Remembering that the post I was referring to was not about being an expert but about self defence or even more specifically that learning WC not giving you self defence skills I have trawled back through all you posts and I'm sorry, I don't think you have posted anything in this thread that is really relevant to
wingchun100's post.
In the same way, we have a lot of people who teach self defense, who, like Chris, believe that studying something can lead to expertise. I disagree. You can get to the piont where you might be able to apply skills. But that does not equal expert.
Vague association but assuming WC is a legitimate martial art, when you get to the point where you can apply the skills learned you should be able to defend yourself. I'm not sure whether your comment in your last post was suggesting that WC was not effective anyway.
"My opinion is that learning wing chun is just that: learning wing chun."
Most martial arts training stops somewhere between comprehension and application. The transition you guys are talking about is exactly the transition between comprehension and application. In adult learning and business training, this is the big challenge. How to get people out of training and able to apply the skills on the job in the quickest, most eficient and reliable way.
But, in business, as in ANY human endeavor, competence is the FIRST step toward expertise. In other words, a person who is an expert must be competent, but not every person who is competent is an expert.
So again ignoring the expert bit, I'm thinking that if you train in a martial art you become competent. If a martial art is actually a martial art and you are competent you should be able to defend yourself.
This is what I was referring to in the other thread. If you're training in goju ryu karate, you can certainly become an expert in that system. If Chris Parker or RTKDCMB teaches a defined curriculum with standards and measures of proficiency, then of course students could advance within the system and become experts.
If you become expert in a system that was created for self defence as the Chinese and Okinawan systems were, and you are saying here that you can become an expert in that system. So why would you even consider teaching self defence separately?
What I hear you saying is that, in addition to experience, you need to be well trained. I agree.
So assuming the Sifu is well trained in a martial art, which was designed to provide self defence why does he teach self defence as a separate thing?
I just want to point out to you guys that you're specifically talking about the act of doing what you've trained to do. In a combat unit, is the guy fresh out of training considered an expert? Nothing left for him to learn?
If you're thinking, "Yes, of course there's more for him to learn," then we are in complete agreement. I would say that a highly capable, fully trained combat soldier coming out of training and into his first unit is likely competent. But, do you guys really think he's an expert?
On the bloom's taxonomy model I mentioned earlier (Knowledge - Comprehension - Application - Analysis - Synthesis - Evalution), I'd put the new guy right on the hyphen between Comprehension and Application. Doing it is "application" level. NCOs with years in the trade are moving up beyond simple competence.
This might be more like it. So some one comes out of training in a combat unit is competent to go into combat but someone coming out of training for WC who is competent in WC is not ready to defend themselves in a fight. Mmm?
So, you're saying that the trainees aren't experts, and even some of their trainers weren't experts, either? But, I bet the trainers were well trained in the specific training model. Right? They may not have been expert paratroopers, but they were probably excellent trainers.
So, let's apply this to martial arts: Let's say there's a "self defense" boot camp. The trainer isn't a "Self Defense" expert (in the same way that some of the instructors at Jump School weren't experts). But he's an expert in the system. What is he teaching you? The system. What are you becoming competent in? The system. And when you "graduate" from the training, you may be competent in the system and may have learned some VERY solid techniques that can help you defend yourself. But, you're not a self defense expert. And neither was your instructor.
Not an expert, but surely you should have some idea of how to defend yourself?
Here's the main point. Training, no matter how good, can only prepare you for competence.
Not everyone will work in trade that will take them to a level of expertise.
Abd to be clear, for most people, this is plenty. The danger is when a competent expert creates a system and then people start misrepresenting the system. A guy creates a system and then traces another guy, abd that guy things that he's a self defense expert because he's an expert in the system. I would suggest that the two are not the same.
A bit confusing. A few posts back you could be competent but now you are only prepared for competence.
The point, though, where this experienced person puts together his/her system, the training becomes codified and specific. In other words, he's not teaching "self defense". He's teaching his system. And while this won't make any difference in the short term, I believe that down the road it does. A question I posed in the other thread was how many generations from practical expertise have to occur before the efficacy of the training will suffer? Let's say you are an experienced guy with a lot of practical, hands on knowledge of a subject. Using your expertise, you put together a training curriculum that is practical and effective and you begin teaching people. They, in turn, become experts in your system and begin teaching other people. And so on. This is how martial arts work. A guy develops his system. He teaches people, who teach people, who teach people.
The simple point I'm making is that they are specifically teaching people the system. The expertise being gained isn't "self defense." It's the system. And, at some point, I believe that without reality checks, the system will suffer from the presumption of efficacy.
This might be closer. But here we would be saying WC is a system, the guy teaching the system learned from a guy teaching the system, it was never tested so now it may not work. But what if it had been tested along the way. What if there was input from real life situations that validate the system?
