Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?

[Steve]

Nope. They come from the same base population, but they aren't randomly assigned. They choose to move into one or the other population. If that choice is on any basis that doesn't randomize, it presents the possibility of selection bias in the results.

As for those two groups, you're correct about A. B may simply be folks who understand they're not getting a quick fix (haven't met many who thought they were who stuck around more than a few weeks), but found something that fit their priorities and/or preferences. Not wanting to compete and not wanting to train 10-0 hours a week isn't the same as laziness. And you know that, you're just purposely using inflammatory language to try to derail this, because you don't really have a point to make.

Someone's using purposefully inflammatory language to derail this thread. But it's not me. If you spent as much time discussing things as you do scolding people for even on topic posts.

People who do crash diets just have different priorities and/or preferences. Right? Never mind that those priorities aren't losing weight. Maybe they just appreciate the joy of crash dieting. It's not the weight at all. Right? Just priorities. Just preferences.

Yes, but your post was an attempt to reframe what I said into something you could argue a certain way. Pretty petty.

Was it? Not from my perspective. Maybe you and I just simply disagree. For example, I think your continued ad hominem attacks on a few posters who just don't agree with you is petty.

And you're wrong.

Okay.

Except you're not explaining it. You're attacking a position I haven't taken, while trying to claim confirmation bias doesn't exist in a sittuation where it really does. If you don't understand the term, I'll be happy to try to explain it better. If you do, then you're just not trying.

Or maybe I'm explaining it, but you can't seem to process that some folks just fundamentally disagree with you, because you feel like that disagreement is a judgement on you and on your preferences.

You're mixing case studies and population studies, tossing in some sloppy reducto ad absurdum (I think I've recalled the term properly).

Let me clean that up for you. First, we need two groups to sort into. There are two places offering a chane to do this. One teaches (from the ground up) for IDPA competition. The other teaches basic target shooting. There are 300 people in the area who want to learn to shoot. Some of them want to see how well they shoot in competition against other people (they're far more likely to choose the IDPA-oriented place). Some of them want to get as good as they can at handling a handgun (based on the description and their vague goal, they could choose either). Another group just wants to learn basic safety and how to make it go "bang" reliably (they're more likely to choose the non-IDPA place, because they don't care about learning the rules of IDPA and just want to work with basics).

We don't really know if either place is any good, but we can already guess which marketing is more likely to appeal. That's where selection bias comes in. In this case (with the parameters we have so far) that selection bias probably doesn't affect us, because we haven't talked about time put in or what they do in the schools.

however, you're missing the salient point here. The gun analogy wasn't about competition shooting vs non-competitive shooting. It's about doing something or not doing something. Let's be real here. In your school, how long do you think someone would need to train to prevail in a fight with a person who trains MMA 6 hours a week for two years? I mean, this guy attacks your student. Be honest. How long before one of your students could hope to physically defend him or herself from someone who trains 6 hours per week for 2 years in BJJ, or a wrestler, or a judoka, or a TKD athlete (what are they called?) or a boxer? Is the answer 2 years? I don't believe that. Five years? 10? Never?

Even if it's not "never." Even if we are generous about it, if the question is, "Are competitive sport martial artists superior?" I'm honestly astounded that the answer isn't obvious. Derailing the thread with a red herring argument about preferences doesn't change that answer. I mean, sure, some folks may prefer to ride a bicycle than to ride a motorcycle. But if you need to get from Seattle to Orlando in 5 days, the bicycle just isn't going to get you there. It's not viable, and so hand wringing about priorities and preferences just isn't relevant. Do some people like to be ninjas? Sure, and there's not a darn thing wrong with it. But that doesn't mean they're learning anything practical.

 

[dvcochran]

While there is a point of diminishing return, the rule of thumb I've heard is at least three times per week. So, if a person trains 5 to 6 hours per week in a competitive art another person trains 10 hours per week, super hard, in a non-competitive art, I still think the competitive person will outperform the other in most, if not all, cases. Even if it's the same art and all other things are the same. I wouldn't be surprised if a person who trains 40 hours per week as a full time job could keep up with the skill development of someone doing the same thing about 6 hours per week but with application baked in. That's something I'd like to see.

I don't think so. There is just much more to competitive performance than training hours. The best visual analogy I can think of is football. There are always guys who get through practices with the minimum required but really shine on game day.
And quality of training/trainer has a Lot to do with the time required.
And some people just process certain information better/faster than others.
And some people have more physicality and coordination.
The list keeps going.

