Is it possible to "train" for something that you never actually do?

[Steve]

Yes, I do know they work. I understand basic physics, basic anatomy, and my own capabilities such that I know they work.

I understand the logic you are trying to play out, but I disagree with its application to reality.

If we only know if something works after we have done it, then that means even if someone has shot a person, broken someones arm, put them to sleep in an RNC... they still cannot know if that will work next time, too many variables, maybe the next person will be wearing armor, maybe they'll be stronger, maybe the PTSD I experience from shooting and killing someone the last time will prevent me from pulling the trigger next time, maybe they'll know a defense against the RNC I wasn't expecting.... so by that logic we cannot know if our techniques are effective even if we've used them a dozen times before... so we'll never know anything.

By that logic, Monday morning I cannot know the same route I drive every day will get me to work, until I have actually arrived at work. After all there could be unknown hazards in the way.

By that logic, I cannot know that Interstate 90 will take me from Spokane to Seattle if I've never driven it, even though I know how driving a car works and I know how maps work, and other people have successfully done it many times...I've never done it, so I cannot know it works.

By that logic, I cannot know the light switch will work until I flip it, even though I've used it successfully 1,000 times previously.

I don't think I'm being clear. I'm not saying that we can't know if something works. That's not it at all. I'm saying we don't know if it works for us. I can learn all kinds of things in theory, but until I use them, they remain theory. Certainly, they could work. But expert?

Go back to flying. I know that planes work. I've seen them. That's what you're talking about. I understand the physics and have been in them in the air. But I can't fly one, even though I know that they can fly.

And remember, I'm only saying that this distinction matters where people take their theories and pass them on sans experience.

Your own statement regarding groin shots is a good example of where real experience belies popular and widely believed myth.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Tgace]

While it's a bit of a sales pitch, here's some interesting stuff on this topic by Peyton Quinn.

http://www.rmcat.com/node/25

 

[rframe]

While it's a bit of a sales pitch, here's some interesting stuff on this topic by Peyton Quinn.

http://www.rmcat.com/node/25

I agree with pretty much everything he says.

 

[chinto]

Do you? You know that a gun could be a lethal weapon, but there are many, many factors you are personally unfamiliar with because you have no practical experience. From, whether or not you have it in you to pull the trigger and end someone's life, to whether you could maintain composure under duress. You know that guns can be lethal, but you do NOT know for a fact that you could do it.

Same as above, particularly if you are speaking about a duress situation. Does the technique work? That can be practiced and tested in the laboratory of a martial arts school. . You may KNOW that the technique will restrict blood to the brain and put someone to sleep. You KNOW that the technique works. But if you're speaking about using an RNC in a self defense situation, if you haven't done it, you don't know for sure whether YOU will be able to do it. You believe you can, based upon your training. And if your training is solid, you probably can. But you do not know for a fact. You are guessing.
This one's a funny one, because it might hurt like crazy... or it might not. I've never worn a cup in almost 8 years of training BJJ, and cups are actually against the rules in IBJJF tournaments.

I have taken many knees to the groin. I will tell you that most don't hurt at all. But sometimes, the lightest, incidental contact comes back after a long moment and hurts like hell. I KNOW this because I've experienced it. I don't just believe it to be true.

If you have been trained with said gun, you can and will kill efficiently and effectively in a self defense situation. you do NOT have to have shot some one before to do it! so that is not a true argument.

The same is true of unarmed combat, if you are trained proplerly and feel threatened enough you will effectively use the deadly techniques you know. and before you claim I would not know, Guess again my friend. Yes I found out the hard way that when it is needed it is there.

 

[Tgace]

If you have been trained with said gun, you can and will kill efficiently and effectively in a self defense situation. you do NOT have to have shot some one before to do it! so that is not a true argument.

The same is true of unarmed combat, if you are trained proplerly and feel threatened enough you will effectively use the deadly techniques you know. and before you claim I would not know, Guess again my friend. Yes I found out the hard way that when it is needed it is there.