Totally agree, and this was the genesis of the original thread. Self Defense is so vague that I don't think it's very useful. BJJ doesn't, IMO, teach self defense, although some of the skills are certainly useful. MMA doesn't teach self defense, either, although once again, some of the skills can be useful.
But, Krav Maga doesn't teach self defense, either. In exactly the same way BJJ/MMA/Boxing etc teach the system, Krav Maga teaches a method. Without the reality checks and practical experience, the best someone can hope for out of their training is expertise within the system, and... maybe... competent defense skills. But an expert in Krav Maga, Systema or whatever, is not necessarily an expert in self defense. Might be, but not necessarily.
Why is this? I believe it's because "self defense" is a sales pitch.
Ant thus is important. BJJ and MMA are teaching for sport. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be useful for SD but you are confusing two different things. TMAs are designed to teach self defence. Sport styles are training you for competition. Because you perceive your training to lack the SD component doesn't mean the others do.
And no, self defence is just that. Learning to defend yourself. As I tell everyone, if you think there is anything I teach that you can't use in a pub brawl, let me know and I'll chuck it out. And your comment about Krav and Systema is so far from accurate it doesn't require comment.
I would say that if you train in a specific martial art, regardless of which art, you are working on becoming an expert in that specific system. Where "expert" falls and how it's defined will be specific to that art. The fundamental point here is that, you cannot become an expert in Goju Ryu Karate by studying (no matter how diligently) BJJ. You cannot become an expert in Budo Taijutsu by studying Judo. Simply put, you cannot become an expert in one thing by studying something else. It seems obvious, I know.
Self Defense is vague. It's like saying "love." Love means something different to everyone... and so does "self defense." People don't train self defense. People train in systems.
This seems to be saying if you study one thing (WC) you can't become an expert in another (SD) but when WC=SD your comment doesn't make sense.
I believe that every martial art system, sport or non-sport, has strengths and weaknesses. There is no perfect system.
Is BJJ good for self defense or bad for self defense? The answer is it's both good and bad. There are good things and bad things taught in BJJ that might apply to self defense. Same for MMA. And, here's the key. It's the same for all arts.
Now, this isn't to say that all arts are equal. Quality training can make a big difference. I'm not suggesting that all training is equally effective. I'm simply saying that training can only take you, at best, to the cusp of competence. In order to become competent (which is the first step on the road to becoming an expert), you have to apply the skills outside of training. And for most people, this is plenty.
Ballen pointed out a guy he respects who teaches a system that he believes is VERY effective for him. How is ballen able to say this? Because ballen uses the system in real life. He's making the leap from comprehension to application and then to evaluation. While is friend is an expert in the system he teaches, I'd argue that the person who is becoming a real expert is ballen, since he's developing skills within the system AND accumulating experience applying the skills outside of training. And, the best possible instruction I could receive would be from someone who is an expert in the system AND ALSO has the tacit knowledge that can only be learned over time with experience.
Speak for BJJ but not for others. You have no idea of TMA training except in the sporting context which is why we are having this discussion. If
ballen's system works my system works.
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.
My opinion is that learning wing chun is just that: learning wing chun. And really, to be more specific, you're learning a specific flavor of WC.
As with all martial arts styles, there are going to be some self defense applications, but my personal belief is that there is no style that teaches comprehensive self defense. Everyone teaches a piece of the puzzle, some pieces are larger than others.
Earlier in the thread, I compared the term "self defense" to another abstract, "love." In my opinion, you can't really teach people "self defense" because you can't teach people an abstract. In the same way, you can't teach a young couple love. You can't take two people and teach them to be in love.
But you CAN teach a young couple how to be a better couple. They can be taught how to better communicate with each other and how to avoid common pitfalls. Problem areas, traps and pitfalls in their relationships can be identified and skills can be taught to help them manage those areas. In other words, you can't teach people how to be in love, but you CAN teach them skills that could help them STAY in love. And these skills are very specific. Communications, financial management, career guidance, parenting, etc.
In the same way, you can't (IMO) teach self defense. But you can teach skills that may (or may not) have some application in self defense.
If your question to me was genuine, I believe if you read my threads you understand my perspective, even if you disagree. Without a keyboard, typing anything as lengthy as this response on a phone or tablet is tedious. So, yeah. Asking me the same question again, but with a little attitude doesn't change anything. My intent wasn't to put you off, but it's a little irritating that you can't be bothered to read (or re-read if necessary) the damned thread.
I had heaps more but I've run out of time. I'm sorry if I demonstrated attitude but my question related to one post, not the entire thread. But, I reread all your posts. They didn't clarify anything but they did identify that you don't think BJJ or MMA teach SD and by association nothing else does either. That is where we will have to disagree.
:asian:
...just rambling through a train of thought.
