Fixing the training model

[pdg]

How does one train to defend against the surprise 2x4 to the head at the petrol station? Or said another way, would the situationally aware guy who can fight be worse off in this situation than the situationally aware guy who cannot?

You can't train against it, that was kind of my point...

What you can do is not harass somebody else's girlfriend to the point a fight gets started.

Does the aggressive nature of that person's training make that behaviour more likely, less likely, or have no bearing?

Does the reputedly more "holistic" training nature of (some) TMA reduce a person's propensity to adopt the "I can fight better so I can do what I want" mindset?

 

[pdg]

Agreed. The answer then is to broaden the scope. In other words, encourage wider and more varied application. Grappling has many different rulesets. Gi, nogi, sub only, yiunname it up to and including MMA.

I agree with this to a point, but it does raise (to me) an important issue.

Let's say system X trains fast and hard with a competitive structure that has a very open ruleset.

System Y is the same system, but trains softer, without the push to hard and (possibly) risky competition.

A person in X will undoubtedly progress (up to a certain point) faster than in Y.

But, the people who probably 'need' it most, the naturally more timid, or naturally less physically competitive - they aren't going to want X.

So, from that perspective, does the training model actually need fixing?

If it's 'fixed' in the stated manner, it's going to narrow the appeal to those who want to fight rather than those who want to defend.

 

[drop bear]

I agree with this to a point, but it does raise (to me) an important issue.

Let's say system X trains fast and hard with a competitive structure that has a very open ruleset.

System Y is the same system, but trains softer, without the push to hard and (possibly) risky competition.

A person in X will undoubtedly progress (up to a certain point) faster than in Y.

But, the people who probably 'need' it most, the naturally more timid, or naturally less physically competitive - they aren't going to want X.

So, from that perspective, does the training model actually need fixing?

If it's 'fixed' in the stated manner, it's going to narrow the appeal to those who want to fight rather than those who want to defend.

Not really. Because the assumption is that people can't put in hard work and achieve results.

Plenty of tough guys will never be mma fighters either. For the same reason your timid guy won't.

Fixing the training model is about fixing people's perceptions.

And again BJJ is a great example because it doesn't have the alpha Male stereotype. (Mma really doesn't either but a different discussion.)

They just have a reasonable work ethic.

I mean he is getting thrashed in there. Which is just normal every day training.

 

[pdg]

Fixing the training model is about fixing people's perceptions

That may be your interpretation, but it's not how I read the op.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

to those who want to fight rather than those who want to defend.

To defend your family members, friends, strangers, weak against strong, ... you still need to fight. Self-defense is not a subset of fighting. Self-defense is just used by someone who thinks he is a good guy and everybody else are all bad guys.

A: I'm a good guy. I train self-defense.
B: I'm a bad guy. I train fighting.

If you think you are the

- bad guy (train fighting), everybody else are all good guys (train self-defense), the world will be a friendly and peaceful place to live.
- good guy (train self-defense), everybody else are all bad guys (train fighting), you will constantly live in fear.

 

[drop bear]

That may be your interpretation, but it's not how I read the op.

If the expectation in self defence is to be mediocre. Then people who use that training model will be mediocre.

If I close the door to barry in his quest to be a fighter because he is timid. That is my fault.

If my whole system closes the door to people being fighters or people just doing well. Then my training model needs fixing.

And every time someone says "hey you can't train 6 days a week." "You can't learn more than one style" "you are just not cut out to compete." If they don't let people train realistically they are slamming that door to an opportunity in that person's face.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

But, the people who probably 'need' it most, the naturally more timid, or naturally less physically competitive - they aren't going to want X.

As a teacher, you have to decide why you are teaching and what kind of students that you want to teach.

I may miss the majority of the group (more timid, less physically). I only teach those who will

- compete in tournament.
- teach in the future.

The truth is the "more timid and less physically" won't want their body to be thrown on the ground 200 times daily any way.

I have seen student who's body is built as a football player. The moment that you throw him over your head, his face will turn into green. You know that he is not coming back.

The question is, do you just want to keep students so you will never teach "shoulder throw"?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Kind of yes, kind of no, sometimes.

Putting a competitive slant on the training would very likely make development faster.

But, it would also very likely restrict the variation of application.

This is the bit that could be good or bad...

Any competition really requires a ruleset - competition implies trying to win, so you need a framework to judge what constitutes a win.

As an example, people who train toward Olympic style tkd competition get very good at trying to win under those rules - but are those rules necessarily good for developing "street" application?

Someone in a tkd school with that sort of training would probably be better at that faster than me, because that's different to my training - but outside those rules, would they necessarily be able to do anything if I punched toward their head, or clinched them, or swept them?

This is why I prefer the concept of adding some competition to training, rather than training for competition. The people who really want to win will always play the rules better than those who just enjoy the interchange.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not really. Because the assumption is that people can't put in hard work and achieve results.

Plenty of tough guys will never be mma fighters either. For the same reason your timid guy won't.

Fixing the training model is about fixing people's perceptions.

