How can you become a good fighter if self-defense is your goal?

[Steve]

if we could drop the private war of words going on, there are some interesting points here

steve

your using the term expert like it has some universal definition, clearly there are people in the world who most people could agree are experts, these general have a professorship or some such,

for everyones elves its a comparative term, you may have greater expertise than someone else, but that doesnt make you an expert, unless your the one with a singular level of expertise/ qualification. there can only really be a very small number of experts in any field and as they seldom agree on anything it throws the whole system of experts into doubt

for instance i was classed as an ''expert witness'' in my chosen field, however the other side of any court case would find another expert who disagreed with me. we both couldn't be ''experts'' or there would be only one opinion

even more, im skilled at adult training( employee training and development), i have a post grad degree in such, , im not sure that makes me an expert just proficient, the guy who wrote the book i revised from is the expert

however using such expertise as i had in training i found no difficulty in training people in subjects i was far from an expert in, just as long as i a) understood the material i was teaching and b) knew more than the people who i was teaching,,, teaching fire safety when someone from the fire brigade has turned up can be problematic, you immediately bow to there expertise and ask them to do the presentation, they general cant resist

though convincing people who know more than you, that they know less is a really really valuable expertise to develop and may quite possibly be the only thing in the world i am indeed an expert on

Good points. If it helps, I'll explain how I think of expertise. Expertise is a spectrum. However, there is a very clear difference between a lay person and an expert.

Think about a trade carpenter... at least, how it works in the USA. A person who isn't a carpenter is a lay person. There are people who are learning to be carpenters, who are called apprentices. There are people who are proficient, called journeymen. To a lay person, a journeyman could certainly be considered an expert, as they are competent to perform the full range of the craft independently. And then there are masters of the craft. Those folks are experts among the experts. And there are ranges within each of those classifications.

A black belt in BJJ is, by any objective measure, an expert. But there's are black belts and then there are black belts. If that makes sense.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I think this video sums the answer up nicely.

 

[Buka]

I find that the word 'bashing' is often a sort of code word for any sort of honest assessment the one using that word doesn't care for.

I kind of agree with you. But probably not for the same reasons. I find bashing to just be bashing. I find it the tool of complete asshats.

Myself and our group of Martial Artists were some of the original "bashees". We were the heathen American Karate people who did not do any form of Katas, and, God forbid, we wore black gis. And who was bashing us, and I mean constantly bashing us? The Traditional Karate world who ruled the tournament circuits back in the day.

They were complete **** hole Mother F'kers. I'm sure it didn't help that we constantly beat them. And I believe what really ticked them off is we were polite about it.

As far as I'm concerned, bashing is bashing. And the people who bash today are of the same ilk as the old complete **** hole Mother F'kers back in the day.

And, in my opinion, probably can't fight any better than those other bashers could.

 

[drop bear]

Now this is slightly off topic, but in that sort of area i have seen two blocs. People arent perfect thus dont all respond the same to training and also the instructor is at fault. It seems to be when its convient for either party and becomes quite partisan. ie its the students fault is usually the cry of a mc dojo when somone doesnt respond well to their teachings as opposed to assesing if its the person, the teaching or a mix.

Obviously the reality is, not everyone responds the same way to every form of teaching or every skill. There is some objectivity in this though.


Thats just another observation i have found.

There are two points to this.

1. Martial artists are very quick to throw their hands in the air and say "I guess we will never know" and what this attitude does is it takes away from the facts and draws attention to the marketing.

There is a very common theme here that the evidence isn't important only the marketing matters.

And an unprovable claim will always be brighter and shinier than a provable one. So it is in martial arts best interests to disguise evidence and disprove facts.

2. In other fields where evidence does matter they still have methods of determining these sorts of effects where people don't react all the same.

Mental health drugs for example have what is called the rule of thirds. Because if they just threw their hands up in the air. The profession would devolve in to something like martial arts.

What is the "rule of thirds" concerning the prognosis of late-onset major depressive disorder (clinical depression)?

 

[jobo]

Good points. If it helps, I'll explain how I think of expertise. Expertise is a spectrum. However, there is a very clear difference between a lay person and an expert.

Think about a trade carpenter... at least, how it works in the USA. A person who isn't a carpenter is a lay person. There are people who are learning to be carpenters, who are called apprentices. There are people who are proficient, called journeymen. To a lay person, a journeyman could certainly be considered an expert, as they are competent to perform the full range of the craft independently. And then there are masters of the craft. Those folks are experts among the experts. And there are ranges within each of those classifications.

A black belt in BJJ is, by any objective measure, an expert. But there's are black belts and then there are black belts. If that makes sense.

yes expertise is a spectrum, but the term expert only has any currency at all, if its reserved for an elite few, other wise its meaningless, and anyone can call themselves an expert as it is a term of no value

is a bjj black belt an expert, no not to my mind, above averagely competent, which is far from the same thing, just as im an above average pool player

 

[dvcochran]

I've also seen a lot of bad trainers and facilitators. Sounds like you have, too. The self defense phenomenon isn't unique to self defense. People sell management training (all training, but a lot of management training) all the time who aren't qualified. Guys who have never managed a team, teaching other people how to do that. Doesn't work there, either.