I get the impression you are blurring average MA training/classes with competitive training. Average training/class should be very physical and mentally challenging for the average working Joe. Competitive training should be a step to several steps above average.

Your post got me thinking about my time competing. It was when I was a LEO and I worked at least 40 hours/week. Plus 10-20 hours/week on the farm. Add 20-30 hours running our school. Plus training 6 days/week at least 3 hrs/day. I look back now and wonder how I did it? That is the intangible I am talking about. Good old fashioned 'want-to'.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Someone's using purposefully inflammatory language to derail this thread. But it's not me. If you spent as much time discussing things as you do scolding people for even on topic posts.

People who do crash diets just have different priorities and/or preferences. Right? Never mind that those priorities aren't losing weight. Maybe they just appreciate the joy of crash dieting. It's not the weight at all. Right? Just priorities. Just preferences.

Was it? Not from my perspective. Maybe you and I just simply disagree. For example, I think your continued ad hominem attacks on a few posters who just don't agree with you is petty.

Okay.

Or maybe I'm explaining it, but you can't seem to process that some folks just fundamentally disagree with you, because you feel like that disagreement is a judgement on you and on your preferences.

however, you're missing the salient point here. The gun analogy wasn't about competition shooting vs non-competitive shooting. It's about doing something or not doing something. Let's be real here. In your school, how long do you think someone would need to train to prevail in a fight with a person who trains MMA 6 hours a week for two years? I mean, this guy attacks your student. Be honest. How long before one of your students could hope to physically defend him or herself from someone who trains 6 hours per week for 2 years in BJJ, or a wrestler, or a judoka, or a TKD athlete (what are they called?) or a boxer? Is the answer 2 years? I don't believe that. Five years? 10? Never?

Even if it's not "never." Even if we are generous about it, if the question is, "Are competitive sport martial artists superior?" I'm honestly astounded that the answer isn't obvious. Derailing the thread with a red herring argument about preferences doesn't change that answer. I mean, sure, some folks may prefer to ride a bicycle than to ride a motorcycle. But if you need to get from Seattle to Orlando in 5 days, the bicycle just isn't going to get you there. It's not viable, and so hand wringing about priorities and preferences just isn't relevant. Do some people like to be ninjas? Sure, and there's not a darn thing wrong with it. But that doesn't mean they're learning anything practical.

See? You're back to trying to make this about my training approach, which wasn't really the point of anything I posted. I simply said something about confirmation bias and you went off the rails.

I guess we're done with this. You used to be capable of actually discussing things, now you just jump in and push an agenda (mostly trying to talk about how much you don't like what you think I do).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't think so. There is just much more to competitive performance than training hours. The best visual analogy I can think of is football. There are always guys who get through practices with the minimum required but really shine on game day.
And quality of training/trainer has a Lot to do with the time required.
And some people just process certain information better/faster than others.
And some people have more physicality and coordination.
The list keeps going.

I get the impression you are blurring average MA training/classes with competitive training. Average training/class should be very physical and mentally challenging for the average working Joe. Competitive training should be a step to several steps above average.

Your post got me thinking about my time competing. It was when I was a LEO and I worked at least 40 hours/week. Plus 10-20 hours/week on the farm. Add 20-30 hours running our school. Plus training 6 days/week at least 3 hrs/day. I look back now and wonder how I did it? That is the intangible I am talking about. Good old fashioned 'want-to'.

There are certainly outliers (there was a famous golfer - I've forgotten which one - who didn't even play or practice much except tournaments). But on the whole the way people train for competition is more focused and intense than the way folks train in non-competitive arts, in my experience. That focus and intensity makes a big diffference. If the folks training for competition trained with less focus and intensity, they wouldn't get as good. And it's the focus on competition that drives that, for a lot of folks. I've seen a few places that trained with that kind of intensity but didn't compete much (can't think of any place that trained with that kind of focus regularly without competition driving it, though I can think of some people who did), but it's less common than the places I've seen that were competition-focused.

Mind you, some places that train with competition in mind are focused, but not all that intense. This was my experience in Judo.

 

[Steve]

See? You're back to trying to make this about my training approach, which wasn't really the point of anything I posted. I simply said something about confirmation bias and you went off the rails.

I guess we're done with this. You used to be capable of actually discussing things, now you just jump in and push an agenda (mostly trying to talk about how much you don't like what you think I do).