Don't confuse capability with expertise. The discussion here really isn't about capability.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Really this has been a great thread with very interesting insight by everyone involved! For whatever reason I can no longer hit enter and break up a paragraph on MartialTalk or spaces between sentences. :idunno: However that is unimportant to the topic but some glitch in MartialTalk. Overall as a martial practitioner if our goal is for personal protection skill sets then we need to make sure that we are well rounded. Meaning have some Scenario Based Training, Full Contact Sparring, Grappling with submission, for position and just relaxed positional movement. We also of course need technique training, form training, two man drills and technique training, most importantly we need to understand weapons particularly firearms, blades and blunt one to be exact, etc, etc. A practitioner also needs to be in contact with people who have been involved in violent encounters especially if they themselves have not had violent encounters. There is a lot to be learned from your own personal experience in this manner as well as what other people have done or did or did not do and what result happened. Experience is really important. However you will not have experience in all areas unless you have some serious mental issues or your work puts you in situations that involve violence. (ie. military, police, corrections, security, bouncer, etc.) Direct experience or evidence based on the result of violence and understanding of what happens is very, very important. There is a lot of evidence out there to learn from now a days. Police, military, corrections and civilian confrontations are available for us to study whether in video or in study findings. What is scary though is that there are people teaching who have no direct experience with violence and or maybe the system they are also teaching has not been involved much with violence in a long, long time. (which is an issue but may not invalidate the training for personal protection) Yet they are portraying themselves as experts in regards to violence. Certainly they have an expertise in their system but should they portray themselves as an expert in handling violence? Some times they even portray themselves as experts with all violence. Teach this way and pass along misconceptions to their students who in turn teach the same thing and so on and so on. It is hard to say to someone that this will work unless you have experience that it will work or that in the system it has been tested functionally and shown to work by someone from the system or another system with similarities. All of this should not be confused with someone who has experienced violence and figured out how to deal with "fight or flight response" and the resulting adrenaline that comes from it. (managing this is very important) They more than likely can make things work based off their previous experience. Personally based on past performance in the moment I know that I can handle things correctly if needed. I know I can utilize firearms effectively as I have been taught to do so. (ie. in the police academy, training by firearms experts including military, police and civilian) I know I can snap an arm if needed in an armbar even though the last time I applied one I only used it as leverage to gain control and then handcuffed the person. I also know that almost everything I do has a basis where someone else has used it in some time and place and more recent than way, way back in time. I have also had people I have trained utilize their training to good effect. Particularly with breakfalls or rolls saving their back on a wet, snowly, slick day or nighi and also in violent encounters. (one guy fell from a ladder rolled without a scratch) I know that having a well rounded approach including Scenario Based Training, Full Contact Sparring, Submission Grappling, Positional Rolling, Two Man Drills, Two Man Technique Training, heavy training with weapons/tools, etc, etc. works! It just makes you more prepared overall for a moment of violence! Yet in the end I also know it comes down to the individual! I have witnessed people freeze and others not freeze in a moment of violence. (work related) The unique person who in a moment of violence has to react and take care of business or not and suffer the consequences whatever they may be. In the end the "individual" has to implement their training or lack there of and survive in a violent encounter! That is why someone with no experience may some times prevail because they just have "it" whatever that is that is needed in that moment. Or why someone with loads of training may freeze and not be able to deal with the situation. Or also why someone with experience and training may in turn just take care of business. There are a lot of variables involved. Bottom line is that you as a martial practitioner should train hard, learn as much as you can about violent encounters, understand that information and have belief in yourself and your training. If you have the above then you will probably be able to take care of business but there is no guarantee! There simply are no guarantees in a moment of violence! Anyone who sells you a guarantee is full of crap so buyer beware!!!

 

[Flying Crane]

I have taken many knees to the groin. I will tell you that most don't hurt at all. But sometimes, the lightest, incidental contact comes back after a long moment and hurts like hell. I KNOW this because I've experienced it. I don't just believe it to be true.

it can still be a viable technique for a woman to use, and she will never have the same experience as a guy will, getting hit in the groin.

