jobo
Grandmaster
well even that's pushing the envelope,
would you be better at combat if you had sparred, probably
would that put you at a disadvantage in a fight, only if the other guy was sparring regularly, or it's even Stevens on that front
Can you become a good fighter by just sparring/wrestling only?
- Thread starter Kung Fu Wang
- Start date
would you be better at combat if you had sparred, probably
would that put you at a disadvantage in a fight, only if the other guy was sparring regularly, or it's even Stevens on that front
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Because of the instructor. So we remove the instructor.
Even without an instructor.
You could spar with a singular focus. And with that singular focus you will learn and develop techniques in real time.(which is how you should spar anyway)
You would still be just sparring but you would also be training.
And you would develop to a reasonable standard.
Even people who don't spar in this manner will develop what works for them and prioritise that in sparring. So basically the same thing happens. Just more randomly.
jobo
Grandmaster
not training, as no trainer, you cant be your own trainer, as your not competent to be so, by definition, the trainer has to be better than the trainee
you can be your own instructor, as that only requires you to give instruction, any one can do that
This is correct so long as you capture your sparring on video. Video becomes your "Trainer" eyes. Technically you should have an advantage being that you know what was going on in your mind at the time of each punch. It just requires that you are very honest with yourself.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
So self taught isn't a thing?
Is it? What have you taught yourself? I mean, by yourself. Not something you saw someone do. Not something you read about in a book. I think in our world, being truly self taught is exceedingly rare.
jobo
Grandmaster
I see your having trouble with words, its " training" that I'm taking issue with, not self instruction or self tought, which may or may not be possible, I just havent commented on it
Having only 10% instruction is self taught in my book. That would equate to someone showing you how to throw a punching motion then telling you to figure out how to make the best version of that punch and then how to use it.
It would be like me showing you a Jow Ga technique and you had to learn how to use it without having any examples on how to use it, beyond. It hits the person like this. Or like my swimming was. Move your arms like this, hold your breath, when you are under water. Then throw me off the deep end. This is how I learned how to swim. Which is why I'm not a strong swimmer. I didn't have the advantage of having a good starting point, but I became really good at swimming underwater due to all the sinking I was doing lol. When I taught my son how to swim. I taught him how to swim underwater first. Then sent him to learn how to swim through formal instruction.
OK, but again, real world. You're going to be exposed to countless examples of various ways to throw a punch. Movies. TV. Public school. Siblings. Parents. Neighbors.
I think self-taught happens more than we realize. My son taught himself how to whistle. He has been whistling on his own since 3 or 4 months old I think. The doctors used to get good chuckle with it because they would hear someone whistling and look at his parents and see that it wasn't us. He also had his own songs that he would whistle.
Babies figure out how to walk on their own. We don't actually teach them. We just help them with what they are already trying to do on their own. The most that parents do is just encourage the child and make sure the child doesn't hit their head on something. But we don't give instructions or lessons like, "move your feet like this."
Babies figure out how to walk on their own. We don't actually teach them. We just help them with what they are already trying to do on their own. The most that parents do is just encourage the child and make sure the child doesn't hit their head on something. But we don't give instructions or lessons like, "move your feet like this."
Mimicry is learning. Example is teaching.
Just because you are exposed to something doesn't mean that you are learning it from that exposure.
Trying to do. Is learning Mimicry could be just copying motion which is why so many people in TMA get their butts handed to them when fighting against someone who actually fights. You can copy what you see, but you don't learn until you try to do.
Another example. You can copy what you see when someone plays the guitar, and you'll never learn how to play the guitar. If that was the case then you could actually learn just by watching. The reality is that you have to learn by doing. Sometimes that's with a lot of guidance and other times the person has very little to no guidance. When you don't have guidance or good guidance then you end up "rediscovering the wheel"
I learned how to ride a skateboard on my own. No one taught me. My parents bought me a skateboard and I went out there stood on it, fell a lot ,and I kept doing it until I got good at it. None of my friends had skateboard back then when I got mine.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Even with video or books there is no trainer though.
And less common now with youtube.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
What is it about sparring that is considered not training?
jobo
Grandmaster
it doesnt( in the context of the op) fit any reasonable defintion of receiving training and thus eventually being trained,
or to put it another way, sparing is a valuable exsperiance however training and exsperiance are not the same thing ergo learning from exsperiance is not training, passing on your exsperiance to others can be
Last edited:
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
"Training is teaching, or developing in oneself or others, any skills and knowledge or fitness that relate to specific useful competencies. Training has specific goals of improving one's capability, capacity, productivity and performance. Wikipedia"
I am going to say training ultimately is experience.
jobo
Grandmaster
I know its misused, that's not a reasonable defintion in training and development " training" refering yourself to a book or other resoucee may be training, but that's not the question in the op
let's say I charged you a thousand dollars for bouncer training and when you arrived it turned out to be you doing it wrong for 10 years till you got the hang of it, would you consider your 1000 dollars had bought you training
if not, then the same filter applies, if it's just you doing it wrong for 10 years till you get the hang of it.
it's for this reason that job adverts tend to differentiate between training requirement and exsperiance as they are not the same thing.
if at a bouncer interview, you were asked have you been trained and you replied yes, then have you any exsperiance, ,the second question iis not the same as the first
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
If I go for a run every day. That would be training. And I should get better at running.
If I ran for a hundred hours I should be better at running than someone who hasn't because I trained running.
I don't see this being a complex issue.
jobo
Grandmaster
well if that's what you want to call it! but no it's not on it's own " training" , will you get better possibly, in the early stages as your body adapts to new loads
will that teach you the skill of running ?, probebly not judging by the runners I see, if you wanted to complete competitively with trained runners, you would need to relearn all your body mechanic, which you could do by refering to a book or by a real life trainer the second is some what easier unless your setting up motion capture equipment
just carrying on jogging about wont get you there as your just reinforcing bad habits, some people of course just have an innate skill, but it seems very far from normal and even they would undoubtedly benifit from " training " as evidence by top class athletes tending to have trainers
Last edited:
Similar threads