I'm not talking about you at all. I'm talking to you about training. I'll take your emotional tirade above as your answer. I think you take this personally because, on some level, you understand that it's 100% accurate.

And as always, just to say that it's entirely okay to not train in a competitive sport arts if that's your preference. You just need to understand that you're very likely not learning to fight and you're probably not learning a lot of self defense, either.

 

[Hanzou]

however, you're missing the salient point here. The gun analogy wasn't about competition shooting vs non-competitive shooting. It's about doing something or not doing something. Let's be real here. In your school, how long do you think someone would need to train to prevail in a fight with a person who trains MMA 6 hours a week for two years? I mean, this guy attacks your student. Be honest. How long before one of your students could hope to physically defend him or herself from someone who trains 6 hours per week for 2 years in BJJ, or a wrestler, or a judoka, or a TKD athlete (what are they called?) or a boxer? Is the answer 2 years? I don't believe that. Five years? 10? Never?

Even if it's not "never." Even if we are generous about it, if the question is, "Are competitive sport martial artists superior?" I'm honestly astounded that the answer isn't obvious. Derailing the thread with a red herring argument about preferences doesn't change that answer. I mean, sure, some folks may prefer to ride a bicycle than to ride a motorcycle. But if you need to get from Seattle to Orlando in 5 days, the bicycle just isn't going to get you there. It's not viable, and so hand wringing about priorities and preferences just isn't relevant. Do some people like to be ninjas? Sure, and there's not a darn thing wrong with it. But that doesn't mean they're learning anything practical.

This reminds me of the Aikido instructor in Eastern Europe who kept asking questions about the effectiveness of his style. Eventually he set up a sparring match with MMA guy just to test out his skills, and he couldn’t do anything as the MMA practitioner punched and kicked him at will. The Aikido master shut down his dojo, moved to the US, learned Bjj and MMA and is now an amateur MMA fighter.

That story resonated with me because I had a similar experience with a boxer while I practiced Shotokan. You’re fed a steady diet of BS and you think you can defend yourself when you really can’t.

I think anyone in a TMA should honestly answer your question, and reevaluate as necessary.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not talking about you at all. I'm talking to you about training. I'll take your emotional tirade above as your answer. I think you take this personally because, on some level, you understand that it's 100% accurate.

And as always, just to say that it's entirely okay to not train in a competitive sport arts if that's your preference. You just need to understand that you're very likely not learning to fight and you're probably not learning a lot of self defense, either.

Okay, play it that way. Nothing you're ascribing to me in this post actually reflects what I posted. And you continue to make the same unsupported binary claim.

EDIT: By the way, it's entirely dishonest to say you're not talking about me, when the post I quoted had you asking about my students. That's just a flat-out lie.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This reminds me of the Aikido instructor in Eastern Europe who kept asking questions about the effectiveness of his style. Eventually he set up a sparring match with MMA guy just to test out his skills, and he couldn’t do anything as the MMA practitioner punched and kicked him at will. The Aikido master shut down his dojo, moved to the US, learned Bjj and MMA and is now an amateur MMA fighter.

That story resonated with me because I had a similar experience with a boxer while I practiced Shotokan. You’re fed a steady diet of BS and you think you can defend yourself when you really can’t.

I think anyone in a TMA should honestly answer your question, and reevaluate as necessary.

I've actually addressed similar questions before. And I think Steve knows he stacked that question. My students train once a week (I only teach one class) for 90 minutes. He wants to compare that to someone who trains 6 hours a week. Wouldn't matter how good I was, nor even if every student competed regularly.

 

[drop bear]

Laser trainers are quite useful, and have no noise (well, ok, the gun still goes click), no gunpowder smells, and no funny looking sunglasses. Sue and I use them regularly. In addition to the target games, we have been known to shoot the zombies on screen while watching The Walking Dead. Headshots only. First one to hit it gets the point.
Could a person learn to shoot only by using laser trainers? Sure. They wouldn't be as good at controlling recoil, but that only means a series of shots will be over a slightly longer time period. And there are plenty of people shooting real ammo who don't have good recoil control, for various reasons. If the laser shooter has strong wrists, they may well have better recoil control than an ammo shooter with weak wrists. Since the thread is about people who compete, it's worth noting that Olympic pistol shooting is done with a .22. There's really no significant recoil from these, which would make real ammo training even less necessary. There's not much noise either.
So maybe noise, gunpowder smells and funny looking sunglasses aren't really intrinsic to pistol shooting?

