# Ok my issue with thinking that specificity allways means most appropriate



## drop bear (Nov 30, 2017)

I have thrown around my issues with the idea that specific training somehow just being automatically more appropriate. So training for the ring makes you better in the ring. Training for war makes you better in war. Training self defence makes you better at self defence and so on.

And my issue has been. Well no, it really kind of doesn't.

And the issue is that specific training doesn't prevent it from just being bad. To showcase this idea. I found a self defence expert. Who has a specific focus on womens self defence. So her method should be the most appropriate method. For women who want to be safe on the streets yeah?

An expert in self defence reveals how to fight back if you're pinned to the ground

But personally I think her method needs work. Her system needs work. And the individual, the training or the instructor is not going to be able to salvage a useable method from this.


I just think people can look at the wrong things when assesing a martial art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> And the issue is that specific training doesn't prevent it from just being bad.


I agree entirely. If you recall some of our early debates on this, my point was that really good training is even better when it addresses the context in question. Specificity is a plus, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient for good training. The higher the level of the context, the more it becomes necessary (I doubt anyone will reach an elite level of ring/cage training without training specifically for that context or something very similar).


----------



## lklawson (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I have thrown around my issues with the idea that specific training somehow just being automatically more appropriate. So training for the ring makes you better in the ring. Training for war makes you better in war. Training self defence makes you better at self defence and so on.
> 
> And my issue has been. Well no, it really kind of doesn't.


You are sorta right, but I think for the wrong reason.  Yes, actually specifically training for a venue DOES make the training more appropriate and therefore more likely to succeed.  "If."  *IF* it's the right training and that training actually addresses things which are specific to that venue.  There are some generalities such as strength and cardio fitness.  But training in punching, kicking, takedowns, and groundwork is going to be very limited value if you're part of a 5-man Fire Team equipped with small arms (M4, SAW, etc.) and facing groups of similarly armed people.  Conversely, if you are highly trained in small-group maneuvering and tactics, with small arms but never trained anything pas MAC in basic, then you're gonna get your butt handed to you in the ring.

Yes, specific training for the venue does make you better at that venue.  But just thinking you have the right "specific training" doesn't actually make it so.



> And the issue is that specific training doesn't prevent it from just being bad. To showcase this idea. I found a self defence expert. Who has a specific focus on womens self defence. So her method should be the most appropriate method. For women who want to be safe on the streets yeah?
> 
> An expert in self defence reveals how to fight back if you're pinned to the ground
> 
> But personally I think her method needs work. Her system needs work. And the individual, the training or the instructor is not going to be able to salvage a useable method from this.


That is wrong on so many levels.  



> I just think people can look at the wrong things when assesing a martial art.


People don't know that they don't know.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 30, 2017)

Using my school teacher lens...

If you’re expecting a specific outcome, you need to train appropriately for that outcome.  What’s the best thing to do? Visualize the desired outcome realistically.  Then break that outcome apart into larger picture things.  Then break down those large pictures into smaller and smaller things.

After that, you start the training with the smallest pictures, and move up progressively.

Same as what the schools here in the US (at least NYS) went through about 10 years or so ago.  They asked what knowledge and skills they wanted all high school graduates to have, then designed curriculums downwards instead of continuing on doing what they’ve done seemingly forever - just looking at individual grade-level curriculums.

When you plan downward and implement upward, you eliminate gaps (or at least minimize them).

If you’re putting a women’s SD program together, need to look at what successful women’s self defense realistically looks like.  Analyze all the skills that are required to get there.  Analyze how to acquire those skills.  Then make a plan that starts out on lesson 1 and gradually progresses to full competence.  Same for training for the cage, battlefield, pub crawls, and everything else.


----------



## skribs (Nov 30, 2017)

Quality vs. Quantity.

If you have two competent teachers, one who spends 10 minutes of each class on self defense and one who spends 45 minutes of each class on self defense, you're going to get better self defense learning from the 2nd teacher.

If you have a stellar teacher who spends 10 minutes on self defense, and a competent teacher who spends 45 minutes, then it will likely depend on the student (if you practice a lot on your own you might get more out of the stellar teacher, but if you need class to practice you will get more out of the competent teacher).

If you have a competent teacher who spends 10 minutes on self defense, and a terrible teacher who spends 45 minutes, then you'll definitely get more out of the 10 minutes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

skribs said:


> Quality vs. Quantity.
> 
> If you have two competent teachers, one who spends 10 minutes of each class on self defense and one who spends 45 minutes of each class on self defense, you're going to get better self defense learning from the 2nd teacher.
> 
> ...


As long as your evaluation of the teacher includes the content they are teaching (and its applicability to reality), I'd agree.


----------



## skribs (Nov 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> As long as your evaluation of the teacher includes the content they are teaching (and its applicability to reality), I'd agree.



Obviously when you make gross generalizations in a comparison of hypotheticals, you have to assume that other variables are constants (in this case, the ability of the practitioner to judge the instruction).


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I have thrown around my issues with the idea that specific training somehow just being automatically more appropriate. So training for the ring makes you better in the ring. Training for war makes you better in war. Training self defence makes you better at self defence and so on.
> 
> And my issue has been. Well no, it really kind of doesn't.
> 
> ...


i think people who run( short) self defend,courses are snake oil salesmen( or women) .

once you have told them not to go out on their own, lock there doors and all the other very obvious stuff, they should tell them they are not strong enough, not fast enough and don't have,sufficient cardio, tell them to hit the gym for,6 months and then sign on to a proper ma class. Instead they give tips that are border line useless and charge some times a lot of money for it, absolutely shameless

nb that vid never got round to telling you what to do if someone,a 100 lbs heavier pins you to the floor


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

skribs said:


> Obviously when you make gross generalizations in a comparison of hypotheticals, you have to assume that other variables are constants (in this case, the ability of the practitioner to judge the instruction).


Agreed. I was just adding that stipulation, because I've seen some excellent teaching of absolute rubbish (and some rubbish teaching of good, solid technique). I just wanted to keep the discussion from following that side branch, by adding that assumption.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> i think people who run( short) self defend,courses are snake oil salesmen( or women) .
> 
> once you have told them not to go out on their own, lock there doors and all the other very obvious stuff, they should tell them they are not strong enough, not fast enough and don't have,sufficient cardio, tell them to hit the gym for,6 months and then sign on to a proper ma class. Instead they give tips that are border line useless and charge some times a lot of money for it, absolutely shameless
> 
> nb that vid never got round to telling you what to do if someone,a 100 lbs heavier pins you to the floor


Cardio and strength don't have to come first. I can teach a weak, out-of-shape person to escape simple attacks. Since that's where everyone starts, they can develop their cardio in parallel.


----------



## skribs (Nov 30, 2017)

In my hapkido class we get yelled at if we use more than 1% of our strength.  So I'd say practice comes before physical training in there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

skribs said:


> In my hapkido class we get yelled at if we use more than 1% of our strength.  So I'd say practice comes before physical training in there.


I hope you eventually also train the "hard" side of the techniques. The soft side is easier for a skilled fighter to take away.