And again BJJ is a great example because it doesn't have the alpha Male stereotype. (Mma really doesn't either but a different discussion.)

They just have a reasonable work ethic.

I mean he is getting thrashed in there. Which is just normal every day training.

I don’t see it so much about “can’t”, but about what attracts them. Doesn’t matter what I can encourage them to do until I get them started.

 

[Steve]

I agree with this to a point, but it does raise (to me) an important issue.

Let's say system X trains fast and hard with a competitive structure that has a very open ruleset.

System Y is the same system, but trains softer, without the push to hard and (possibly) risky competition.

A person in X will undoubtedly progress (up to a certain point) faster than in Y.

But, the people who probably 'need' it most, the naturally more timid, or naturally less physically competitive - they aren't going to want X.

So, from that perspective, does the training model actually need fixing?

If it's 'fixed' in the stated manner, it's going to narrow the appeal to those who want to fight rather than those who want to defend.

If it doesn’t work, then it’s not actually helping the timid. It’s patronising them at best, and taking advantage of their need and their timidity at worst.

 

[Steve]

This is why I prefer the concept of adding some competition to training, rather than training for competition. The people who really want to win will always play the rules better than those who just enjoy the interchange.

That you don’t appreciate the difference just kills me, man.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

But, the people who probably 'need' it most, the naturally more timid, or naturally less physically competitive - they aren't going to want X.

If an instructor cannot help his students to become more courage from timid and become more physical from less physical, there is something wrong with that teacher's teaching method.

- Timid and less physical are bad.
- Courage and more physical are good.

You want to help your students to convert from bad to good and not the other way around.

 

[pdg]

If it doesn’t work, then it’s not actually helping the timid. It’s patronising them at best, and taking advantage of their need and their timidity at worst.

Working or not working strays quite far from the training model though.

As I alluded to, I think there are competitive systems that are less likely to "work" outside the confines of that particular competition - where the students may very well learn the elements useful for competition faster, but the rest might never happen.

So is it better to teach stuff that "doesn't work" fast, or stuff that "does work" slower?

I think you need a mix of every model really - unless you want to specialise. There's nothing wrong with specialising, there's nothing wrong with restricting your clientele - but what's wrong is claiming anyone who doesn't do similar has a broken training model.




Edit: this isn't accusing you of saying everyone else is wrong because that's not how I read the op...

 

[Hanzou]

Working or not working strays quite far from the training model though.

As I alluded to, I think there are competitive systems that are less likely to "work" outside the confines of that particular competition - where the students may very well learn the elements useful for competition faster, but the rest might never happen.

So is it better to teach stuff that "doesn't work" fast, or stuff that "does work" slower?

I think you need a mix of every model really - unless you want to specialise. There's nothing wrong with specialising, there's nothing wrong with restricting your clientele - but what's wrong is claiming anyone who doesn't do similar has a broken training model.

Just curious, what competitive systems do you think are less likely to work outside the confines of their particular competition?

In general, I think people knew for a long time that the traditional MA systems were largely broken. I remember as a kid being told that "Karate" or "Kung Fu" doesn't work because Lenny down the street did karate and got bodied by Joey the High School wrestler. Or Francis took some Kung fu, and got beat up by Bobby, the school bully. Nowadays (mainly thanks to the UFC, MMA, Bjj and videos of people getting choked out of GnPd) martial arts now have some level of street credibility.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That you don’t appreciate the difference just kills me, man.

What makes you think I don't appreciate the difference I actually refer to? Perhaps it's that you don't appreciate the difference I see?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If an instructor cannot help his students to become more courage from timid and become more physical from less physical, there is something wrong with that teacher's teaching method.

- Timid and less physical are bad.
- Courage and more physical are good.

You want to help your students to convert from bad to good and not the other way around.

The teacher's skill is irrelevant until the other person becomes a student.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Just curious, what competitive systems do you think are less likely to work outside the confines of their particular competition?

In general, I think people knew for a long time that the traditional MA systems were largely broken. I remember as a kid being told that "Karate" or "Kung Fu" doesn't work because Lenny down the street did karate and got bodied by Joey the High School wrestler. Or Francis took some Kung fu, and got beat up by Bobby, the school bully. Nowadays (mainly thanks to the UFC, MMA, Bjj and videos of people getting choked out of GnPd) martial arts now have some level of street credibility.

Some of the light-touch point sparring with no need to protect the head has been referred to multiple times in this thread already. Those would be a good example.

 

[drop bear]

I don’t see it so much about “can’t”, but about what attracts them. Doesn’t matter what I can encourage them to do until I get them started.

I still think you are selling people short.

There is a difference between being welcoming to new students and larping.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I still think you are selling people short.

There is a difference between being welcoming to new students and larping.

You consistently downplay what I do without really understanding what I do. You seem to think it’s all soft and lovey. Soft or hard isn’t a binary thing.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The teacher's skill is irrelevant until the other person becomes a student.

If someone is

- not your student, you can't help him.
- your student, to be thrown on the ground 200 times daily will give your student courage. To throw his opponent on the ground 200 times daily will make him more physical.