Fixing the training model

[Gerry Seymour]

Like I said, I am sure it is out there. Must be more of a Northern thing.

Pretty easy to find down here in the South, too.

 

[Steve]

You and I have talked about this before, Steve. I don't think this is a true dichotomy (competition as the end goal, or essentially nothing as the end goal). It's entirely possible for someone to train with resistance, never compete, and still have the goal of being able to perform the techniques against someone who doesn't want them to do that.

Interestingly, neither do I, and have offered several examples of application that are not competition. I am not suggesting competition is the only form of application that exists. I'm suggesting that application is essential in the development of real skill, and competition is an example of application.

It irritates me when you create a straw man and attribute it to me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No evidence that insert style, system or technique works any better than dumb luck.

Is in laymans terms doesn't work.

This is where your usually cogent comment falls apart, DB. That's just not true. While we can KNOW that (for instance) MMA works well in a given context that is a reasonable approximation of a fight "in the street" because we can see it in MMA competition, just because we can't see some other art/style/system work in a controlled context that doesn't give us any information about whether it works or not. That lack of information is a problem, but cannot reasonably lead to the conclusion that it doesn't work. That's drawing a conclusion without evidence.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Interestingly, neither do I, and have offered several examples of application that are not competition. I am not suggesting competition is the only form of application that exists. I'm suggesting that application is essential in the development of real skill, and competition is an example of application.

It irritates me when you create a straw man and attribute it to me.

It seemed to me that was the dichotomy you were drawing in the post I quoted. If that was not your intention, that's on me. Looking back at your post, I see how I came to that conclusion, and I also see that I over-read your point.

 

[Steve]

I don't think it's the competition that builds the skill. It motivates and adds urgency, but almost no time is spent in competition, so the skill is built outside that setting. That's a key point, IMO.

Beyond that point, I agree wholeheartedly.

Training and simulation on take you so far. When cops graduate from the police academy, they are trained but no one (I don't think) would consider them to be experts. When recruits graduate from their tech schools and go to their first assignments, no one (I don't think) would consider them to be even proficient. Why do you think that is? Or maybe more relevant, if you think the military could train someone to an expert level in anything, wouldn't they?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the real value of training. Training is entirely dependent upon the feedback gained from application. Absent some genuine form of application, the training becomes the application, and then you get folks who are experts at training.

 

[Steve]

It seemed to me that was the dichotomy you were drawing in the post I quoted. If that was not your intention, that's on me. Looking back at your post, I see how I came to that conclusion, and I also see that I over-read your point.

I literally explained this in the next paragraph, Gerry. You're too smart to get a pass on this. Absent a few grammatical errors, the point is, I believe, very clear. I specifically explain that the point isn't competition, it's that application is taking skills learned in training and applying them in a different, applied context.

I hear what you're saying, but would disagree. Resistance training is the means to the end. Competition is the end goal. If you don't have an end goal, the training becomes the end goal, which is exactly why some arts fail to produce reliable results. My hypothesis here is that, if you add an end goal to any training, it will make the training more effective, and the result will be faster, more reliable results.

I think you're cautions with regards to competition are spot on. These came[sic] cautions could be applied to any application. Whether you're a bouncer, cop, or mafia enforcer, you will need to adapt your skills to different contexts depending on the specific self defense situation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Training and simulation on take you so far. When cops graduate from the police academy, they are trained but no one (I don't think) would consider them to be experts. When recruits graduate from their tech schools and go to their first assignments, no one (I don't think) would consider them to be even proficient. Why do you think that is? Or maybe more relevant, if you think the military could train someone to an expert level in anything, wouldn't they?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the real value of training. Training is entirely dependent upon the feedback gained from application. Absent some genuine form of application, the training becomes the application, and then you get folks who are experts at training.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that the few hours a year someone in a competition art spends actually competing (on the mats, with an opponent, in a competition) isn't where they're developing the skill. It's an important piece of feedback, but that's not where the skill grows. The competition gives them a place to measure their results, and a reason to focus in a given time period (a lot of folks train harder leading up to competition). So it has a definite effect, but the competition isn't where that skill forms. If someone was training at that same school, working with the same intensity, but not actually competing at the events, it would be possible for them to make similar progress. I'd assume the school isn't waiting for competition to get some useful feedback - they're probably getting feedback regularly during training, too.