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Cardio and strength don't have to come first. I can teach a weak, out-of-shape person to escape simple attacks. Since that's where everyone starts, they can develop their cardio in parallel.


no you can't, not if the person attacking n them is notably physically superior to them, as may well be he case


----------



## skribs (Nov 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> no you can't, not if the person attacking n them is notably physically superior to them, as may well be he case



I will never be as physically fit as a professional athlete.  Since there will always exist someone stronger than me, should I stop training martial arts?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I have thrown around my issues with the idea that specific training somehow just being automatically more appropriate. So training for the ring makes you better in the ring. Training for war makes you better in war. Training self defence makes you better at self defence and so on.
> 
> And my issue has been. Well no, it really kind of doesn't.
> 
> ...



you didnt go into a lot of depth in this post but going by what you did write i think you are way off.  



drop bear said:


> the idea that specific training somehow just being automatically more appropriate.


this statement is not reflective of the specific training concept.  nothing is automatic.  what specific training does is produce a process of investigation and adaption of what works and what doesnt.  it is the same process as evolution.  that being said we dont get to jump to the absolute and the final product.  it also doesnt prevent crappy stuff from being tried but over time it should be proven out and discarded when it is proven not to work.
i would think you would be a big proponent of specific training since that is the defining quality of MMA.  we all did TMA for ages then the UFC came along and we found that TMA will lose every time to a specificly trained MMA fighter.  
so do you think that if i study karate exclusively that it is only a matter of training hard enough in my style to be a champion UFC fighter?  i think we proved out that fallacy back with Fred Ettish.


drop bear said:


> And the issue is that specific training doesn't prevent it from just being bad.


this is a failure in logic not a failure of training concepts.  we can reverse the logic and say "random training doesnt prevent poor results".    if the women in the clip cross trained in Tai Chi would she be better at her self defense?   how about knitting ?  ok then what should she train in?   what are the determining constructs that would lead us to decide what she should train in to help be better in self defense?   the only answer is that the training has to be relevant to the desired goal.  and just what is that......specific training for the venue or the desired goal.


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2017)

skribs said:


> I will never be as physically fit as a professional athlete.  Since there will always exist someone stronger than me, should I stop training martial arts?


but nether, i hope, are you weak and out of condition , which was the specific i was answering to.
but if you are,,, then yes, reduce you ma time. And get some,conditioning training in, you know it makes sense


----------



## skribs (Nov 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> but nether, i hope, are you weak and out of condition , which was the specific i was answering to.
> but if you are,,, then yes, reduce you ma time. And get some,conditioning training in, you know it makes sense



Even if you are...martial arts can be about exercise.  Forms are good anaerobic exercise.  Sparring can be aerobic exercise.  Cardio kickboxing is a thing.  People usually sweat hard in our classes, especially if they're putting proper effort into their forms or during sparring.

The only time we turn someone away at our school is if it is dangerous for them to be in class.  i.e. pregnant woman, someone with an injury that could be made worse by participating, someone with an illness who not only should be resting - but we don't want to get everyone else sick.  I don't see "you're too weak" as a good reason to turn people away from a martial arts class, unless you're specifically a competitive team and are only looking for people who are already athletic.


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2017)

skribs said:


> Even if you are...martial arts can be about exercise.  Forms are good anaerobic exercise.  Sparring can be aerobic exercise.  Cardio kickboxing is a thing.  People usually sweat hard in our classes, especially if they're putting proper effort into their forms or during sparring.
> 
> The only time we turn someone away at our school is if it is dangerous for them to be in class.  i.e. pregnant woman, someone with an injury that could be made worse by participating, someone with an illness who not only should be resting - but we don't want to get everyone else sick.  I don't see "you're too weak" as a good reason to turn people away from a martial arts class, unless you're specifically a competitive team and are only looking for people who are already athletic.


BUT, if you are out of condition then its clearly not working for you.
it not a case of turning people away, ma, as practised at a lot of,schools is not going to make you FIT, fitter maybe, but not fit. You should be honest with them in and hat if self defence is an,aim, that they need fitness,first and for most


----------



## skribs (Nov 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> BUT, if you are out of condition then its clearly not working for you.
> it not a case of turning people away, ma, as practised at a lot of,schools is not going to make you FIT, fitter maybe, but not fit. You should be honest with them in and hat if self defence is an,aim, that they need fitness,first and for most



I disagree.  I believe people can increase their fitness in martial arts class, in which they're also gaining muscle memory while they increase their fitness.  It won't be as much as they would if all they did is go to the gym, but it's a different approach.

Martial arts is also more fun than going to the gym, and easier to motivate people to go to.

If I was training at a school and saw someone go up to the Master and said, "I want to join your school because I see you teach self defense", and the Master said "I'm sorry, but you're too weak, go hit the gym for a while and come back when you've proven yourself worthy", I would leave the school immediately and find one who is willing to train without discriminating based on physical condition.


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2017)

skribs said:


> I disagree.  I believe people can increase their fitness in martial arts class, in which they're also gaining muscle memory while they increase their fitness.  It won't be as much as they would if all they did is go to the gym, but it's a different approach.
> 
> Martial arts is also more fun than going to the gym, and easier to motivate people to go to.
> 
> If I was training at a school and saw someone go up to the Master and said, "I want to join your school because I see you teach self defense", and the Master said "I'm sorry, but you're too weak, go hit the gym for a while and come back when you've proven yourself worthy", I would leave the school immediately and find one who is willing to train without discriminating based on physical condition.


but if you are teaching self defence. To weak out of condition people, you are conning them, taking their money under,a lie, that they can,adequately defend themselves


----------



## skribs (Nov 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> but if you are teaching self defence. To weak out of condition people, you are conning them, taking their money under,a lie, that they can,adequately defend themselves



You are teaching them the techniques they would use.  Experience and muscle memory are much more important than physical condition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> no you can't, not if the person attacking n them is notably physically superior to them, as may well be he case


So, you’d have them wait 6 months to start developing skill? Okay, now they still can’t defend anything they couldn’t 6 weeks later. In my scenario, they are better equipped, because they are working on skill while they start their fitness. If they decide not to pursue fitness outside class, I’ll do what I can for them, and they will still be significantly better equipped than if they did nothing. 

Note that I said “simple attacks” - that refers to single attacks (no flurries) that are restrained (no tackles or slams). Most of those, I can even train them to escape even someone’s notably more fit, assuming that person isn’t skilled.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> but if you are teaching self defence. To weak out of condition people, you are conning them, taking their money under,a lie, that they can,adequately defend themselves


So, you’d have weak people just give up?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 30, 2017)

lklawson said:


> You are sorta right, but I think for the wrong reason.  Yes, actually specifically training for a venue DOES make the training more appropriate and therefore more likely to succeed.  "If."  *IF* it's the right training and that training actually addresses things which are specific to that venue.  There are some generalities such as strength and cardio fitness.  But training in punching, kicking, takedowns, and groundwork is going to be very limited value if you're part of a 5-man Fire Team equipped with small arms (M4, SAW, etc.) and facing groups of similarly armed people.  Conversely, if you are highly trained in small-group maneuvering and tactics, with small arms but never trained anything pas MAC in basic, then you're gonna get your butt handed to you in the ring.
> 
> Yes, specific training for the venue does make you better at that venue.  But just thinking you have the right "specific training" doesn't actually make it so.
> 
> ...



My theory on training is you look at the results. And I learned this from looking at survival stuff. Taxtical machete vs gardening machete. One isnt better for gardening and one isnt better for being tactical.

The features define its use. Not its purpose.  

So yes specific features of training will be better for different environments. But you cant tell from the label.


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, you’d have weak people just give up?


no, i said refer them to the nearest step aerobics class, or what ever takes their fancy, anything but fill their heads with nonsense about defending themselves, with a neat trick or two


----------



## jobo (Nov 30, 2017)

skribs said:


> You are teaching them the techniques they would use.  Experience and muscle memory are much more important than physical condition.


that's nonsense


----------



## drop bear (Nov 30, 2017)

skribs said:


> Quality vs. Quantity.
> 
> If you have two competent teachers, one who spends 10 minutes of each class on self defense and one who spends 45 minutes of each class on self defense, you're going to get better self defense learning from the 2nd teacher.
> 
> ...



Exept that training doesnt work like that. 

It is not a realistic trade off that for some reason a teacher who is a specific expert has to have some sort of deficiency in basics or something.

