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

[harlan]

Sorry...I'm finding this thread a little unwieldy to navigate...seems like several cross-discussions and points being made...so forgive me as I think this through.

At one point, I thought that there was a suggestion that someone teaching the 'martial' in ALL arts should be some kind of 'expert'. Agreed...using your logic a street fighter would prefer to learn from someone that has actually done that. I wouldn't know what makes an expert 'street-fighter'. Is it so many entanglements on the street? So many years...on the street? A badge? What?

And I think you were suggesting that by extension, a teacher, say in karate, should be an 'expert' in utilizing the martial techniques being transmitted. (You mentioned weapons previously, but I prefer to keep it simple.)

So...what makes an expert karate teacher? Is it so many entanglements on the street? So many years...on the street? A badge? Are the criteria the same...even if what wants is some self-defense?

It seems to be that karate and street-fighting are different animals, with different objectives, training and tools and there are bound to be gaps which is why everyone cross-trains. Yes?

Harlan, frankly, I have no idea what you're referring to, here. Could you elaborate a little? What I think I've written doesn't seem to be the same thing as what you think I've written.If you're training to be a street fighter, but the person who is teaching you has never been in a street fight, are you learning from an expert? If you're learning to be sniper and the person you're learning from has never been a sniper in a live, field operation, are you learning from an expert? If you're learning to perform open heart surgery from someone who has only ever done it on a cadaver, is your instructor an expert? It has nothing to do with escalation, and while I think simplistic is a little patronizing, I think I'd agree that it's simple. It's a simple question: can you be an expert in something you've never actually done? My assertion is that you cannot.

 

[Steve]

Sorry...I'm finding this thread a little unwieldy to navigate...seems like several cross-discussions and points being made...so forgive me as I think this through.

At one point, I thought that there was a suggestion that someone teaching the 'martial' in ALL arts should be some kind of 'expert'. Agreed...using your logic a street fighter would prefer to learn from someone that has actually done that. I wouldn't know what makes an expert 'street-fighter'. Is it so many entanglements on the street? So many years...on the street? A badge? What?

Hard to say, and frankly, the value of experience is relative. There's no single formula. I'm not suggesting that an expert has necessarily done things a million times. But I am saying that they will have done the thing (whatever that thing might be) enough to be credible as an expert.

And I think you were suggesting that by extension, a teacher, say in karate, should be an 'expert' in utilizing the martial techniques being transmitted. (You mentioned weapons previously, but I prefer to keep it simple.)

Kind of. I'm suggesting that an expert in Karate may be exactly that. But, even if the style is intended to impart self defense skills, the expert in karate would only ALSO be an expert in self defense if he or she has applied those skills in real world, self defense situations. How much? Well, that's going to vary. But the point is the skills would need to be applied enough times for this karate expert to transition from theoretical self defense proficiency to actual self defense expertise.

So...what makes an expert karate teacher? Is it so many entanglements on the street? So many years...on the street? A badge? Are the criteria the same...even if what wants is some self-defense?

No. A karate expert is an expert in karate. And one can teach karate, I presume, without ever being in a fight. However, this karate teacher is not an expert in self defense, and shouldn't allege to be, without practical experience. The karate expert is not a street fighting expert, either. And a self defense expert may not be an expert in street fighting. And so on...

It seems to be that karate and street-fighting are different animals, with different objectives, training and tools and there are bound to be gaps which is why everyone cross-trains. Yes?

Side question here: does everyone cross train? More on topic, though, is I think this is correct. The puzzle here is whether a student can move past basic proficiency and claim expertise in something he has never done outside of a laboratory.

 

[harlan]

Ah...so 'expert' is akin to the discussions of what is a 'master'.

I've always been told that if someone calls themself a master...he/she probably isn't.

As for being an expert in self-defense if one is teaching karate for self-defense: I think I'd have to say 'no', it's not crucial. Self-defense is only a portion of training in that art, and I don't think 'street creds' are necessary. I DO think (as a beginner albeit), that one needs to constantly push the envelope in training...the laboratory...as you call it.

More on topic, though, is I think this is correct. The puzzle here is whether a student can move past basic proficiency and claim expertise in something he has never done outside of a laboratory.

 

[Steve]

Ah...so 'expert' is akin to the discussions of what is a 'master'.