Whether they have enough motivation or not - and whether the competition adds any motivation - will vary by individual.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I literally explained this in the next paragraph, Gerry. You're too smart to get a pass on this. Absent a few grammatical errors, the point is, I believe, very clear. I specifically explain that the point isn't competition, it's that application is taking skills learned in training and applying them in a different, applied context.

I didn't get that from the following paragraph, but that's probably just my jet-lagged brain not firing on all cylinders. As I said, the misunderstanding is on me.

 

[Steve]

I didn't get that from the following paragraph, but that's probably just my jet-lagged brain not firing on all cylinders. As I said, the misunderstanding is on me.

Aww, I can't stay mad at you.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Aww, I can't stay mad at you.

Group hug!

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Sorry, but I personally dislike this view. It leads to not being willing to take a challenge that really tests skill. I'm far more interested in the mindset of someone who continues to win after a loss, than someone who gives up after a tie.

I can only speak for myself. I had won 3 years US Shuai Chiao (Chinese wrestling) heavy weight champion back in 1982, 1983, and 1984. During 1984, I moved myself to super heavy weight. After 1984, I retired and no longer competed in tournament for the following reasons:

- Winning 3 years in a roll is good enough for me. Trying to win 4 years in a roll won't mean much to me.
- I had tested my skill against people who were 30 lb or even 50 lb heavier than me.
- For the rest of my life, I want to remember "winning" and not "losing".

The back wave will always push the front wave. The front wave will always crash on the rock. No matter how high and how long the wave can maintain, it will crash on the rock and disappear. That's just the nature order.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can only speak for myself. I had won 3 years US Shuai Chiao (Chinese wrestling) heavy weight champion back in 1982, 1983, and 1984. During 1984, I moved myself to super heavy weight. After 1984, I retired and no longer competed in tournament for the following reasons:

- Winning 3 years in a roll is good enough for me. Trying to win 4 years in a roll won't mean much to me.
- I had tested my skill against people who were 30 lb or even 50 lb heavier than me.
- For the rest of my life, I want to remember "winning" and not "losing".

The back wave will always push the front wave. The front wave will always crash on the rock. No matter how high and how long the wave can maintain, it will crash on the rock and disappear. That's just the nature order.

The first two points are good points. I see nothing wrong with either. The third, while I don't agree with the implication that losing some would mean you'd spend your life remembering losing (most of us spend more time remembering our wins), I can see how a person might just be ready to quit competing after a few really good years. There's no obligation to keep going until someone beats you, and it sounds like you were done with what you wanted to do in competition. That's different from quitting competition for the primary purpose of not losing.

 

[drop bear]

This is where your usually cogent comment falls apart, DB. That's just not true. While we can KNOW that (for instance) MMA works well in a given context that is a reasonable approximation of a fight "in the street" because we can see it in MMA competition, just because we can't see some other art/style/system work in a controlled context that doesn't give us any information about whether it works or not. That lack of information is a problem, but cannot reasonably lead to the conclusion that it doesn't work. That's drawing a conclusion without evidence.

In martial art because there are so many false claims and misconceptions. And because martial arts is quite often not results driven It is just a more practical way to handle it.

Trying to grind out any sort of evidence out of people who have none is just too hard.

And people put time and money in to this in the hope they will get a result.

People need a quick short cut rule of thumb. And no evidence, no good is pretty dependable.

 

[Steve]

This is where your usually cogent comment falls apart, DB. That's just not true. While we can KNOW that (for instance) MMA works well in a given context that is a reasonable approximation of a fight "in the street" because we can see it in MMA competition, just because we can't see some other art/style/system work in a controlled context that doesn't give us any information about whether it works or not. That lack of information is a problem, but cannot reasonably lead to the conclusion that it doesn't work. That's drawing a conclusion without evidence.

ThIs is an argument from ignorance and is an informal logical fallacy. You could literally use this fallacious logic to argue any position. The flying spaghetti monster is an example of this.

 

[Hanzou]

This is where your usually cogent comment falls apart, DB. That's just not true. While we can KNOW that (for instance) MMA works well in a given context that is a reasonable approximation of a fight "in the street" because we can see it in MMA competition, just because we can't see some other art/style/system work in a controlled context that doesn't give us any information about whether it works or not. That lack of information is a problem, but cannot reasonably lead to the conclusion that it doesn't work. That's drawing a conclusion without evidence.