I think you are trying to define something that ultimately is not definable. Interesting discussion, but not sure just where it can go in the end.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

In the above mega paragraph unbroken by whatever is wrong with MartialTalk I said I know things in several areas. That comes down to several things. Serious life long training and continued training with intense motivation, Knowledge in having been in physical encounters. An understanding of violence based on training, personal experience, friends and instructors experience, statistical evidence (police, military, civilian)and of course watching modern video evidence as well. (ie. from police, military, civilian encounters) Finally belief plays an important role. My belief in what I can do is based of the previous sentences. Let me tell you one thing if you train but do not have belief in what you do then more than likely it will not work for you. Belief is powerful! Belief without evidence can still be powerful but can also be faulty. Belief based on evidence is even more powerful and can lend itself very well to violent encounters!

 

[Steve]

it can still be a viable technique for a woman to use, and she will never have the same experience as a guy will, getting hit in the groin.

I think you are trying to define something that ultimately is not definable. Interesting discussion, but not sure just where it can go in the end.

Well, hold on. My only real question in this thread is to explore how a person can be an expert at something he has no experience with. And, by extension, to discuss how far removed from actual experience we can go before risking losing sight of reality.

Many good points have been brought up, but at several turns, I think my position has been taken to an extreme that doesn't really reflect my thoughts.

For example, I don't think i ever meant to suggest that a strike to the groin is not viable.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[mitsubishi]

Absolutely it is possible to train as it's human nature. Its new theory that even the leader could be trained.Anyhow thanks for sharing some very good stuff here.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, hold on. My only real question in this thread is to explore how a person can be an expert at something he has no experience with. And, by extension, to discuss how far removed from actual experience we can go before risking losing sight of reality.

Many good points have been brought up, but at several turns, I think my position has been taken to an extreme that doesn't really reflect my thoughts.

For example, I don't think i ever meant to suggest that a strike to the groin is not viable.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

sure, but I mean there are just so many exceptions that it's really impossible to define any true parameters or rules about the topic. In the general sense, yes and I do take you point and don't disagree with it. But it just doesn't apply across the board in any neat sort of way.

 

[Steve]

sure, but I mean there are just so many exceptions that it's really impossible to define any true parameters or rules about the topic. In the general sense, yes and I do take you point and don't disagree with it. But it just doesn't apply across the board in any neat sort of way.

I understand. And I agree with most everyone here that "self defense" training can be very helpful.

What really remains are the questions regarding the nature of expertise, and how or whether a person can develop expertise at something without actually doing that thing, and then can they effectively teach it to others. It's the teaching part that really interests me. There have been many terrific posts regarding the nature of learning as a student, and that continues to be an interesting discussion.

I've also brought up a few times the nature of teaching as an instructor. It's the natural cycle within martial arts for some students to move from a primarily learning role to a primarily teaching role. Sure, I get that teachers are (should) also be continually learning. What remains the unanswered question in my mind is how a person can learn "self defense" from a guy well enough to become an expert in "self defense." The person can certainly become an expert in a system (whether that system is Krav Maga, BJJ, WC or anything else), but I wonder how it can be extended to something outside of a person's experience, such as "combat," "self defense" or even just "fighting."

Terms like "combat" or "self defense" are, as you say, very broad. And yet, as I've mentioned before, they are terms often used in discussion and sales brochures. In fact, it's the very nature of our discussions here that got me to thinking about this. People will often say "Well, that's martial sport. I train for self defense." "My style is for keeping me safe at night. It's for self defense, not show." "I'm not wasting my time with kata or forms. I'm trying to learn to defend myself." The question that comes to mind whenever I hear anyone mention "self defense" is, "How do you know?" And I am pretty sure that very few people could really answer the question from person experience. I've heard, "Well, my instructor/master/sifu/sensei says so, and he got into fights/challenge matches/brawls all the time." Or, just as often, "My instructor/master/sifu/sensei learned from so and so, who was a disciple of such and such."