Not sure I'd consider the two to be the same, although mastery of something implies expertise. If you can give me a better idea of what you mean by "master," maybe I can respond a little more specifically. An expert, in the way I think of it, is someone who has extensive knowledge and skill in a particular area. What that's called within that specific area is beside the point.

I've always been told that if someone calls themself a master...he/she probably isn't.

Probably true. But if someone is an expert, does it matter what they're called?

As for being an expert in self-defense if one is teaching karate for self-defense: I think I'd have to say 'no', it's not crucial. Self-defense is only a portion of training in that art, and I don't think 'street creds' are necessary. I DO think (as a beginner albeit), that one needs to constantly push the envelope in training...the laboratory...as you call it.

Back up a minute. Where are you getting the street cred business?

 

[harlan]

Am I incorrect? Doesn't an 'expert in street fighting' equate to 'street credentials'?

Could you please summarize for this old lady what are the credentials that make for a 'self-defense expert'?

(Apologies...if I missed a summary in the thread please link. Thank you.)

 

[Steve]

Am I incorrect? Doesn't an 'expert in street fighting' equate to 'street credentials'?

Could you please summarize for this old lady what are the credentials that make for a 'self-defense expert'?

(Apologies...if I missed a summary in the thread please link. Thank you.)

Okay. I'll try again. I think you're fixated on this street fighting thing. When you brought it up the first time, I thought you were being hypothetical. I have no idea what a "street fighting" instructor would look like or what his or her credentials would be. What I am asserting is that if a person is alleging to be an expert {insert anything here}, that person should have practical experience doing that thing sufficient to master that activity. That activity can be anything: street fighting, karate, knitting, cooking, golfing, camping, driving, writing... anything.

If you're putting Master Chef on your resume, but have never set foot in a kitchen, it wouldn't matter how many cookbooks you've read or recipes you've memorized. If you're putting Expert Self Defense Instructor on your resume, but have no practical experience, it doesn't matter how great your training is. If you're putting 10th Degree Black Belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, but have never rolled on the mats, it wouldn't matter how many techniques you've memorized from YouTube or matches you've watched.

Do you see what I'm saying now?

 

[harlan]

Sorry...was referring to post #79 where you asked, 'If training to be a ST...'. My assumption is that you equated 'street fighting' with 'street experience'. I may have gone off tangent there.

You state, one needs to 'have practical experience' in whatever they are teaching...but from what I glean from the thread...when it comes to the 'self defense portion' of xxx art, I still am confused.

When it comes to 'self-defense', do you think that there is a commonality, a base-line for skills-set and experiences across the board...regardless of art?

Thank you.

Okay. I'll try again. I think you're fixated on this street fighting thing. When you brought it up the first time, I thought you were being hypothetical. I have no idea what a "street fighting" instructor would look like or what his or her credentials would be. What I am asserting is that if a person is alleging to be an expert {insert anything here}, that person should have practical experience doing that thing sufficient to master that activity. That activity can be anything: street fighting, karate, knitting, cooking, golfing, camping, driving, writing... anything.

If you're putting Master Chef on your resume, but have never set foot in a kitchen, it wouldn't matter how many cookbooks you've read or recipes you've memorized. If you're putting Expert Self Defense Instructor on your resume, but have no practical experience, it doesn't matter how great your training is. If you're putting 10th Degree Black Belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, but have never rolled on the mats, it wouldn't matter how many techniques you've memorized from YouTube or matches you've watched.

Do you see what I'm saying now?

 

[Steve]

Sorry...was referring to post #79 where you asked, 'If training to be a ST...'. My assumption is that you equated 'street fighting' with 'street experience'. I may have gone off tangent there.

Okay. Glad we got through it.

You state, one needs to 'have practical experience' in whatever they are teaching...but from what I glean from the thread...when it comes to the 'self defense portion' of xxx art, I still am confused.

Pretty much. If we're presuming that being an expert in something is a reasonable pre-req. for being a good instructor.

When it comes to 'self-defense', do you think that there is a commonality, a base-line for skills-set and experiences across the board...regardless of art?

Thank you.

What do you think?