So while we can say all other things being equal so on and so on. All other things rarely are equal. I mean if I am big and strong I can also be technical. Nothing topping me.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> i think people who run( short) self defend,courses are snake oil salesmen( or women) .
> 
> once you have told them not to go out on their own, lock there doors and all the other very obvious stuff, they should tell them they are not strong enough, not fast enough and don't have,sufficient cardio, tell them to hit the gym for,6 months and then sign on to a proper ma class. Instead they give tips that are border line useless and charge some times a lot of money for it, absolutely shameless
> 
> nb that vid never got round to telling you what to do if someone,a 100 lbs heavier pins you to the floor



That video wouldnt handle someone 20 lbs lighter.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 30, 2017)

skribs said:


> In my hapkido class we get yelled at if we use more than 1% of our strength.  So I'd say practice comes before physical training in there.




Strength is technique. We mesure strength by how much we can move. If we dont have good technique we are physically not as strong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> no, i said refer them to the nearest step aerobics class, or what ever takes their fancy, anything but fill their heads with nonsense about defending themselves, with a neat trick or two


Or - radical thought here - they could get training in stuff that isn’t “a neat trick or two” (sideways insults will get you nowhere) that will also help them develop coordination and contribute to their fitness. But you know all there is to know of martial training, given your dismissal of a weak/unfit person’s ability to do anything remotely effective.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Exept that training doesnt work like that.
> 
> It is not a realistic trade off that for some reason a teacher who is a specific expert has to have some sort of deficiency in basics or something.
> 
> So while we can say all other things being equal so on and so on. All other things rarely are equal. I mean if I am big and strong I can also be technical. Nothing topping me.


Now you’re going beyond your own topic, DB. You’re implying that non-situational training will be superior, because that’s where the superior teachers are. Or have I missed your point?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> That video wouldnt handle someone 20 lbs lighter.


I consider my groundwork marginal, and that video makes me look really good.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Now you’re going beyond your own topic, DB. You’re implying that non-situational training will be superior, because that’s where the superior teachers are. Or have I missed your point?


That's been the point I've gotten from it every time he talks about this topic. Basically even if specificity mattered, the teachers/training methods matter more, and it's a lot easier to determine a teacher/gyms competency if it competes, so the safer option is always to go with the style/place that actively competes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> That's been the point I've gotten from it every time he talks about this topic. Basically even if specificity mattered, the teachers/training methods matter more, and it's a lot easier to determine a teacher/gyms competency if it competes, so the safer option is always to go with the style/place that actively competes.


When phrased that way, it’s a reasonable argument and not without merit. His previous post, however, appears to be making a value judgement about folks on the other side.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Now you’re going beyond your own topic, DB. You’re implying that non-situational training will be superior, because that’s where the superior teachers are. Or have I missed your point?



Missed the point.

The distinction while true but is unhelpful when it then tries to lead you to believe there is some sort of practical quality to making the distinction.

Technique vs strength is a good clear example.

Except technical fighters can be strong. In which case for training purposes your technique vs strength distinction doesn't work. And you get beaten on both fronts.

And it is just a bad training tool. Because we know that we really need to improve both.


How do I beat a more technical guy? How do I beat a stronger guy? How do I beat a bigger,taller,fatter, slimmer, older, younger. It doesn't matter. The steps to becoming better don't really change.

I do street which is why I can't do sport.

I wrestle which is why I can't box.

It's balls. But it gets used all the time.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 30, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> That's been the point I've gotten from it every time he talks about this topic. Basically even if specificity mattered, the teachers/training methods matter more, and it's a lot easier to determine a teacher/gyms competency if it competes, so the safer option is always to go with the style/place that actively competes.



What is stopping a solid street system say for example being able to box?

Why would they have such poor mechanics?

Do they think they won't face punches in the street?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Training self defence makes you better at self defence and so on.


When a boxing girl challenged a Kung Fu girl, the Kung Fu girl accepted the challenge. During the challenge day, the boxing girl brought her boxing gloves. The kung Fu girl brought her Guan Dao.

What's wrong with this challenge fight? (I love to show off my wife's Guan Dao picture. )


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> What is stopping a solid street system say for example being able to box?
> 
> Why would they have such poor mechanics?
> 
> Do they think they won't face punches in the street?


When was it stated that street systems wouldn't learn how to box? In one of my kempo schools, primarily self-defense, both of my instructors regularly had kickboxing matches. That knowledge of theres was incorporated into their teaching of the system, even though the system as a whole was still kempo.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 30, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When a boxing girl challenged a Kung Fu girl, the Kung Fu girl accepted the challenge. During the challenge day, the boxing girl brought her boxing gloves. The kung Fu girl brought her Guan Dao.
> 
> What's wrong with this challenge fight? (I love to show off my wife's Guan Dao picture. )



Yeah. But that is an old gag as well.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 30, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> When was it stated that street systems wouldn't learn how to box? In one of my kempo schools, primarily self-defense, both of my instructors regularly had kickboxing matches. That knowledge of theres was incorporated into their teaching of the system, even though the system as a whole was still kempo.



Hence the concept of specific being better isn't valid there either.

I mean it should work both ways.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I have thrown around my issues with the idea that specific training somehow just being automatically more appropriate. So training for the ring makes you better in the ring. Training for war makes you better in war. Training self defence makes you better at self defence and so on.
> 
> And my issue has been. Well no, it really kind of doesn't.
> 
> ...


I just watched the video and the self-defense expert said that she thought the safest place to be is on the ground.  That is just such an strange thing to say in terms of self-defense.  Even BJJ practitioners have stated that being on the ground is not the 1st Plan of action. So I decided to actually check out her website.  This is here martial arts experience " _I have studied 3 martial arts styles (Goju-ryu, Kenpo, Jujitsu) over 22 years. I specialize in in-close fighting, disabling my opponent, and mental strategy. Being the highest ranked student in my dojo and the only woman who has sustained this level, I designed this course for the awareness and protection of women as a way to give back some of what I have learned._  "  This brings up another issue.  It took her 22 years to reach the level of her ability vs someone who takes a short class in comparison.

Then I decided to look up some of her videos











I think the danger when it comes to self-defense training is that all of the elements of a struggle aren't factored into the technique and as a result you are left with a good technique but a horrible "time and place" application for that technique.  If someone grabs a woman from behind then they are usually trying to drag her somewhere which means all of that shin scrape stuff goes out the door. The victim wouldn't have the balance or the position to execute a shin scrape.

I'm not saying the lady doesn't know what she's talking about, but I am saying that some key elements of a struggle aren't being factored into deciding on what technique to use.

The good news is that she is only one person and not a representation of everyone.  Some people get it right some don't regardless of how much training they have.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 30, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When a boxing girl challenged a Kung Fu girl, the Kung Fu girl accepted the challenge. During the challenge day, the boxing girl brought her boxing gloves. The kung Fu girl brought her Guan Dao.


Funny.. this is something that I would find as acceptable lol.   I know if I have a challenge fight, that I'm not going to remove my shoes.  I also now that I will pick an environment that is not friendly to rolling on the ground and trying a lot of things that normally would be done in a ring environment. 

Challenge fights in kung fu aren't the same as a friendly match.


----------



## skribs (Nov 30, 2017)

> It is not a realistic trade off that for some reason a teacher who is a specific expert has to have some sort of deficiency in basics or something.



Where did I say they have a deficiency?  I’m talking about if you have a class that teaches mostly sport or forms, as opposed to strictly self defense, you’re not going to get as much out of it as someone who dedicates the whole class to self defense.

My Master has a hapkido class that is 100% self defense, and Taekwondo classes that are about 20% self defense.  Same Master, but I get different results on the self defense side of things from one class than the other.



> Strength is technique. We mesure strength by how much we can move. If we dont have good technique we are physically not as strong.



There’s a big difference between using a pressure point to cause someone else to move out of pain, and using strength to move someone yourself.  With the right pulley system I can lift thousands of pounds.  Does that mean I’m that strong?

Strength and technique are two different things, somewhat connected by muscle memory.





