on SD without any experience in actually defeniding themselves. They could do that by doing research (either original or survey of research) to gain information at a high enough level. But that person is an academic authority. I think anyone teaching with a SD orientation should be something of an authority on the topic. They should look at what evidence there is (it's not as much as we'd like) and deliver what actual information they can find to their students. There's far too much non-academic information passed around as if it were based in anything but conjecture, and that does a disservice to anyone learning from those instructors.



This is a very helpful distinction, provided folks don't confuse the issue, thinking they're experts when they are actually authorities.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> The old "I've done the research" line.
> 
> Which has become pretty common since.
> 
> so you probably could be an academic expert. But I think you would have to be a real one. Not read the equivalent of a self help book, or watch a heap of world star.


I've read several books on distilling liquor, and I could probably talk a good game.  But if I tried to teach you how to do it, I think the odds are high that I'd end up killing us both.


----------



## TheDojang

MJS said:


> In the Sport and TMA...Again thread, (man that thread gets a lot of attention ) Chris and Steve were having an interesting debate and something that was said, caught my eye.
> 
> Steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> To which Chris replied:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does everyone think?  Can you become an expert or authority on SD, with no real world experience?  Sure, of course, one of the most effective tools of SD is avoidance.  Is there something you can potentially do to avoid a situation?  If you can avoid something altogether, you're better off.  Of course, in the perfect world, sometimes things aren't that easy, so physical skills are necessary.  But having experience in hands on skill, I feel is important.  Would you want to go in for surgery and know that you will be the first patient that this new doctor has ever worked on?  How about the pilot flying the plane you're on?  I'd like to know that my flight isn't this guys first solo flight. LOL.
> 
> I'd like to think that if we took 2 people, 1 with no experience at all, and then someone like Rory Miller, that it should be a no brainer.


This is a great question.  I have been training for 30 years.  I am by no means an expert or master.  While I have trained multiple styles, I find there is always something for me to learn.  I believe the term expert or master is overly used.  Or used in the wrong context.

I dont think anyone ever becomes the true definition of an expert.  Expert refers to someone who has acquired ALL knowledge needed in a subject with no real room for further growth.  Now, one can gain much knowledge and have more knowledge than the average every day John Q Smith.

But in reality, how many people out there are able to devote 1000's of hours to do nothing but train.  I dont know hardly anyone that has that kind of time.  Not even myself.

I believe that one should have a good basic grasp of what self defense is, not what Hollywood puts it out to be.  But to be an 'expert', does anyone truly have to time to try to aquire such a 'title', if it truly even exists.

What works for one, may not work for another.

Do I think one has to be put into ALL street situations to understand the concept of self defense.  No.  Who in the world willingly goes out looking for trouble.  I know I sure don't.

Now, do I feel I have a decent grasp on self defense and could protect myself and others if the need arises.  I would like to think so.  But Noone knows that for 100% sure until and when if ever the situation arises.

So can one be very knowledgeable in the area of protecting themselves without being in a 100 bar fights, yes I think so.  But as for me, even when I have been training for 50 years, I will never consider myself an 'expert'.   Not saying others can't or shouldn't.  But personally, no.  I dont think it is possible.  Too many variables and factors to take in.


----------



## isshinryuronin

TheDojang said:


> Now, do I feel I have a decent grasp on self defense and could protect myself and others if the need arises. I would like to think so. But Noone knows that for 100% sure until and when if ever the situation arises.


Marines train to "hit the beach" under withering fire.  Before the reality, some have grave doubts that the training they've had will overcome their fear and that they may chicken out (As Gen. Patton once gave voice to in a speech.) Others are very confident they will act bravely like those in the old war movies.  I think both these groups will react similarly.  Each group will have their share of heroes, and those who freeze up.  Because, as you say, there's no way to really know until it happens.

Training in the dojo (or tournaments) is at best an imitation of the "real" thing.  Even though the training and contact may be robust, a safety net is still there.  Few schools use heavy duty body and head gear so many students don't know what a real punch, delivered with malice, feels like when hit, or even when blocking.  They will be in for a rude surprise.