 

[Blindside]

Okay. I'll try again. I think you're fixated on this street fighting thing. When you brought it up the first time, I thought you were being hypothetical. I have no idea what a "street fighting" instructor would look like or what his or her credentials would be. What I am asserting is that if a person is alleging to be an expert {insert anything here}, that person should have practical experience doing that thing sufficient to master that activity. That activity can be anything: street fighting, karate, knitting, cooking, golfing, camping, driving, writing... anything.

If you're putting Master Chef on your resume, but have never set foot in a kitchen, it wouldn't matter how many cookbooks you've read or recipes you've memorized. If you're putting Expert Self Defense Instructor on your resume, but have no practical experience, it doesn't matter how great your training is. If you're putting 10th Degree Black Belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, but have never rolled on the mats, it wouldn't matter how many techniques you've memorized from YouTube or matches you've watched.

Do you see what I'm saying now?

Steve, I very much understand your point, and it is one that I have struggled with. So my main art teaches sword (think machete) fighting and knife fighting as a regular part of the art, I have never been in an actual sword or knife fight. So who am I to tell someone that I am an expert at swordwork? When we are sparring with training blades I do OK, but again not "real."

The FMA in general have some fairly recent history (WWII) of use of the various bladed weapon arts to fall back on as well as a culture that tacitly permitted duelling until very recently, so many of the FMA do have some first or second hand experience. I have heard credible second hand accounts of recent (past 5 years) of a "my kung fu is better than your kung fu" type sword match to the death, one of the participants was a kali player. But again, not me. I can watch video of haitian machete fights, seeing how people look when they are actually trying to kill each other with machetes. So while I am a teacher of the art, I do not call myself an expert at sword fighting, of course I don't even call myself and expert at Kali either.

Now how about "self-defense." How does the art that I am an instructor of work in the US in non-duelling situations? I have been in a couple of fist fights when I was younger and dumber, I verbally diffused a situation that could have been a life-or-death situation. I don't think that makes me an expert either. I read somewhere that the Air force set '5" as the standard for an ace because it was after 5 kills that you actually started using your training and your weren't just acting out of pure instinct. Makes sense to me from my not-yet-an-ace experience. I am a civilian, if I am at all smart and reasonably lucky I will never get the opportunity to become an ace.

So now what the hell do I do? How can I pass on good self-defense techs/methods/approaches? I study, I read, I talk with guys who do have the firsthand accounts, I watch video of real attacks, I take training that tries to simulate those adrenalized situations, I steal, ahem, borrow ideas that seem to work really well. I try to test out the material on the floor in sparring or heavy contact situationals. And all of that training comes with the upfront caveat that "all training is not real." I don't call myself an expert, though I will say that I don't "die" as frequently as I used to in those sims and sparring matches.

Did that babbling make sense?

 

[Steve]

Steve, I very much understand your point, and it is one that I have struggled with. So my main art teaches sword (think machete) fighting and knife fighting as a regular part of the art, I have never been in an actual sword or knife fight. So who am I to tell someone that I am an expert at swordwork? When we are sparring with training blades I do OK, but again not "real."

The FMA in general have some fairly recent history (WWII) of use of the various bladed weapon arts to fall back on as well as a culture that tacitly permitted duelling until very recently, so many of the FMA do have some first or second hand experience. I have heard credible second hand accounts of recent (past 5 years) of a "my kung fu is better than your kung fu" type sword match to the death, one of the participants was a kali player. But again, not me. I can watch video of haitian machete fights, seeing how people look when they are actually trying to kill each other with machetes. So while I am a teacher of the art, I do not call myself an expert at sword fighting, of course I don't even call myself and expert at Kali either.

Now how about "self-defense." How does the art that I am an instructor of work in the US in non-duelling situations? I have been in a couple of fist fights when I was younger and dumber, I verbally diffused a situation that could have been a life-or-death situation. I don't think that makes me an expert either. I read somewhere that the Air force set '5" as the standard for an ace because it was after 5 kills that you actually started using your training and your weren't just acting out of pure instinct. Makes sense to me from my not-yet-an-ace experience. I am a civilian, if I am at all smart and reasonably lucky I will never get the opportunity to become an ace.