> > skribs said: ↑
> >
> > You are teaching them the techniques they would use. Experience and muscle memory are much more important than physical condition.
> 
> ...




I’ve been beat badly in sparring by people older, weaker, slower, and less flexible than me, because they had good timing.  I’ve seen it work.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 30, 2017)

skribs said:


> Strength and technique are two different things, somewhat connected by muscle memory.


I think there's a misunderstanding because I thinking I know what dropbear is coming from with that statement.  When you have good technique then your strength is maximized.  When you have bad technique and especially bad structure then your strength is minimized 
here's an extreme example in reference to strength and technique.





Here's another example





BJJ where a smaller person beats a larger person is a good example of how technique maximizes strength.  Keep in mind.  When I say maximizing strength I'm saying that your strength is maximized and not that you become stronger than someone else.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> My theory on training is you look at the results. And I learned this from looking at survival stuff. Taxtical machete vs gardening machete. One isnt better for gardening and one isnt better for being tactical.
> 
> The features define its use. Not its purpose.
> 
> So yes specific features of training will be better for different environments. But you cant tell from the label.


That's because the people who "designed" or named the machete weren't actually making a real weapon but, instead were marketing to people who don't know better and are hooked by a catchy name.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Except technical fighters can be strong. In which case for training purposes your technique vs strength distinction doesn't work. And you get beaten on both fronts.


That's not my argument, at all. I don't think I've ever once argued that technique is all someone needs. Technique is a tool in the toolbox. So is strength. Best to have more and better tools than the other guy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I do street which is why I can't do sport.


Also not my argument. What I have argued is that the system I primarily train in isn't well suited to sport. That's an entirely different point. You and I have discussed that before, and you should remember it by now. I think MMA training is a pretty good way to prepare for self-defense, for the right folks. I also think SD-oriented MMA training would make it even better for that purpose, and wouldn't take a huge adjustment. I'd be surprised if there weren't some folks doing that pretty well by now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> What is stopping a solid street system say for example being able to box?
> 
> Why would they have such poor mechanics?
> 
> Do they think they won't face punches in the street?


I don't think anything stops a solid street system from boxing. But they'll never be as good as a similarly invested boxer, because he's training specifically for that context. Even if the street system was taught by someone with solid boxing mechanics, and all the punches were standard boxing punches, if they are investing time to work on groundwork, kicks, grappling, situational awareness, etc., that's time taken away from pure boxing training. And they are developing some habits that play against them in boxing. They may work on distancing and entry to takedowns, which they can't use in a boxing ring. And they aren't learning the rules, both to avoid penalties and to take advantage of how the rules favor certain approaches. They could change their training to better equip them for boxing in a ring, but then they're just training boxing, aren't they? What makes boxing so effective for the ring is two things: good training, and context specificity.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think the danger when it comes to self-defense training is that all of the elements of a struggle aren't factored into the technique and as a result you are left with a good technique but a horrible "time and place" application for that technique. If someone grabs a woman from behind then they are usually trying to drag her somewhere which means all of that shin scrape stuff goes out the door. The victim wouldn't have the balance or the position to execute a shin scrape.


I agree entirely with this. I saw some of it in my own training - defenses that were quite effective against the attack out of context, but not so much once placed in context. I often ask my students, "So if they do that, what are some of their likely goals - what are they actually trying to do?" I want them thinking while they train, rather than just doing a technique. If someone grabs a wrist, they're not just going to stand there and say "my precious" and pet it. They had something they wanted to do when they grabbed the hand (pull, punch/stab with the other hand, etc.). We have to look at both parts. If we just react to the grip, we get pulled, punched, or stabbed while we're trying to do a nice grip release.


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2017)

[QUOTE="gpseymour, post: 1876757, member: 27826" What makes boxing so effective for the ring is two things: good training, and context specificity.[/QUOTE]
and fitness?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> [QUOTE="gpseymour, post: 1876757, member: 27826" What makes boxing so effective for the ring is two things: good training, and context specificity.


and fitness?[/QUOTE]
That'd fall under "good training".


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> and fitness?


That'd fall under "good training".[/QUOTE]
no , not not always, good boxers who turn up for a fight out of condition tend to lose, boxing training tends to creat a reasonable standard of fitness by its nature, you can't do it with out, that's not true of a lot of ma and certainly not self defence focused training,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> no , not not always, good boxers who turn up for a fight out of condition tend to lose, boxing training tends to creat a reasonable standard of fitness by its nature, you can't do it with out, that's not true of a lot of ma and certainly not self defence focused training,


I'd argue showing up for a fight without good conditioning means you've missed something in your training. Conditioning is part of training.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I have thrown around my issues with the idea that specific training somehow just being automatically more appropriate. So training for the ring makes you better in the ring. Training for war makes you better in war. Training self defence makes you better at self defence and so on.
> 
> And my issue has been. Well no, it really kind of doesn't.
> 
> ...



Apologies if someone said this already, but surely bad training is bad training. Or are you arguing that sport based training is automatically good?


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'd argue showing up for a fight without good conditioning means you've missed something in your training. Conditioning is part of training.


well in that case any ma training that doesn't deliver fitness at the level of a  competative boxer is therefore deficient. Which is close to my original point


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> certainly not self defence focused training


It depends on the school and if the course is just a 4 week course.  There are some schools that teach self-defense as a school and not a seminar.  One of the school near me teaches women's self-defense and one of their biggest marketing points is that the women will be getting in shape as well.    Some places have the "fit to fight" perspective.


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Apologies if someone said this already, but surely bad training is bad training. Or are you arguing that sport based training is automatically good?


i think the point is that any deficiences in techneque or fitness are quickly very apparent and bad trainers don't last long, where as someone selling self defence training can give out any old tosh and get away with it for years, like the vid in the op


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> It depends on the school and if the course is just a 4 week course.  There are some schools that teach self-defense as a school and not a seminar.  One of the school near me teaches women's self-defense and one of their biggest marketing points is that the women will be getting in shape as well.    Some places have the "fit to fight" perspective.


hat sounds like a step forward, but how fit exactly, and how fit do they need to be to be quietly confident they can fight of an attacker


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> well in that case any ma training that doesn't deliver fitness at the level of a boxer is therefore deficient.


Martial arts does a lot of other type of conditioning that boxers don't do.  Just because a person isn't fit or have the cardio to do boxing doesn't mean that they are deficient.  Boxers usually have weaker legs and and leg defenses than martial artists so a Martial artist could exploit that and still win the fight even though the boxer had better cardio.


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Martial arts does a lot of other type of conditioning that boxers don't do.  Just because a person isn't fit or have the cardio to do boxing doesn't mean that they are deficient.  Boxers usually have weaker legs and and leg defenses than martial artists so a Martial artist could exploit that and still win the fight even though the boxer had better cardio.


well it sort of does, I'm not sure you can say they have weaker legs, they certainly tend to have fast legs, though not in kicking as they don't tend to train that.

but gerrys point was boxing training that doesn't deliver the fitness to fight is deficient or at least lacking. It seem then fair to use that as a comparative and say if your training doesn't deliver a similar level of fitness in general terms, then it to has deficiencies


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> well it sort of does, I'm not sure you can say they have weaker legs, they certainly tend to have fast legs, though not in kicking as they don't tend to train that.



Fast legs are not the same as strong legs, in the same way that strong legs are not the same as fast legs. Boxers, but the very nature of their sport, are going to have a tendency to train their legs to be fast. Not to be strong. Because fast footwork is an important part of their sport.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> well in that case any ma training that doesn't deliver fitness at the level of a  competative boxer is therefore deficient. Which is close to my original point


Agreed (for the individual), and we all have to decide what level of training we are willing to commit to. I will never train at the level of a professional boxer. That’s a deficiency I accept in my training to allow room for other things in my life. Note that I don’t argue the school must provide all of the training - neither fitness nor technical.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> hat sounds like a step forward, but how fit exactly, and how fit do they need to be to be quietly confident they can fight of an attacker


That depends upon the individual.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> hat sounds like a step forward, but how fit exactly, and how fit do they need to be to be quietly confident they can fight of an attacker


That will vary for each person and each attacker. There no set level that defines "I'm fit enough"  I do how ever place a time limit for a struggle based on an average person's cardio.  Here's my thinking.  3 minutes worth off struggle wears the attacker down as well.  So with that in mind the question for me becomes, "How long do I need to be able to struggle without gassing out?"