 

[Flying Crane]

I understand. And I agree with most everyone here that "self defense" training can be very helpful.

What really remains are the questions regarding the nature of expertise, and how or whether a person can develop expertise at something without actually doing that thing, and then can they effectively teach it to others. It's the teaching part that really interests me. There have been many terrific posts regarding the nature of learning as a student, and that continues to be an interesting discussion.

I've also brought up a few times the nature of teaching as an instructor. It's the natural cycle within martial arts for some students to move from a primarily learning role to a primarily teaching role. Sure, I get that teachers are (should) also be continually learning. What remains the unanswered question in my mind is how a person can learn "self defense" from a guy well enough to become an expert in "self defense." The person can certainly become an expert in a system (whether that system is Krav Maga, BJJ, WC or anything else), but I wonder how it can be extended to something outside of a person's experience, such as "combat," "self defense" or even just "fighting."

Terms like "combat" or "self defense" are, as you say, very broad. And yet, as I've mentioned before, they are terms often used in discussion and sales brochures. In fact, it's the very nature of our discussions here that got me to thinking about this. People will often say "Well, that's martial sport. I train for self defense." "My style is for keeping me safe at night. It's for self defense, not show." "I'm not wasting my time with kata or forms. I'm trying to learn to defend myself." The question that comes to mind whenever I hear anyone mention "self defense" is, "How do you know?" And I am pretty sure that very few people could really answer the question from person experience. I've heard, "Well, my instructor/master/sifu/sensei says so, and he got into fights/challenge matches/brawls all the time." Or, just as often, "My instructor/master/sifu/sensei learned from so and so, who was a disciple of such and such."

exactly.

And as this discussion has shown, there's a whole lot of "mebbe" in the picture. It's been an interesting discussion and I'm not trying to say that it hasn't been worth while.

I think the discussion has shown that there's a lot of definition and marketing and whatnot that goes into this type of thing. In some cases, it's not realistic to expect everyone who teaches to have direct hands-on experience with everything that they might be teaching. They are teaching based on theory and a (hopefully) reasonably realistic approach to training. And some do a better job of that than others. With some of this stuff, there are some serious moral, ethical, and legal problems with the notion of deliberately seeking out specific experience with it. In other cases, like LEO, military, etc., someone might have had some experience thru their profession. But that doesn't mean only LEO and military people can be teachers.

That's what I'm saying, it's just impossible to make some concrete parameters and definitions around this. A whole lot of Ifs and Mebbes in the picture, mixed in with marketing that may or may not be accurate.

Good discussion, good to think about and consider, especially with regards to marketing, but ultimately without really definitive answers.

 

[chinto]

I know because when I needed it, what kata taught me worked very very well in a fight and i was uninjured and got clear. that attacker was however injured.

 

[Jimfaul]

I would agree with alot of what other people said. There are plenty of experts in fields where they have never actually had to use what they have learned in a real situation. However that being said if I had the opportunity I would prefer to train with somebody who has real world experience. There are things learned from an actual experience that a non-experiencer could never pass on.

 

[Tgace]

Bumping this thread in light of action elsewhere on the same topic.

 

[Tgace]

This topic interested me enough to write a blog post on it:

http://tgace.com/2013/04/05/what-is-an-expert/


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

Hmmmm...keep trying to post to the "expert" thread but it keeps showing up here...must be a tapatalk bug. Sorry.

 

[StudentCarl]

We train for many things that we hope never to do. Training is what takes over when crisis makes the brain downshift out of higher thinking into fight-or-flight. We know that good training tries to anticipate all of the challenges (not really possible, but the goal). We also know that even with perfect training some people fail to execute correctly when it's "real". Some of what we train is skills, but some of what we train is polishing attributes, both physical and mental. Reality is never exactly like training anyway, and often the most critical skill is adapting effectively.

One of my old first sergeants said you always prepare, but you'll never be ready for it. Wisdom there.