So now what the hell do I do? How can I pass on good self-defense techs/methods/approaches? I study, I read, I talk with guys who do have the firsthand accounts, I watch video of real attacks, I take training that tries to simulate those adrenalized situations, I steal, ahem, borrow ideas that seem to work really well. I try to test out the material on the floor in sparring or heavy contact situationals. And all of that training comes with the upfront caveat that "all training is not real." I don't call myself an expert, though I will say that I don't "die" as frequently as I used to in those sims and sparring matches.

Did that babbling make sense?

This absolutely made sense to me. This was very much at the heart of what I'm thinking about right now. Thanks for sharing.

Edit: I just want to add that you touch on another important point, I believe. If you acknowledge that you aren't an "expert," you may still have a lot to share that is valuable. What I mean is, I'm not making a value judgement here. At least, that's not my intent. You may have much to teach someone on the subject of fighting with a blade. I would argue that being self aware, that is, aware of where your expertise ends, would make your training that much better.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Scenario Based Training, Sparring, Rolling (Grappling), Kata, Technique Training, etc, etc, etc. I think if you want to be a martial practitioner who has the opportunity to be effective in a personal protection situation then you need multiple avenues in your training. Experience over time has shown this to be the case for myself and those I train. Real life experience in violent encounters is some thing that while not wanted certainly gives you an edge that is really, really, really, really hard to duplicate. Not impossible but hard. I have had the opportunity to work with both trained and minimally trained people in various work related activities through the years. Some times the person with more training froze and some times they did not. Some times the person with minimal training froze and some times they did not. However, even though they may have froze as the situation unfolded their training usually kicked in especially with a little verbal direction! Bottom line, martial practitioiners need to participate in multiple martial activities from technical training to resistance training to adrenaline based training. That is a sure fire way to give yourself a chance in a violent situation!

 

[Chris Parker]

I think that you're misunderstanding me, Chris. I'm not equating experience and expertise. I'm suggesting that experience is an essential component to developing expertise. You cannot become an expert in something with which you have no experience.

Except, Steve, you have been equating them throughout the entire thread... starting with the idea itself of experience being required for expertise (part of the OP). From there (as you didn't definitively pick a side in your OP, leaving it open to debate and discussion), post 46 has you commenting that Tgace's post gets "To one of the key questions" you're asking.... stating that "in boxing you train to box...." and then asking "is any school really teaching self defence, if the students never defend themselves?". It's been a constant underlying thematic concept of the whole thread, experience = expertise, lack of experience = can't be an expert. And I'm saying that it's not even as clean-cut as you're making out here.

You can be an expert without experience (say, in sword fighting if studying Iai, or defending yourself against a lethal threat, if teaching self defence, and so on), and you can be experienced without being close to an expert (at handling violence etc). It's not an essential component... it can certainly be of great value, but that's something different entirely. For example, my favourite story of my application of self defence involves absolutely no violence whatsoever... and, if it had come to violence, that might be considered a self defence "fail"... so is that experience at defending myself, or not? Does it show a higher level of expertise, or a lower one? Or is it actually not indicative one way or the other? I mean, I used absolutely no physical skills taught in my school... especially not the traditional stuff....

So, then, the next step is to further define "experience." I think many martial arts equate training to experience. You seem to be doing this very thing. While training can prepare you to a point, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread through multiple examples, it is no replacement for actual, practical experience.

No, I'd disagree with that as well. Training IS experience, the question becomes experience at what. Additionally, it is a replacement (well, not actually a replacement, it's more an analogue when done well and properly, a true representation... it doesn't take the place of a real experience, it is one) for practical experience, as it is practical experience. It's just practical experience geared towards a certain aim or goal. This really isn't that easy to explain, but if your training isn't a real, true representation, done in a way that replicates and creates the same conditions while allowing the goal to be achieved, then get a new school, or a new approach. If it's so extreme that it's just pure chaos, and no real goal can be achieved, then the "training" isn't working. And, if it's so easy that the same conditions (which are more to do with internal reality, rather than external, when you really understand it) are not created, then the "training" is just calisthenics. This is what I'm talking about when I talk about kata training, by the way. It should always be real. Even when there isn't a "real" opponent.

I'd also say that there has been nothing in this thread that has "amply demonstrated" anything of the sort, for the record. All it's told me is about some lacking training approaches. In fact, looking back over the thread, I can't find any examples of anything of the kind... some approximations, but that's about it.