This we agree on. And it allows us to get back on topic. As you say, some trainers are good, some are hacks. The same is true 100% true in teaching/training self defense. Yet you took a hard line, saying ALL self defense training is bad. This is where the rub began. Then you eventually crawfished your way out of the statement. I called you out; you got offended and began deflecting. I called you out again, back and forth, etc.....
You are correct that I am very 'A' personality, particularly when my buttons get pushed. I have a disdain for BS as it is a colossal waste of time. As well as for people who just can't say 'I was wrong' and instead waste everyone's time going down a fruitless trail. You cannot do my kind of work if you can't check your ego and be okay with being wrong and just moving on. I note that as a character trait.
I get the idea of injecting questions/comments to gauge the response but you take/took it Way past that, trying to persuade everyone to come to your side. Exactly what @jobo was jokingly (I think) inferring when he said "though convincing people who know more than you, that they know less is a really really valuable expertise to develop and may quite possibly be the only thing in the world i am indeed an expert on".

There are a precious few who teach/instruct/own MA's businesses as their full source of income. And frankly, I don't how/why they do it. And that is from someone who LOVES MA's and who is invested in it personally and financially. It has been very good to me.
I place these people in the category of school teachers, LEO, EMS and such. It is their calling and they love it unconditionally. Even though they may be post educated ($$$) and trained to highly trained individuals, the low wages and lack of income is less important to them.
While I don't get it I have a ton of respect for it. Passion it something that is hard to qualify and harder to quantify.

I too have been back and forth with putting people on ignore but decided that is just a cop-out and defeats the purpose of this forum. I sometimes have to remind myself that there are people from all over the world and all levels of experience. I measure my responses largely based on these two factors.

 

[Steve]

yes expertise is a spectrum, but the term expert only has any currency at all, if its reserved for an elite few, other wise its meaningless, and anyone can call themselves an expert as it is a term of no value

is a bjj black belt an expert, no not to my mind, above averagely competent, which is far from the same thing, just as im an above average pool player

Eh, I hear what you're saying, but disagree. I like to think of it in terms of Bloom's taxonomy, a framework that has been around for decades. It's a framework that makes a lot of sense to me, and I use it a lot to help people design training appropriate for the expertise level of the audience. Lots of information about it on the internet, but essentially, it breaks down skill development into six stages:

Knowledge
Comprehension
Application

Analysis
Synthesis
Innovation

The three stages below "application" are different stages of expertise. I'd characterize anyone who is at one of these stages to be an expert, though some would certainly be experts among experts.

Training alone can get you through comprehension and to the cusp of application. You can even dip into application through simulations and such. Note that this is if the training is exceptionally well designed and executed. But simulations don't replace real world experience. The best training framework, in my opinion, is some foundational training, and getting the person into the task as quickly as possible, with periodic training focused on filling in gaps. And a lot of coaching. Where there is no task, the training becomes the task, and you are essentially creating expert trainees, which even just saying that makes me cringe.

 

[Steve]

This we agree on. And it allows us to get back on topic. As you say, some trainers are good, some are hacks. The same is true 100% true in teaching/training self defense. Yet you took a hard line, saying ALL self defense training is bad. This is where the rub began. Then you eventually crawfished your way out of the statement. I called you out; you got offended and began deflecting. I called you out again, back and forth, etc.....
You are correct that I am very 'A' personality, particularly when my buttons get pushed. I have a disdain for BS as it is a colossal waste of time. As well as for people who just can't say 'I was wrong' and instead waste everyone's time going down a fruitless trail. You cannot do my kind of work if you can't check your ego and be okay with being wrong and just moving on. I note that as a character trait.
I get the idea of injecting questions/comments to gauge the response but you take/took it Way past that, trying to persuade everyone to come to your side. Exactly what @jobo was jokingly (I think) inferring when he said "though convincing people who know more than you, that they know less is a really really valuable expertise to develop and may quite possibly be the only thing in the world i am indeed an expert on".

There are a precious few who teach/instruct/own MA's businesses as their full source of income. And frankly, I don't how/why they do it. And that is from someone who LOVES MA's and who is invested in it personally and financially. It has been very good to me.
I place these people in the category of school teachers, LEO, EMS and such. It is their calling and they love it unconditionally. Even though they may be post educated ($$$) and trained to highly trained individuals, the low wages and lack of income is less important to them.
While I don't get it I have a ton of respect for it. Passion it something that is hard to qualify and harder to quantify.

I too have been back and forth with putting people on ignore but decided that is just a cop-out and defeats the purpose of this forum. I sometimes have to remind myself that there are people from all over the world and all levels of experience. I measure my responses largely based on these two factors.

I've been giving self defense training every benefit of the doubt. My comments regarding self defense training presume that it is exceptionally well designed and delivered.

Edit. Just to be clear, there are all kinds of training programs that teach skills commonly associated with self defense that are great. They are just taught by people with experience to people who will use those skills in some way. So, teaching fighting skills to a fighter works great. Teaching cops to be better cops. But I don't classify that as self defense training.

