Can You Be An Expert?

[EddieCyrax]

Another scenario:

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

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

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

 

[oftheherd1]

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


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

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

 

[oftheherd1]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[K-man]

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

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

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

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

 

[ballen0351]

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

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

 

[ballen0351]

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

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

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

 

[ballen0351]

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

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

 

[ballen0351]

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

 

[Tgace]

Well....my. 02

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

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

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

Yep

 

[ballen0351]

Well....my. 02

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

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

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

 

[Tgace]

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

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

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

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

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

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

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

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

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

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

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

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

 

[jks9199]

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

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