The idea though is there is some sort of section of the community that prefer shooting lasers to real guns.

So instead of lasers or real guns being two different methods we can compare. It is really hard to tell because the people attracted to lets say lasers just all happen to be better shooters.

 

[drop bear]

No, because in this case they didn't get to choose. We divided the group in half. If we did that randomly, there's no selection bias. But then you're probably aware of that, just trying to push a narrative that I'm saying something I'm not.

I am blatantly making fun of an incredibly silly idea. One that give me the opportunity to discount every comparison everywhere.

Unless I have forced these choices on people at gunpoint which of course never happens.

Even if this was some sort of a blind trial. They would have chosen to do this experiment and so therefore selection bias.

I have exactly the reverse idea of this regarding martial arts.

Instead of people doing what they want and the outcome becomes dependent on natural ability or proclivities.

They do what they need to do so they can change their outcomes to suit their desires.

 

[Steve]

Okay, play it that way. Nothing you're ascribing to me in this post actually reflects what I posted. And you continue to make the same unsupported binary claim.

EDIT: By the way, it's entirely dishonest to say you're not talking about me, when the post I quoted had you asking about my students. That's just a flat-out lie.

I asked you a question you are not answering. I asked you for your opinion based on your experience. I'm interested in an answer. In a thread about competitive martial artists. I asked it in as clear and direct a manner as I could think of. You haven't answered. But you could answer it, rather than chide me for having an opinion that I suspect you agree with.

 

[Steve]

I've actually addressed similar questions before. And I think Steve knows he stacked that question. My students train once a week (I only teach one class) for 90 minutes. He wants to compare that to someone who trains 6 hours a week. Wouldn't matter how good I was, nor even if every student competed regularly.

Level the playing field and don't personalize it. Someone generic person who trains in your style at another school. Or who trains ninutsu or whatever. The assertion you made had to do with effort and intensity. That's the point. Not about how you specifically run your school. Jesus, man. Get over yourself.

So, someone who trains bjj 10 hours a week in a school that doesn't compete vs a person who trains 6 hours a week at a bjj where they do. My money is on the latter. And the question remains, even training 10 hours a week in a style where you don't compete ... In your experience where is the breakeven point? Does the non competitors ever build sufficient skill to prevail against a competitor who has trained a fraction of the time?

 

[dvcochran]

I have come to realize the OP is a setup. It is so broad and random the answer is a moving target.

First the definition of competitive in context comes into question. What is meant by 'competitive? Competitive to what or who? To what degree?

Sport. A word that is the bane of some martial artists. Again, in context does sport blur with competitive?

Artist in the OP title is unusual and intriguing. Does it infer the upper echelon of the group in discussion or one from the average? Or is it simply a slur on a long used title?

Superior. Superior to what?

The OP, @Hanzou , is an experienced and informed practitioner of Martial Arts. As this thread has devolved I wish the OP would elaborate on where he/she hoped the thread would go. In an effort to help.

 

[punisher73]

Agreed. But there's certainly room for a running program that promises to improve your running performance, based upon a more limited time commitment. Say, developing a reasonable 3-mile pace.

Absolutely there is room. But, it is advertised exactly what it is (such as "couch to 5k ready"). In MA's, there are many schools that promise that they have the ultimate art and will turn you into the ultimate fighter without the requisite blood, sweat and tears. That is the issue I see.

 

[Hanzou]

The OP, @Hanzou , is an experienced and informed practitioner of Martial Arts. As this thread has devolved I wish the OP would elaborate on where he/she hoped the thread would go. In an effort to help.

Honestly the answer to those questions should be in the OP and subsequent responses.

 

[dvcochran]

Honestly the answer to those questions should be in the OP and subsequent responses.

I read through the whole 18 pages. Surprisingly my questions are not answered in any conclusive way. Specific to each person experiences, yes. And I think that is the most important way to answer the question.
The consistent theme of professional fighters being above the standard could be called an exception I suppose but as some posts pointed out training from different eras may factor even some of that out.
@Steve had some of the best post on the topic I think. But they were also largely from a singular perspective.
@Tony Dismukes has a very good post about his experience from ninjutsu to BJJ.
After reading the posts it makes me realize how fortunate I have been in the way I was raised and the training I have received. I wrestled and played football throughout high school and college and had a great competitive career. I have never worked out anywhere that did not spar with heavy contact on a regular basis. @Buka 's comment on his kind of training experience is typical in my experience. Possibly this is where your perspective gets skewed.