When I think about self defense training, I apply the "middle aged elementary school teacher" test. Is the middle aged elementary school teacher going to apply the skills ever? Will this middle aged elementary school teacher ever be an expert? Will this middle aged elementary school teacher ever be competent to teach someone else these skills?

The answer to the above questions for self defense training is no, even if the training is excellent.

 

[jobo]

Eh, I hear what you're saying, but disagree. I like to think of it in terms of Bloom's taxonomy, a framework that has been around for decades. It's a framework that makes a lot of sense to me, and I use it a lot to help people design training appropriate for the expertise level of the audience. Lots of information about it on the internet, but essentially, it breaks down skill development into six stages:

Knowledge
Comprehension
Application

Analysis
Synthesis
Innovation

The three stages below "application" are different stages of expertise. I'd characterize anyone who is at one of these stages to be an expert, though some would certainly be experts among experts.

Training alone can get you through comprehension and to the cusp of application. You can even dip into application through simulations and such. Note that this is if the training is exceptionally well designed and executed. But simulations don't replace real world experience. The best training framework, in my opinion, is some foundational training, and getting the person into the task as quickly as possible, with periodic training focused on filling in gaps. And a lot of coaching. Where there is no task, the training becomes the task, and you are essentially creating expert trainees, which even just saying that makes me cringe.

any one who is receiving training is not an expert by definition

 

[Steve]

any one who is receiving training is not an expert by definition

Hard disagree on that.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Will this middle aged elementary school teacher ever be an expert?

When you

- teach elementary school, you are not trying to do research, and publish academic paper.
- train for SD, you are not trying to develop "door guarding" skills.

A simple "door guarding" skill can be as simple as a roundhouse kick that can break attacker's arm and leg.

 

[Steve]

When you

- teach elementary school, you are not trying to do research, and publish academic paper.
- train for SD, you are not trying to develop "door guarding" skills.

A simple "door guarding" skill can be as simple as a roundhouse kick that can break attacker's arm and leg.

Sure, that makes sense. But would you ever go to the school teacher for lessons on how to be a door guard? That's kind of what we're suggesting here... that it's possible to transform a teacher into an expert bouncer without him or her ever guarding a door. Seems like a stretch to me.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Sure, that makes sense. But would you ever go to the school teacher for lessons on how to be a door guard? That's kind of what we're suggesting here... that it's possible to transform a teacher into an expert bouncer without him or her ever guarding a door. Seems like a stretch to me.

The "door guarding" skill is not skill use by a bouncer. The "door guarding" skill is the skill that you use to guard your own life. - your best MA skill.

The issue is I'm not sure that a SD teacher will ask his SD students to develop such MA skill (such as to hang on the pole for 5 years to develop a strong head lock).

 

[jobo]

I've been giving self defense training every benefit of the doubt. My comments regarding self defense training presume that it is exceptionally well designed and delivered.

Edit. Just to be clear, there are all kinds of training programs that teach skills commonly associated with self defense that are great. They are just taught by people with experience to people who will use those skills in some way. So, teaching fighting skills to a fighter works great. Teaching cops to be better cops. But I don't classify that as self defense training.

When I think about self defense training, I apply the "middle aged elementary school teacher" test. Is the middle aged elementary school teacher going to apply the skills ever? Will this middle aged elementary school teacher ever be an expert? Will this middle aged elementary school teacher ever be competent to teach someone else these skills?

The answer to the above questions for self defense training is no, even if the training is excellent.

is the point they are an elementary teacher relevant ?

why do you believe they will never use the skills be proficient and proficient enough to teach ?

its seem a fair amount of prediction from something as unimportant as their occupation

 

[drop bear]

This we agree on. And it allows us to get back on topic. As you say, some trainers are good, some are hacks. The same is true 100% true in teaching/training self defense. Yet you took a hard line, saying ALL self defense training is bad.

It quite simply is bad unless it is proven to be good.

And I can't think of a work around for that.

 

[drop bear]

any one who is receiving training is not an expert by definition

Champion fighters still receive training.

 

[dvcochran]

It quite simply is bad unless it is proven to be good.

And I can't think of a work around for that.

True enough. So you go out and test EVERY program and get back to us. I look forward to reading your report. Oh, and make sure and provide a cover of the intimately detailed guidelines used to weigh and measure each statistical category.

 

[Steve]

is the point they are an elementary teacher relevant ?

why do you believe they will never use the skills be proficient and proficient enough to teach ?

its seem a fair amount of prediction from something as unimportant as their occupation

I think when I say, middle aged elementary school teacher, we can all create a mental image of what that suggests.

 

[Steve]

True enough. So you go out and test EVERY program and get back to us. I look forward to reading your report. Oh, and make sure and provide a cover of the intimately detailed guidelines used to weigh and measure each statistical category.

I've actually offered at least three different, objective studies that could be done to get at some real information. No one seems to want to fund me, though. Maybe if I start a gofundme page.

But, being serious, can you point me to an example of a self defense program that teaches average people that you think is effective, is not competition oriented? Would be interesting to take a look at what it is, and break down what you see and why you think it is effective.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In a SD school, do you intend to develop some MA skill like this?