And notice that I'm not saying that all training is the same. Some is better suited than others for different applications. Learning iaido won't help me in a BJJ tournament, for example. And some training methods are more effective than others. But in the end, no matter how good the training is, without ample real experience, all of the skills remain theoretical.

Actually, Steve, speaking as someone who has trained in BJJ, and does train in Iai, you might be surprised as to how much it might help you...

But to get to the crux of all of this, I think the wrong equation has been made from the very beginning, and that is that "expert" equals someone who can apply the skills of the art, while ignoring the context of the art itself. I've said many times that I don't believe any martial art is designed for (modern) self defence, so to insist that an "expert" is someone who can, or even has applied it in self defence is, to me, completely besides the point. An "expert" is someone who knows a subject deeply. That's it. So, even if you've never been in a self defence situation, if you know your subject (martial arts, your personal art, self defence, whatever) deeply, then you're an expert. If you've "done it" (in this case referring to having defended yourself against some form of assault or attack), then you're "experienced". You're not an "expert" based on that. As a result, the idea that "all of the skills remain theoretical" is, firstly, incorrect, and secondly, irrelevant. You might as well say that a studied and skilled chef only has theoretical skills until they've fed 350 people at a sitting in a busy restaurant.

I think that's the real issue. The very premise of this thread is taking a false approximation of what being an "expert" really is. The OP seems to make a distinction between "doing the art" (ie, training, learning, developing the contextually correct and applicable skill sets, and employing them in the way the art is designed, within it's context, which for a sport art includes competition, but for other arts doesn't, yet at the same time, doesn't even necessarily include free-form, sparring, self defence, or anything else) and "employing the skills"... when both are really "actually doing it" (gaining the experience, depth of knowledge, and skills to be considered an "expert" in these forms). Whether it's employed outside of class or not is irrelevant.

 

[MJS]

Agreed, MJS. Here's a question, though. The instructors at the training that first responders and military appoint. Aren't they people with actual, real life experience?

Yes, usually they are. Now, on the other hand, how many times have we heard in discussions, that its possible that we, as martial artists, could go our entire 'career' and never get into a fight. I know I've heard that many times. So, going on that, you have someone who trained in the arts for 15yrs. He was never involved in a physical confrontation. Now, he's running a school or teaching classes. He's supposedly teaching people who to defend themselves. Yet he himself, has never had to fight. Is it possible for someone in that case, to pass on info?

 

[Steve]

Yes, usually they are. Now, on the other hand, how many times have we heard in discussions, that its possible that we, as martial artists, could go our entire 'career' and never get into a fight. I know I've heard that many times. So, going on that, you have someone who trained in the arts for 15yrs. He was never involved in a physical confrontation. Now, he's running a school or teaching classes. He's supposedly teaching people who to defend themselves. Yet he himself, has never had to fight. Is it possible for someone in that case, to pass on info?

That's exactly my question, MJS. Further, is it possible for him to teach someone, who also never uses the skills in context, well enough to pass the skills along? And so on...

@chris, I'll get back to your message when I can read it as I presume you intend it. Frankly, first thing in the morning, pre-coffee, the first line, where you arrogantly presume to tell me what I really think makes it tough to get through the lengthy prose. For now, I can only suggest to you that I mean what I say I mean, just as I'm sure you didn't intend the tone I "heard" in your note. I will presume good intent, and if you misunderstand, I'll take responsibility for being unclear. But please, don't tell me what I'm really saying or really mean again. You take responsibility for your words, and I'll do the same. Thanks.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Tgace]

"Expert" is a subjective term. Having been through ALL sorts of training from martial arts, military, LE, SWAT, Federal LE schools I can attest that there are experts and there are EXPERTS.

Seeing that more of my training now centers around the "tactical" and firearms. In this world you have experts like Todd Jarret:

Todd has no military or LE background and I doubt he has ever had to shoot anyone. That being said, LE and Mil actively seek his instruction/expertise in what he does.

On the other end of the spectrum are guys like Kyle Lamb:

Former Army Delta. "Blackhawk Down" veteran...Iraq war Vet..etc. Has shot people, has been shot at...numerous times.