So I am no stranger competition. This is where Tony's post is most relevant and why I asked my questions. Sparring and competition specific to a style is just that and done everywhere, including BJJ. You, yourself admitted BJJ is not as strong at standup fighting and kicking. Kicking/punching styles are not going to be as good at ground and pound. In all my bar room fights very few of them went to the ground. And this is very true in law enforcement where going to the ground usually means they were resisting. Truth be told there is less danger for the adversary on the ground in most cases.
Being a wrestler I have never felt uncomfortable going to the ground but that is not the OP's question nor do I yet know what the real question is but can definitely tell the OP is leading and/or baiting. Please clarify if I am wrong or get to the real question(s).
In my competition days no one could tell me there was a better style or team than mine. Same can be said for anybody who is/was really competitive, regardless of style.
I think a more cogent and relative question would be pressure tested styles/classes vs. non-pressure tested styles/classes. Semantics? Yes, I think so.
Especially with the messed up year we have had a Lot of people have not been able to train, let alone compete, roll, or pressure test. The only outlier that presents itself here are the things that you cannot pressure test at full power/speed on a live opponent. That does Not mean they cannot be practiced to proficiency with modern equipment. Hell, we did it without modern equipment pretty darn well. I would also say they the skills much more often used in self defense and by LEO. Carnal fighting skills are an okay thing to pursue But that is very different from the basis and meaning behind most martial arts. I learned carnal fighting skills growing up, from my family and in school sports. I did not know how to reconcile them into something usable in the real world until I got proficient in martial arts. Not sure it will but I hope that makes sense.
One thing that is certain; name changes are one of the easiest and most successful marketing tools out there. But statistically and in reality only about 20% of a product or material are ever really new. The remaining 80% are nothing more than a rehash of another product or material. This is consistent no matter the industry, martial arts and physical conditioning included.
Like I always say; a white horse painted grey is still a white horse.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am blatantly making fun of an incredibly silly idea. One that give me the opportunity to discount every comparison everywhere.

Unless I have forced these choices on people at gunpoint which of course never happens.

Even if this was some sort of a blind trial. They would have chosen to do this experiment and so therefore selection bias.

I have exactly the reverse idea of this regarding martial arts.

Instead of people doing what they want and the outcome becomes dependent on natural ability or proclivities.

They do what they need to do so they can change their outcomes to suit their desires.

You're blatantly abusing the term. If eveyone in a population chooses something, there's no bias inside that population. So, no, the folks choosing to participate doesn't create a variable between the groups. But I'm done explainign to you. I'm pretty sure you actually get the idea already, and are just purposely acting stupid with it.

And you've gone far afield from where selection bias came into this, where you were making assertions about people's motivations and what they are willing to do and trying to compare a competitive MMA or BJJ program to the students I teach. Folks interested in competition aren't looking for a once-a-week maximum number of classes. They self-select out. It wouldn't matter how good my class was, that's not enough time to prep someone for serious competition. Your club's 12-week program (as you explained it to me) includes enough hours to cover a few years of my classes. That's a much better approach for someone who wants to ramp up quickly for competition.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I asked you a question you are not answering. I asked you for your opinion based on your experience. I'm interested in an answer. In a thread about competitive martial artists. I asked it in as clear and direct a manner as I could think of. You haven't answered. But you could answer it, rather than chide me for having an opinion that I suspect you agree with.

How long would someone have to train with me, once a week for 90 minutes, to get as good as someone who trains 10-20 hours a week for a couple of years? Probably many years.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Level the playing field and don't personalize it. Someone generic person who trains in your style at another school. Or who trains ninutsu or whatever. The assertion you made had to do with effort and intensity. That's the point. Not about how you specifically run your school. Jesus, man. Get over yourself.

So, someone who trains bjj 10 hours a week in a school that doesn't compete vs a person who trains 6 hours a week at a bjj where they do. My money is on the latter. And the question remains, even training 10 hours a week in a style where you don't compete ... In your experience where is the breakeven point? Does the non competitors ever build sufficient skill to prevail against a competitor who has trained a fraction of the time?

My assertion wasn't what you are suggesting it was. Get over it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Absolutely there is room. But, it is advertised exactly what it is (such as "couch to 5k ready"). In MA's, there are many schools that promise that they have the ultimate art and will turn you into the ultimate fighter without the requisite blood, sweat and tears. That is the issue I see.

I agree.