Unfortunately the reality is that we've seen just about every style pop up in MMA and the results have largely stayed the same. Even worse, the same thing occurred in Vale Tudo for decades and again the results have largely stayed the same. At this point (25+ years), it's simply unbelievable that a practitioner of a maligned TMA wouldn't have entered MMA and made themselves a fortune, or a MMA coach wouldn't be forcing their fighters to learn some super effective TMA style in order to give them an edge in the ring. The simple fact is (as DB stated) you're dealing with a results driven industry, and no one is going to waste time and money with something that isn't producing results.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In martial art because there are so many false claims and misconceptions. And because martial arts is quite often not results driven It is just a more practical way to handle it.

Trying to grind out any sort of evidence out of people who have none is just too hard.

And people put time and money in to this in the hope they will get a result.

People need a quick short cut rule of thumb. And no evidence, no good is pretty dependable.

Okay, as a shortcut, it serves.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

ThIs is an argument from ignorance and is an informal logical fallacy. You could literally use this fallacious logic to argue any position. The flying spaghetti monster is an example of this.

Not really. It's a meaningful distinction, Steve. Saying something isn't true simply because there's not sufficient evidence it's true isn't good logic. It's a reasonable point for added skepticism and even suspicion, but isn't a valid conclusion, from a logical standpoint.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Unfortunately the reality is that we've seen just about every style pop up in MMA and the results have largely stayed the same. Even worse, the same thing occurred in Vale Tudo for decades and again the results have largely stayed the same. At this point (25+ years), it's simply unbelievable that a practitioner of a maligned TMA wouldn't have entered MMA and made themselves a fortune, or a MMA coach wouldn't be forcing their fighters to learn some super effective TMA style in order to give them an edge in the ring. The simple fact is (as DB stated) you're dealing with a results driven industry, and no one is going to waste time and money with something that isn't producing results.

There's a difference between something being efficient enough for that competition and being effective at a base level. Much of what I teach, for instance, shows up in MMA on a regular basis. Some shows up rarely. Some might have shown up, but I've never seen it. That leads me to think that what I teach includes a fair amount that isn't best practice for MMA (some of it has an anti rely different purpose). So my curriculum wouldn't be a good choice for training for MMA. There are better choices for that, and better coaches. But that's about efficiency for the purpose, and I have a wider, less-focused set of purposes. On the other hand, I've taught and trained with LEO, corrections officers, bouncers, etc., who found the training effective for their needs.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Not really. It's a meaningful distinction, Steve. Saying something isn't true simply because there's not sufficient evidence it's true isn't good logic. It's a reasonable point for added skepticism and even suspicion, but isn't a valid conclusion, from a logical standpoint.

It is good logic IF there's a reasonable expectation that evidence would exist. If you see a ping pong style that insists playing holding the paddle upside down is better, I wouldn't refute that without evidence. If I then find out people have been doing this for years, but no one in the olympic ping pong team holds the paddle that way, it would be reasonable to assume it's not as effective. There's still no evidence, as no one's proven that holding the paddle that way can't win you gold if you get good enough, but I think there's a fairly reasonable deduction that holding the paddle upside down isn't as effective.

Now, if someone came about and started holding the paddle that way and did win gold, or a lot of high level competitors started doing it and succeeding, that new information might change my view and I might try holding the paddle the other way and giving it a go.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

It is good logic IF there's a reasonable expectation that evidence would exist. If you see a ping pong style that insists playing holding the paddle upside down is better, I wouldn't refute that without evidence. If I then find out people have been doing this for years, but no one in the olympic ping pong team holds the paddle that way, it would be reasonable to assume it's not as effective. There's still no evidence, as no one's proven that holding the paddle that way can't win you gold if you get good enough, but I think there's a fairly reasonable deduction that holding the paddle upside down isn't as effective.

Now, if someone came about and started holding the paddle that way and did win gold, or a lot of high level competitors started doing it and succeeding, that new information might change my view and I might try holding the paddle the other way and giving it a go.

That said, I know almost nothing about professional table tennis past the movie balls of fury, so I have no idea what the best way to hold a paddle is. So watch a competitive match and turn the paddle upside down from that position if you need a visual.