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Hence the concept of specific being better isn't valid there either.
> 
> I mean it should work both ways.


I'm not following what you're suggesting. It was a self-defense specific school, where they tested the techniques in a competitive format.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I will never train at the level of a professional boxer.


 I'm not even sure that would be something I would even be interested in unless I was going to compete professionally.  I know within 10-15 years this may not even be a possibility for me even if I want to train like that. The good news is that the majority of the people on this planet don't train at the level of professional athletes, so I'm not likely to get into a fight with someone in that level of condition.  Even if I were to be in conflict with one, I wouldn't try to fight someone that seems to be in better condition to fight unless there was no other choice.

If I had an argument with a young Mike Tyson or Roy Jones Jr, then I would know from the beginning of the argument that I'm not fighting either one of them.  They could punk me all they want because a fight wouldn't be in my best interest.  Now if they attacked me then I would have to defend myself to the best of my ability, but I know it's going to be one of those fights that you physically lose, but respectfully win because you didn't back down. It would still be a beating for me.  But the world isn't made of professional fighters and the chances of me fighting someone who isn't in good shape for fighting is higher than me fighting a professional fighter.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> I'm not following what you're suggesting. It was a self-defense specific school, where they tested the techniques in a competitive format.



OK. If they are good at kick boxing and not a kick boxing specific school. Then you don't have to do a specific kick boxing school to get good at kick boxing.

You then look at the results rather than what the school was specifically designed for


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not even sure that would be something I would even be interested in unless I was going to compete professionally.  I know within 10-15 years this may not even be a possibility for me even if I want to train like that. The good news is that the majority of the people on this planet don't train at the level of professional athletes, so I'm not likely to get into a fight with someone in that level of condition.  Even if I were to be in conflict with one, I wouldn't try to fight someone that seems to be in better condition to fight unless there was no other choice.
> 
> If I had an argument with a young Mike Tyson or Roy Jones Jr, then I would know from the beginning of the argument that I'm not fighting either one of them.  They could punk me all they want because a fight wouldn't be in my best interest.  Now if they attacked me then I would have to defend myself to the best of my ability, but I know it's going to be one of those fights that you physically lose, but respectfully win because you didn't back down. It would still be a beating for me.  But the world isn't made of professional fighters and the chances of me fighting someone who isn't in good shape for fighting is higher than me fighting a professional fighter.



So the world is filled with mike Tyson's and Steve urkles. And nothing in between?

I mean the idea here isn't complicated. If you train harder you should hopefully get better.

Which is why professional boxers train like they train.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2017)

lklawson said:


> That's because the people who "designed" or named the machete weren't actually making a real weapon but, instead were marketing to people who don't know better and are hooked by a catchy name.



Yep. But that is not uncommon in martial arts.

There is a rage of usefulness to marketing. And not necessarily determined by the level of expert either.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Apologies if someone said this already, but surely bad training is bad training. Or are you arguing that sport based training is automatically good?



Evidence based training is good generally.

The martial arts designed for astronaut cowboys is not evidence.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So the world is filled with mike Tyson's and Steve urkles. And nothing in between?


ha ha ha.. yep basically.    You know what I mean.  There are people who train like professional fighters and then there are people who don't train like professional fighters.  The gap is really big, so if you don't have to fight someone who trains like a professional fighter then it's a good day.  At least at that point you have a realistic chance.

I agree with the other comments. If you train harder then you'll get better, so long as the person isn't over training.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> OK. If they are good at kick boxing and not a kick boxing specific school. Then you don't have to do a specific kick boxing school to get good at kick boxing.
> 
> You then look at the results rather than what the school was specifically designed for


I'm still not following. To clarify: they were kick boxers. They trained in kickboxing (specificity for that format), along with SD. They taught SD. They knew the techniques that they taught worked because of the overlap in techniques, and they worked in kickboxing, but taught SD with the SD mindset, and we would train the SD techniques in live sparring (likely a result of their kickboxing background). To me they blended what they knew worked with their specific knowledge of SD.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> I'm still not following. To clarify: they were kick boxers. They trained in kickboxing (specificity for that format), along with SD. They taught SD. They knew the techniques that they taught worked because of the overlap in techniques, and they worked in kickboxing, but taught SD with the SD mindset, and we would train the SD techniques in live sparring (likely a result of their kickboxing background). To me they blended what they knew worked with their specific knowledge of SD.



So you were a kick boxing school?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So you were a kick boxing school?


I think that's a fair enough categorization for the sake of the current discussion (though it sounds like the SD training went beyond just the kickboxing, but I may have misread that). It'd be like someone teaching boxing with a SD focus, rather than a ring focus.


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> That will vary for each person and each attacker. There no set level that defines "I'm fit enough"  I do how ever place a time limit for a struggle based on an average person's cardio.  Here's my thinking.  3 minutes worth off struggle wears the attacker down as well.  So with that in mind the question for me becomes, "How long do I need to be able to struggle without gassing out?"


in that case when they call it "fit to fight" they are misrepresenting it some what, maybe fit to fight if your attacker is in marginally worse condition than you are would be more accyrate


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> in that case when they call it "fit to fight" they are misrepresenting it some what, maybe fit to fight if your attacker is in marginally worse condition than you are would be more accyrate



That would, then, hold true for every single fight. Including professional fights. 
Of course, fitness level is only one of a huge number of factors determining the outcome of a fight.
And unless you do nothing but train, you'll never be as fit as you could be. 
The problem for most of the world is that pesky things like earning a living get in the way of training full time.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think that's a fair enough categorization for the sake of the current discussion (though it sounds like the SD training went beyond just the kickboxing, but I may have misread that). It'd be like someone teaching boxing with a SD focus, rather than a ring focus.



Kempo. 

Which is my point here.


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 1, 2017)

skribs said:


> You are teaching them the techniques they would use.  Experience and muscle memory are much more important than physical condition.


This reminded me of a news story I read from Poland, I think it was...

A 20 something guy tried to snatch an almost 90 year old lady’s purse.  “Granny” (as they referred to her) grabbed the guy by the family jewels and squeezed, yanked, and twisted as hard as she could.  The guy screamed in pain and was easily wrestled to the ground by a passerby until police arrested him.

Sometimes, instinct and skill trump strength.  I highly doubt “granny” was in anywhere near fighting shape.  Maybe she was, but I’m going to bet on the rule of averages here.


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 1, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not even sure that would be something I would even be interested in unless I was going to compete professionally.  I know within 10-15 years this may not even be a possibility for me even if I want to train like that. The good news is that the majority of the people on this planet don't train at the level of professional athletes, so I'm not likely to get into a fight with someone in that level of condition.  Even if I were to be in conflict with one, I wouldn't try to fight someone that seems to be in better condition to fight unless there was no other choice.
> 
> If I had an argument with a young Mike Tyson or Roy Jones Jr, then I would know from the beginning of the argument that I'm not fighting either one of them.  They could punk me all they want because a fight wouldn't be in my best interest.  Now if they attacked me then I would have to defend myself to the best of my ability, but I know it's going to be one of those fights that you physically lose, but respectfully win because you didn't back down. It would still be a beating for me.  But the world isn't made of professional fighters and the chances of me fighting someone who isn't in good shape for fighting is higher than me fighting a professional fighter.