Not saying students need to beat each other up every class, but a portion of their monthly training should be spent on dealing with powerful attacks and resistant defenses.  And a mental attitude should be fostered to help prepare one for actual dangerous combat.  Training is not 100% foolproof.  Maybe 75%.  The key is to be willing to accept that 25% risk factor and "hit the beach."



TheDojang said:


> I will never consider myself an 'expert'.


If you've reached the equivalent of a good 3rd-4th degree black belt, (7-12 years regular training) consider yourself an "expert."  That term _is_ very subjective, but if you're in the top 5% of all those currently in MA (which I expect a 3rd degree would be) I would apply the term to you.  Now, _master_ is another story...

At this "expert" level, there are certain expectations others have of you, and most importantly, that you have of yourself.  Wanting to live up to these expectations provides motivation to strive to further improve.  

Being an expert is by no means the end of the road.  Like a first degree black should be considered the start of a new journey, being an "expert" is just the start of another leg of that long, never ending journey.  So, go ahead and think of yourself as an expert if you have excellent skills and understanding in your art - don't be too modest.  But also, don't overrate yourself that an expert has reached the apex of the art.


----------



## TheDojang

isshinryuronin said:


> Marines train to "hit the beach" under withering fire.  Before the reality, some have grave doubts that the training they've had will overcome their fear and that they may chicken out (As Gen. Patton once gave voice to in a speech.) Others are very confident they will act bravely like those in the old war movies.  I think both these groups will react similarly.  Each group will have their share of heroes, and those who freeze up.  Because, as you say, there's no way to really know until it happens.
> 
> Training in the dojo (or tournaments) is at best an imitation of the "real" thing.  Even though the training and contact may be robust, a safety net is still there.  Few schools use heavy duty body and head gear so many students don't know what a real punch, delivered with malice, feels like when hit, or even when blocking.  They will be in for a rude surprise.
> 
> Not saying students need to beat each other up every class, but a portion of their monthly training should be spent on dealing with powerful attacks and resistant defenses.  And a mental attitude should be fostered to help prepare one for actual dangerous combat.  Training is not 100% foolproof.  Maybe 75%.  The key is to be willing to accept that 25% risk factor and "hit the beach."
> 
> 
> If you've reached the equivalent of a good 3rd-4th degree black belt, (7-12 years regular training) consider yourself an "expert."  That term _is_ very subjective, but if you're in the top 5% of all those currently in MA (which I expect a 3rd degree would be) I would apply the term to you.  Now, _master_ is another story...
> 
> At this "expert" level, there are certain expectations others have of you, and most importantly, that you have of yourself.  Wanting to live up to these expectations provides motivation to strive to further improve.
> 
> Being an expert is by no means the end of the road.  Like a first degree black should be considered the start of a new journey, being an "expert" is just the start of another leg of that long, never ending journey.  So, go ahead and think of yourself as an expert if you have excellent skills and understanding in your art - don't be too modest.  But also, don't overrate yourself that an expert has reached the apex of the art.


I consider myself to be good at what I do.  With my self defense training, we do incorporate more 'full force' applications.  Not so much on the countering, but on the attack itself.  For I am a firm believer that a martial artist, or one training in self defense must be put in the situation of the attack being applied in real time.  To at least to some degree, helping the mind to 'cope' with the stress and anxiety of the street style attack.  While nothing is foolproof, I know for myself at least, this has helped me tremendously in feeling confident in my ability to thwart most attacks on the street.

To give a basic history of myself.  Definitely not bragging, just a little history on where I come from.  I hold 4 Black Belts in TKD.  A 1st Degree in American Kenpo.  I have also studied some in Kickboxing, Boxing, Mauy Thai, Hapkido, Jujitsu and Combat Jujitsu.  Though my training in the last several styles mentioned was more 'backyard' training.  Definitely not enough to have the knowledge of teaching those particular styles to others.  I started my training in 1995.  Spent most of my career in TKD, while now I focus 90% on Kenpo and self defense.  And I incorporate all that I have learned and continue to learn to my students.

