I have to (qualifiedly) agree with Jobo here. Experience often trumps training. Not always, but often.
I'm not pigeon-holing anyone into absolutes. We aren't talking about "always".
So you would say, on average, a Somali insurgent is a better combatant than a Delta Sniper who has been in fewer actual battles?
I'd rather get medical advice from a 20 year nurse than a 20 minute new doctor. The training is on the doctor's side, but until some experience kicks in, there's a disparity.
Depending on the advice, that would be a mistake... but it's also not a great analogy as you are comparing two people with extensive and ongoing training that's not practice.
Let's make a different one: 1850s surgeon with 100 surgeries under his belt or 2021 surgeon on his 5th surgery. Which one do you want?
Because his statement is "there is no better way of learning <surgery> than actually <performing surgery>". Do you actually want a surgeon that was never taught and never studied and never did the work to improve but rather just kept cutting into more and more people? Is he the best surgeon because he's so experienced? Or is experience a vital *part* of getting good at something?
This is where Jobo and I differ. I suspect he's actually making a disingenuous argument. I suspect he actually believes as I do. But he can't say that (or if he does say that, he'll immediately walk it back with some new language that repeats his "no better way" assertion; because (I suspect) there's an emotional reason for his statement. He has a desire, whether conscious or unconscious, to argue the uselessness of non-MMA arts and he's not prone to nuance; so he makes an absolute statement like the one above.
Because of coaching and exercise and drills and cooperative sparring are a part of becoming a good fighter, he can't just blanket dismiss all training that doesn't focus on fights. He'll have to nuance and he doesn't seem willing / able.
We see this in one of (I believe it was him) his other statements projecting that onto others... saying that they differ from his position specifically because they want to defend whatever they do which doesn't include that. It's an ad homenim fallacy regardless, and I'm not about to say "he's wrong because of his motivation" and commit the same fallacy; but he is still wrong.
It's like the technique vs size/strength argument. When size/strength is equal between 2 fighters, technique (training) wins... but when training/technique is equal, size wins.
You are countering an assertion I'm not making. Size matters. Luck matters. Endurance / strength matters (though that's actually against what Jobo said as weightlifting and cardio are not "actual fights", and therefore are not as useful as actual fighting.
When someone gets in brawls every friday night for a long time, that's a lot of experience (the size strength side of the analogy). I might have all the physical skills in the world, but with no experience I loose that match up 9/10 times.
But what if you have some? What if you are a UFC champ with 19 professional fights under your belt going up against that guy that's been in 200 bar brawls with drunk yokles?
He's got more fighting experience than you and "there is no better way of learning to fight than actually fighting"
Of course, GOOD training provides an element of experience. Thats why the mma fighter comes out ahead generally in that setup. Training with contact and resistance is imperative. If there are no stakes in training (even if just that you'll get your bell rung); you're at a disadvantage from anyone with real experience.
It sounds like you an I agree. Sparring with a resisting opponent, preferrably sometimes at intensities that approach an actual fight is an important *part* of training. The best way to learn to fight is a combination of exercises, coaching, drills, cooperative sparring, resistive sparring, and attempts to imitate the various aspects of the combat your are concerned with, likely including "fights".
Training + experience > training
I'll even agree training + experience > training + training.
but experience + experience > training + experience? No, I don't think so.
There is no better way of learning to fight then to be trained, to train hard, and to make sure that training has solid exposure to as high a realism as possible in regards to the factor that tend to decide win-vs-loss.
"Live fire" training in the military is a good example. It's distinctly not fighting (that's simulated other ways), but it gets you practice with live rounds being shot by you and around you and over you because that will happen in a real firefight and it's important.
It's not that you don't do red-vs-blue combat with simunition or the like... that's important too... as is all of the drilling... as is the mental and physical conditioning.