If I had to fight either of those guys (or similar), conditioning wouldn’t enter the equation in any way, shape, nor form.  I’d be unconscious well before either one of us was gassed.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So you were a kick boxing school?





gpseymour said:


> I think that's a fair enough categorization for the sake of the current discussion (though it sounds like the SD training went beyond just the kickboxing, but I may have misread that). It'd be like someone teaching boxing with a SD focus, rather than a ring focus.



Sort of. Sort of not. It was a kempo school, where kempo was taught. The entire SK curriculum was taught, and was the focus (which is a primarily SD system). However, training-wise, we would have 'sparring' training days where we learned things outside the system. Exercise regimens came from their kickboxing training, and we would do kickboxing-type sparring about 75% of the time when we sparred. Exceptions were when we would do specific/situational sparring, which included multiple attackers, trying to escape a situation, sparring until we get a weapon, sparring from the ground to get to our feet (grappling itself was not a focus), etc. IMO those sparrings were realistic; we wouldn't always magically escape, i'd get 'cut' with the persons knives more times than I escaped, etc.

To clarify breakdown, at the end of every class, there was about 30 minutes of sparring, and once a week we would do the situational sparring. To me it was a nice balance of specificity training, staying true to our roots, but also practicing in a way that we could tell if what we were learning worked or not.


----------



## skribs (Dec 1, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Sort of. Sort of not. It was a kempo school, where kempo was taught. The entire SK curriculum was taught, and was the focus (which is a primarily SD system). However, training-wise, we would have 'sparring' training days where we learned things outside the system. Exercise regimens came from their kickboxing training, and we would do kickboxing-type sparring about 75% of the time when we sparred. Exceptions were when we would do specific/situational sparring, which included multiple attackers, trying to escape a situation, sparring until we get a weapon, sparring from the ground to get to our feet (grappling itself was not a focus), etc. IMO those sparrings were realistic; we wouldn't always magically escape, i'd get 'cut' with the persons knives more times than I escaped, etc.
> 
> To clarify breakdown, at the end of every class, there was about 30 minutes of sparring, and once a week we would do the situational sparring. To me it was a nice balance of specificity training, staying true to our roots, but also practicing in a way that we could tell if what we were learning worked or not.



So you trained sport kickboxing and cardio kickboxing, and then kenpo self defense, with some situational self defense thrown in, is what it sounds like.  What percentage of the class would you say was each?  (Just curious)


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 1, 2017)

skribs said:


> So you trained sport kickboxing and cardio kickboxing, and then kenpo self defense, with some situational self defense thrown in, is what it sounds like.  What percentage of the class would you say was each?  (Just curious)


2/3rds of the time was kempo, the other third was sparring. 75% of sparring was kickboxing style, the other 25% was situational. The situational self defense was part of the kempo system.

Edit: The first 15 minutes or so were generally a warm up/stretch, which was running/HIIT/bagwork. Forgot about that part.

Classes were 90-120 minutes.

Second edit: it's been about 4 years since I've been there, so I may be getting the time timing/percentages a bit off


----------



## Buka (Dec 1, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> If I had an argument with a young Mike Tyson or Roy Jones Jr, then I would know from the beginning of the argument that I'm not fighting either one of them.  They could punk me all they want because a fight wouldn't be in my best interest.  Now if they attacked me then I would have to defend myself to the best of my ability, but I know it's going to be one of those fights that you physically lose,....



Why would you say that? Losing going in. To two guys who only have one skill set?

I think you looked at that whole scenario wrong. If it was both of them against you....oh, that would really suck.


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> That would, then, hold true for every single fight. Including professional fights.
> Of course, fitness level is only one of a huge number of factors determining the outcome of a fight.
> And unless you do nothing but train, you'll never be as fit as you could be.
> The problem for most of the world is that pesky things like earning a living get in the way of training full time.



competative fighting has a predetermind minimum level of fitness, that being that you can last 3,4,10,12 rounds , that's not true for a class that says they will make you fit to fight, when they have no idea what fitness level you will need to see out a fight


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> in that case when they call it "fit to fight" they are misrepresenting it some what, maybe fit to fight if your attacker is in marginally worse condition than you are would be more accyrate


in some cases that's what it is.  How many people train sparring vs the number of people who don't train sparring.  From there you can play the probabilities.   How many people train kicks vs how many people don't train kicks?  From there you can add sparring +kicking and things start to look better in terms of your training vs the probability that someone doesn't train.

The more self-defense / fighting characteristics you can tag on as part of your ability the better your chances look and the higher the probability will be that the person who is attacking you is marginally in worse condition than you.  I'll use myself as example:

1. sparring experience
2. Out of shape from 5 + months of not training
3. Knows how to fight
4. Has some body and bone conditioning
5. Understands fighting
6  Can punch hard
7. Can kick hard
8. Can sweep
9. Can elbow hard
10. Knows a martial arts
11. Can grapple but not on the ground.
12. sneaky.

Now if I get attacked and there is no weapon involved, then what are the chances my attacker will have half of what I listed?  May be the attacker will have #1,#3, #5, #6 and #11.  That still gives me a lot to work with, and keep in mind this isn't a full list.  The more I can add to this list and the better I can do what is on the list, the more likely the person that attacks me will be in worse condition in comparison to the condition a person has to be in to do all of this.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> competative fighting has a predetermind minimum level of fitness, that being that you can last 3,4,10,12 rounds , that's not true for a class that says they will make you fit to fight, when they have no idea what fitness level you will need to see out a fight



I agree, insofar as we restrict that to competitive events. Most real world fights last a few seconds and your fitness level becomes less important than having the ability and willingness to do whatever it takes to stop the other person from being a threat.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 1, 2017)

Buka said:


> Why would you say that? Losing going in. To two guys who only have one skill set?


Because a young Mike Tyson and a Young Roy Jones Jr were beasts in their prime.  There is just no way I could compete with that when my training was never as intense as what they were doing when they were fighting professionally.  That's just the reality of it.  Now if I trained kung fu like they trained their professional boxing careers then the story would be different.  They would still be dangerous, but I would be dangerous to them as well. But since I've never trained kung fu at that an intensity like that, there's just no way I could even get a draw.     It boils down who trained the hardest and who honed their fighting skills to a high degree.  I haven't so yes,   I would go in losing before the fight starts lol.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 1, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Because a young Mike Tyson and a Young Roy Jones Jr were beasts in their prime.  There is just no way I could compete with that when my training was never as intense as what they were doing when they were fighting professionally.  That's just the reality of it.  Now if I trained kung fu like they trained their professional boxing careers then the story would be different.  They would still be dangerous, but I would be dangerous to them as well. But since I've never trained kung fu at that an intensity like that, there's just no way I could even get a draw.     It boils down who trained the hardest and who honed their fighting skills to a high degree.  I haven't so yes,   I would go in losing before the fight starts lol.



Sure there is. If it's a sporting event, you just need to make absolutely sure that the rules favor your strengths, not theirs. You'd still be facing long odds, perhaps, but you have a chance.
If it's not sporting, then maybe you'd just have to shoot them.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 1, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> If I had to fight either of those guys (or similar), conditioning wouldn’t enter the equation in any way, shape, nor form. I’d be unconscious well before either one of us was gassed.


yep.  it's just a reality.   I remember professional fighters who thought they could beat Tyson and said as much.  Back then the expectation for a Tyson fight was that it was going to be short lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 1, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure there is. If it's a sporting event, you just need to make absolutely sure that the rules favor your strengths, not theirs. You'd still be facing long odds, perhaps, but you have a chance.
> If it's not sporting, then maybe you'd just have to shoot them.


lol.. If it's a sporting event.  Chess would be my safest bet.  Or anything that doesn't involve him punching me.    I think I can take them on in a Monkey Bar Chicken Fight lol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> competative fighting has a predetermind minimum level of fitness, that being that you can last 3,4,10,12 rounds , that's not true for a class that says they will make you fit to fight, when they have no idea what fitness level you will need to see out a fight


Actually, it's not as cut-and-dried as your statement. You have to last 3,4,10,12 rounds against someone of a given ability and conditioning. That's very different requirements depending upon who your opponent is.