I used to compete, but stopped years ago.  It became too 'Hollywood' for my liking.  I'm 45 now and strictly train so that I can defend myself and others if the need ever arises.


----------



## Tez3

isshinryuronin said:


> Marines train to "hit the beach" under withering fire.  Before the reality, some have grave doubts that the training they've had will overcome their fear and that they may chicken out (As Gen. Patton once gave voice to in a speech.) Others are very confident they will act bravely like those in the old war movies.  I think both these groups will react similarly.  Each group will have their share of heroes, and those who freeze up.  Because, as you say, there's no way to really know until it happens.
> 
> Training in the dojo (or tournaments) is at best an imitation of the "real" thing.  Even though the training and contact may be robust, a safety net is still there.  Few schools use heavy duty body and head gear so many students don't know what a real punch, delivered with malice, feels like when hit, or even when blocking.  They will be in for a rude surprise.
> 
> Not saying students need to beat each other up every class, but a portion of their monthly training should be spent on dealing with powerful attacks and resistant defenses.  And a mental attitude should be fostered to help prepare one for actual dangerous combat.  Training is not 100% foolproof.  Maybe 75%.  The key is to be willing to accept that 25% risk factor and "hit the beach."
> 
> 
> If you've reached the equivalent of a good 3rd-4th degree black belt, (7-12 years regular training) consider yourself an "expert."  That term _is_ very subjective, but if you're in the top 5% of all those currently in MA (which I expect a 3rd degree would be) I would apply the term to you.  Now, _master_ is another story...
> 
> At this "expert" level, there are certain expectations others have of you, and most importantly, that you have of yourself.  Wanting to live up to these expectations provides motivation to strive to further improve.
> 
> Being an expert is by no means the end of the road.  Like a first degree black should be considered the start of a new journey, being an "expert" is just the start of another leg of that long, never ending journey.  So, go ahead and think of yourself as an expert if you have excellent skills and understanding in your art - don't be too modest.  But also, don't overrate yourself that an expert has reached the apex of the art.



Perhaps your Marines train for that but ours train as spec forces working on ops behind enemy lines etc. Different mindset.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Christ this necroed hard.




isshinryuronin said:


> Marines train to "hit the beach" under withering fire


You hope they do.

Also just on that combat fatige was know and treated as a normal casulty in WW2, at least for the U.K/commonwealth in europe.   If you froze up in line with combat fatigue you would just be stretchered back. 

Compeltely irrelivent but its one of the myths i see a bit, as far as i know the case the commonwealth treated fatgiue casulties fairly and not as "cowardice" etc.     thats where the tour system dervied wa scylying people out to prevent them being worn up.   


I will just input and say you will never have technical and physical exelence at the same time, your body will fail you (discounting if you go senile or something in your old age obviously) so you have limited actual application of a lot of the knowledge you would gather in your 50's-60's yet you might technically and tactically keep getting better.  

In other clearer words, your body will fail you and limit what you can do and your physical prime isnt nessasirly your understanding of its prime.    You could understand the tactical application of a tornado kick at say 70, does that mean you can do it?   More than likely not.   whrre as you could do the actual kick in your 20's but not have a use for it. 


Expert is more indactive of, has spent a long time doing it, not that they are nessisarily good at it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

TheDojang said:


> Expert refers to someone who has acquired ALL knowledge needed in a subject with no real room for further growth.


I don't think this is the common or dictionary definition of "expert". Someone who is an expert auto mechanic still doesn't know everything there is to know about repairing cars.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I've read several books on distilling liquor, and I could probably talk a good game.  But if I tried to teach you how to do it, I think the odds are high that I'd end up killing us both.


----------



## drop bear

Rat said:


> Christ this necroed hard.
> 
> 
> 
> You hope they do.
> 
> Also just on that combat fatige was know and treated as a normal casulty in WW2, at least for the U.K/commonwealth in europe.   If you froze up in line with combat fatigue you would just be stretchered back.
> 
> Compeltely irrelivent but its one of the myths i see a bit, as far as i know the case the commonwealth treated fatgiue casulties fairly and not as "cowardice" etc.     thats where the tour system dervied wa scylying people out to prevent them being worn up.
> 
> 
> I will just input and say you will never have technical and physical exelence at the same time, your body will fail you (discounting if you go senile or something in your old age obviously) so you have limited actual application of a lot of the knowledge you would gather in your 50's-60's yet you might technically and tactically keep getting better.
> 
> In other clearer words, your body will fail you and limit what you can do and your physical prime isnt nessasirly your understanding of its prime.    You could understand the tactical application of a tornado kick at say 70, does that mean you can do it?   More than likely not.   whrre as you could do the actual kick in your 20's but not have a use for it.
> 
> 
> Expert is more indactive of, has spent a long time doing it, not that they are nessisarily good at it.



You can be ten years at an activity and be in your physical prime though.


----------



## John dye

MJS said:


> In the Sport and TMA...Again thread, (man that thread gets a lot of attention ) Chris and Steve were having an interesting debate and something that was said, caught my eye.
> 
> Steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> To which Chris replied:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does everyone think?  Can you become an expert or authority on SD, with no real world experience?  Sure, of course, one of the most effective tools of SD is avoidance.  Is there something you can potentially do to avoid a situation?  If you can avoid something altogether, you're better off.  Of course, in the perfect world, sometimes things aren't that easy, so physical skills are necessary.  But having experience in hands on skill, I feel is important.  Would you want to go in for surgery and know that you will be the first patient that this new doctor has ever worked on?  How about the pilot flying the plane you're on?  I'd like to know that my flight isn't this guys first solo flight. LOL.
> 
> I'd like to think that if we took 2 people, 1 with no experience at all, and then someone like Rory Miller, that it should be a no brainer.


I think that depends on the level knowing something can help if all you learned was poking the eye kocking groin or some moves your exraordinary talented and Athletic. Can learn from watching or are just strong yes .


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I don't think this is the common or dictionary definition of "expert". Someone who is an expert auto mechanic still doesn't know everything there is to know about repairing cars.


Expertise is a spectrum.  A journeyman has expertise in that skillset, and compared to a novice, they are experts. But there are experts among experts, and then there are people who are elite, to whom the experts go for help.  You see this in every skill set, including self defense.  The key distinction is that in very other discipline, one can't become even a journeyman without experience because experience leads directly to expertise.  

The disconnect is that self defense is an intellectual skillset, not a practical one.  It's not at all learning to do something at all.  It's all about knowing things, knowing about things, collecting tidbits of information and being able to speak to the topic with authority.  Like learning about Japanese art or getting a degree in literature.  You may never pick up a paint brush, but you can learn a lot about it.  There are a lot of people who can speak at length about the western influence on Japanese art in the Meiji period.  The issue remains that, while this person may be an excellent art historian, he or she would be a terrible painting instructor.


----------



## Buka

I think the Martial Arts world cornered the market in "Experts" a long, long time ago.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I don't think this is the common or dictionary definition of "expert". Someone who is an expert auto mechanic still doesn't know everything there is to know about repairing cars.


Expert mean someone who is good in a certain skill. If anybody on earth who wants to learn that skill, he should go to that teacher.

When someone told his students, "After you have learned A and B from me, you can leave and find yourself another teacher." This teacher is specialized in A and B and he is honest to his students.

My Chinese wrestling teacher was specialized in "leg twisting". When he was 16, he used that technique to defeat a famous Chinese wrestling master. One day my teacher wanted to teach me a sword form, I told him that I was not interested in his sword form, but I was interested in his "leg twisting".

IMO, you may want to learn general MA knowledge from a teacher, but you truly want to learn the specialty from that teacher.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

MJS said:


> one of the most effective tools of SD is avoidance.  Is there something you can potentially do to avoid a situation?


It's wrong to start a fight without a good reason. It's also wrong to avoid a fight when it's necessary.

A: They are beating up your wife, are you going to do something?
B: She is not my wife. I don't know her.

B is safe, but his wife is not.


----------