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, it's not as cut-and-dried as your statement. You have to last 3,4,10,12 rounds against someone of a given ability and conditioning. That's very different requirements depending upon who your opponent is.


i said it was a MINIMUM fitness level,


----------



## jobo (Dec 1, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> I agree, insofar as we restrict that to competitive events. Most real world fights last a few seconds and your fitness level becomes less important than having the ability and willingness to do whatever it takes to stop the other person from being a threat.


they last a few seconds, because as a rule at least one doesnt don't have the fitness to last much longer,you don't really want that to be you ?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> I agree, insofar as we restrict that to competitive events. Most real world fights last a few seconds and your fitness level becomes less important than having the ability and willingness to do whatever it takes to stop the other person from being a threat.



Unless the fight doesn't fit the dogma and you are still stuck fighting for longer than a few seconds.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 1, 2017)

jobo said:


> they last a few seconds, because as a rule at least one doesnt don't have the fitness to last much longer,you don't really want that to be you ?



Well, no. From what I've seen treating a few thousand people following fights, they last a few seconds because at least one doesn't have the will to continue fighting, or because someone gets knocked down/out. Very, very few people are really willing to stand there trading strikes. The vast majority are hit a couple times and it's over.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 2, 2017)

jobo said:


> i said it was a MINIMUM fitness level,


And I said that it takes a different fitness level to survive rounds, depending who the opponent is. Give me a slow, out-of-shape guy, and I can easily last 15 rounds with him (from an endurance standpoint). Give me an elite athlete, and I probably don't last more than 1 (again, only looking at endurance), because he can move me around the ring and get shots in that rob me of endurance. Which are you saying is the minimum?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 2, 2017)

jobo said:


> they last a few seconds, because as a rule at least one doesnt don't have the fitness to last much longer,you don't really want that to be you ?


I've not seen evidence (in most of the videos I can find) of someone gassing out and it costing them the fight. That typically only happens if the fight lasts 30 seconds or more, and those are (again among the population of videos I have found) mostly rage fights (road rage, etc.). Those are the fights where (for the non-competitor) gassing out will be an issue.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 2, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Unless the fight doesn't fit the dogma and you are still stuck fighting for longer than a few seconds.


Which - while uncommon - does happen. I can't see it lasting minutes under realistic scenarios, but 30-90 seconds does happen.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 2, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, no. From what I've seen treating a few thousand people following fights, they last a few seconds because at least one doesn't have the will to continue fighting, or because someone gets knocked down/out. Very, very few people are really willing to stand there trading strikes. The vast majority are hit a couple times and it's over.


While I agree that seems to be the vast majority of cases, there is a smaller number of fights that go longer. Looking at videos, most of them seem avoidable (they are most commonly rage fights, so there are lots of cues and most often ready opportunities to avoid them).


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Which - while uncommon - does happen. I can't see it lasting minutes under realistic scenarios, but 30-90 seconds does happen.


Women tend to engage in physical striking longer than men. They also tend to be in situations where a struggle occurs such as sexual assault.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> While I agree that seems to be the vast majority of cases, there is a smaller number of fights that go longer. Looking at videos, most of them seem avoidable (they are most commonly rage fights, so there are lots of cues and most often ready opportunities to avoid them).



Sure. But I wasn't trying to make some All Encompassing Universal Statement of Truth. I said most.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Which - while uncommon - does happen. I can't see it lasting minutes under realistic scenarios, but 30-90 seconds does happen.



Big whopping gang fights can. And you can cover some distance. 





And so for example just being able to be more mobile than the other guy means you can have more numbers in each engagement. Which is also an advantage.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I have thrown around my issues with the idea that specific training somehow just being automatically more appropriate.


No single factor _automatically_ makes something better unless you hold other factors constant.



drop bear said:


> And the issue is that specific training doesn't prevent it from just being bad.


Very true. Of course, generalized training can also be bad.



drop bear said:


> I found a self defence expert.


That person is a self-defense "expert" to the same degree that I am a world-champion fighter. Writing a press release to claim a qualification doesn't mean you actually possess it.



drop bear said:


> An expert in self defence reveals how to fight back if you're pinned to the ground
> 
> But personally I think her method needs work. Her system needs work. And the individual, the training or the instructor is not going to be able to salvage a useable method from this.


Sadly, that video is far from the worst thing she's put out. Her video on defending against a rear choke is particularly sad.



drop bear said:


> My theory on training is you look at the results. And I learned this from looking at survival stuff. Taxtical machete vs gardening machete. One isnt better for gardening and one isnt better for being tactical.
> 
> The features define its use. Not its purpose.
> 
> So yes specific features of training will be better for different environments. But you cant tell from the label.


Here we get to the crux of your argument, which I would phrase as the difference between "designed for" and "marketed as." In general, these so-called "tactical" tools aren't designed by military professionals optimizing for the needs of their profession. Rather they're created by money-making professionals seeking to make a few bucks off of Rambo-wannabees.

Of course, the same could be said of certain martial arts training programs.



drop bear said:


> Strength is technique. We mesure strength by how much we can move. If we dont have good technique we are physically not as strong.


I'd rephrase that to say that strength is _partially_ technique. Muscle mass still counts. A 220 pound competitive weightlifter with 8% body fat and flawless technique will move more weight than a 150 pound competitive weightlifter with 12% body fat and flawless technique.

That said, it's worth repeating that technique is a significant component of strength.  A lot of people don't seem to realize that.



JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not saying the lady doesn't know what she's talking about



I am.



gpseymour said:


> I also think SD-oriented MMA training would make it even better for that purpose, and wouldn't take a huge adjustment. I'd be surprised if there weren't some folks doing that pretty well by now


Yep. Not as many as you might expect, but they're out there. Some of the JKD folks have moved that direction.



JowGaWolf said:


> Boxers usually have weaker legs and and leg defenses than martial artists


I consider boxers to be martial artists, but I'll set that aside and presume you're comparing boxers to practitioners of Asian martial arts which include kicking.

In that case, I'll say my experience does not back up the idea that boxers have weaker legs. (Weaker defenses against leg attacks, sure. That's not part of the boxing skill set.)



jobo said:


> they last a few seconds, because as a rule at least one doesnt don't have the fitness to last much longer,you don't really want that to be you ?





drop bear said:


> Unless the fight doesn't fit the dogma and you are still stuck fighting for longer than a few seconds.





Dirty Dog said:


> Well, no. From what I've seen treating a few thousand people following fights, they last a few seconds because at least one doesn't have the will to continue fighting, or because someone gets knocked down/out. Very, very few people are really willing to stand there trading strikes. The vast majority are hit a couple times and it's over.





gpseymour said:


> I've not seen evidence (in most of the videos I can find) of someone gassing out and it costing them the fight. That typically only happens if the fight lasts 30 seconds or more, and those are (again among the population of videos I have found) mostly rage fights (road rage, etc.). Those are the fights where (for the non-competitor) gassing out will be an issue.



In my experience and observation, most street fights are not nearly as cardio-intensive as even amateur boxing, kickboxing, MMA, or grappling competitions. That's not to say there aren't exceptions.

Even so, cardio can be an important feature of "street-oriented" training. Reasons include:

Being prepared to run after fighting long enough to break free of an attacker.

Being prepared to fight after running from an attacker and being caught.

Being prepared for those encounters which may require more of an extended struggle. (For example a smaller woman working to escape being pinned under a larger man.)

Being able to train with more intensity for longer periods, leading to greater skill levels.

Developing general mental toughness and therefore being less likely to quit in a real fight. (To be clear, it's the _process_ of building the cardio that also builds the mental toughness. Having cardio doesn't automatically make you tough.)


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 4, 2017)

Getting back to DB's original point, I'll sum up my take as follows:

A well-designed training program for a specific purpose does have advantages in producing good results in that context over a more general program or a program designed for a different purpose.

The key words in that sentence are _well-designed_. In order to fulfill that requirement, your program needs a few features.

First, the general fundamentals have to be there. If I can't teach you to hit hard, then it doesn't matter if I'm teaching you striking for the street or MMA or the boxing ring. It's not going to help regardless. If I don't know how to grapple, then it doesn't matter if I'm trying to prepare Judo competitors or teach police officers how to cuff a resisting suspect.

Secondly, the understanding of the specific context has to be there. I might be a skilled grappler, but if I don't know the rules of BJJ competition, I'm not going to give you the best preparation for a BJJ tournament. Likewise, if I don't know the rules of engagement for a prison guard, I may give you sub-optimal advice for restraining a prisoner. In some cases, misunderstanding the requirements of the immediate context may lead to minor problems. In others it may lead to total failure.

Thirdly (though not directly relevant to the current discussion), the person designing the program needs to understand how to actually teach the material. I might be a great boxer or bouncer or soldier or whatever, but if I can't pass on those skills and attributes, then the training program isn't that helpful.

Speaking for myself as an instructor, I feel reasonably confident about my fundamentals (striking, grappling, body mechanics, footwork, etc.) I don't pretend to be any sort of great authority on any specific context (tournament, street fight, etc) for the application of those skills. What I try to do is help my students build the underlying skills and attributes, give them what pointers I can for specific application based on my experience and study, and then give them opportunities to drill live applications with different rules and objectives, so that hopefully they will have the mental flexibility to adapt their skills for the context at hand.


----------



## skribs (Dec 4, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Getting back to DB's original point, I'll sum up my take as follows:
> 
> A well-designed training program for a specific purpose does have advantages in producing good results in that context over a more general program or a program designed for a different purpose.
> 
> ...



This is what I was trying to say with my Quality vs. Quantity statement.  The quality of the instruction (fundamentals, contextual understanding, teaching skill) is one aspect, as is the amount of time focused in class on that particular subject.  If have a generalized class where you spend 10 minutes on fundamentals, 10 minutes on forms, 10 minutes on sport sparring, and 10 minutes on self defense, it's going to be a lot different than a class where you spend 20 minutes on fundamentals and 30 minutes on self defense.


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2017)

[QUOTE="Tony Dismukes, post: 1877285, member:









In my experience and observation, most street fights are not nearly as cardio-intensive as even amateur boxing, kickboxing, MMA, or grappling competitions. That's not to say there aren't exceptions.

Even so, cardio can be an important feature of "street-oriented" training. Reasons include:

Being prepared to run after fighting long enough to break free of an attacker.

Being prepared to fight after running from an attacker and being caught.

Being prepared for those encounters which may require more of an extended struggle. (For example a smaller woman working to escape being pinned under a larger man.)

Being able to train with more intensity for longer periods, leading to greater skill levels.

Developing general mental toughness and therefore being less likely to quit in a real fight. (To be clear, it's the _process_ of building the cardio that also builds the mental toughness. Having cardio doesn't automatically make you tough.)[/QUOTE]

tony I'm replying to the quotes from Gerry and dd as well as to what you've written n reply to them.

I'm beginning to thing that their is a middle aged ma facility, that skill will over come a younger fitter heavier opponent, therefore fitness can be taken lightly, and i suppose to some extent that so, provide d your techneque is good enough AND the fitness disparity isn't so great.

but the whole fitness isn't important as fights last only a few,seconds is to the most part nonsnse, if they only last a few seconds its because its a complete miss match in terms of either skill or fitness or most likely both. Or both parties are equally unfit and five seconds of effort has wiped them out and they give it up. Consequently, there are fights where both have a matched level of skill and developed fitness which will last far longer. Or one has far more strengh ans the other more speed and duration or any of quite a few combinations . In those fights the fittest tends to win after,,, 2minetts 5 mins 10 mins ????? How ever long it takes for once party to gas out and lose. Co ordination strengh etal or some one. Breaks it up ??

if you cant just put your attacker away in a few seconds, you'd better hope he doesn't,cycle to work or play soccer or basket ball, or you may very well lose two minutes latter when your under develop cardio let's go


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 4, 2017)

jobo said:


> tony I'm replying to the quotes from Gerry and dd as well as to what you've written n reply to them.
> 
> I'm beginning to thing that their is a middle aged ma facility, that skill will over come a younger fitter heavier opponent, therefore fitness can be taken lightly, and i suppose to some extent that so, provide d your techneque is good enough AND the fitness disparity isn't so great.
> 
> ...



I don't think there's anything in your post which is opposed to what I wrote. The scenarios you give of fights which go longer than normal would fit within the 3rd example I listed of why cardio can still be important even for "street" application. I listed 3 other examples and I could probably come up with more.

Trust me, as a 53 year old with a desk job who regularly spars with athletes and fighters half my age (some of them professionals), I'm quite aware of the difference physical attributes can make. My skill and experience acts as somewhat of an equalizer, but if I were really concerned with improving my current fighting ability as quickly as possible, I'd switch 90% of my current training to a serious strength and conditioning program. My fitness is great compared to my peer group of computer programmers in their 50s. Compared to that of a competitive fighter, it's crap. The only reason it's not worse is I've got all these young guys trying to squash me on a regular basis.

To be honest, though, the odds of my getting in a serious fight any time soon are not high, so my focus is more on training for the love of the art. I may be getting back into some Judo competition in a few months, if so, that will be a motivation for pushing my cardio back up to a decent level.


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't think there's anything in your post which is opposed to what I wrote. The scenarios you give of fights which go longer than normal would fit within the 3rd example I listed of why cardio can still be important even for "street" application. I listed 3 other examples and I could probably come up with more.
> 
> Trust me, as a 53 year old with a desk job who regularly spars with athletes and fighters half my age (some of them professionals), I'm quite aware of the difference physical attributes can make. My skill and experience acts as somewhat of an equalizer, but if I were really concerned with improving my current fighting ability as quickly as possible, I'd switch 90% of my current training to a serious strength and conditioning program. My fitness is great compared to my peer group of computer programmers in their 50s. Compared to that of a competitive fighter, it's crap. The only reason it's not worse is I've got all these young guys trying to squash me on a regular basis.
> 
> To be honest, though, the odds of my getting in a serious fight any time soon are not high, so my focus is more on training for the love of the art. I may be getting back into some Judo competition in a few months, if so, that will be a motivation for pushing my cardio back up to a decent level.


your examples of why cardio MIGHT be useful, centre around, fighting and then running, running ans then fighting And being q small woman, all of which are true, but in making,those specifics, you are over looking the point that cadio is essential for movement, especially fighting. So,,,, , good cardio, or better cardio than your attackers is extremely usefull, even essential if you cant. Just knock them out in a few,seconds


----------



## Steve (Dec 5, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Getting back to DB's original point, I'll sum up my take as follows:
> 
> A well-designed training program for a specific purpose does have advantages in producing good results in that context over a more general program or a program designed for a different purpose.
> 
> ...


I agree with this in general, but would further add that a well designed program will start with measurable outcomes based on objective data.  

What’s the purpose of the training, and how are you measuring success?  

Teaching someone to punch is only helpful if punching is a relevant skill. I believe that, without this analysis, there is a lot of selling features without benefits, like selling a high efficiency A/C to an Eskimo.  They might appreciate the efficiency, but won’t ever realize the benefit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 9, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Big whopping gang fights can. And you can cover some distance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a realistic situation, but only for those who choose to participate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 9, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> No single factor _automatically_ makes something better unless you hold other factors constant.
> 
> 
> Very true. Of course, generalized training can also be bad.
> ...


As usual, well said, Tony.


----------