While Jarret is probably faster and more "expert" than Lamb when it comes to driving a gun, Lambs instruction is coming from an ENTIRELY different source. Shooting is shooting. Jarret and Lamb are both drawing, aiming and shooting firearms...what makes one "different" from the other?

This isnt to imply that I think one is "better" than the other. LE/MIL seek them both but what they provide isnt identitical.

So what is an "expert"? I myself have been through all sorts of training, Ive won some awards and tactical/firearms competitions. Im former mil, SWAT officer, a veteran police officer..so I am an "expert" of sorts compared to others. But Im nowhere near the "expert" these guys are and likely never will be....

 

[Tgace]

I think that some artists have too much invested in either their Arts legitimacy as a "combat proven over centuries...teaching TRUE WARRIOR skills..." art, or in their own estimations of themselves as "warriors".

If you are only depending on your martial arts style/school/teacher as the SOLE source of you training (or the core of your life) you are a table with one leg.

 

[harlan]

I'll tell you what 'ticks me off', is schools that resort to marketing to people's fears and ignorance and promoting 'self-defense'. It seems to be especially true about schools targeting women. They draw off potential students to traditional arts and blind them with false confidence, that in my opinion, that may well contribute to getting them killed in a serious encounter.

Thank you for addressing my question which is what IS an expert (subjective), and what are the criteria (context specific).

"Expert" is a subjective term. Having been through ALL sorts of training from martial arts, military, LE, SWAT, Federal LE schools I can attest that there are experts and there are EXPERTS.
....

 

[Sukerkin]

:chuckles: All I know is I am fairly handy with a katana ... whether I'm a warrior or not I've yet to find out (one super-brief fight ever does not a 'fighter' make ).

 

[Steve]

Except, Steve, you have been equating them throughout the entire thread... starting with the idea itself of experience being required for expertise (part of the OP).

Okay. Had some coffee. A little more awake now. I'll just clarify that, if you understood this from my posts, it is because I was unclear. I see a clear distinction between a person being an expert on some topic and that person having experience with some thing. I hope that's settled, because the rest of your post builds on this misunderstanding.

From there (as you didn't definitively pick a side in your OP, leaving it open to debate and discussion), post 46 has you commenting that Tgace's post gets "To one of the key questions" you're asking.... stating that "in boxing you train to box...." and then asking "is any school really teaching self defence, if the students never defend themselves?". It's been a constant underlying thematic concept of the whole thread, experience = expertise, lack of experience = can't be an expert. And I'm saying that it's not even as clean-cut as you're making out here.

You're close. Experience /= Expertise, but yes, expertise is (IMO) a critical component of building expertise... one of many. Sugar does not equal cake, but certainly any good cake has sugar in it.

Regarding the theme of the thread, I'd suggest that it's self awareness. And if there's one solid conclusion I've seen amply supported in this thread, it is that the danger is in mis-identifying the area of expertise through a lack of self-awareness. Tgace and MJS articulated two aspects of this. In Tgace's post, he pointed out that Todd Jaret is an "expert" and that his instruction is valuable and in demand. But Tgace stated very concisely what Todd Jaret's area of expertise really is... and what it isn't. It's clear to the students and(this is the part I think many martial arts instructors don't get) it is very clear to the instructor.

Are martial arts instructors so careful? Some are and some are not. The martial arts connection here is that the "self defense" oriented martial arts instructor is not typically as self aware as someone like Todd Jaret.

You can be an expert without experience

You can be an expert only on what you have experience with. It's being self-aware that is the key. It is possible, for example, to be expert on theory.

(say, in sword fighting if studying Iai, or defending yourself against a lethal threat, if teaching self defence, and so on), and you can be experienced without being close to an expert (at handling violence etc). It's not an essential component... it can certainly be of great value, but that's something different entirely. For example, my favourite story of my application of self defence involves absolutely no violence whatsoever... and, if it had come to violence, that might be considered a self defence "fail"... so is that experience at defending myself, or not? Does it show a higher level of expertise, or a lower one? Or is it actually not indicative one way or the other? I mean, I used absolutely no physical skills taught in my school... especially not the traditional stuff....

No, I'd disagree with that as well. Training IS experience,

Training experience is experience with training. Sounds simple, I know, but I've seen you argue this same point. Sparring is not fighting. It is sparring. In MMA, sparring is not the same as fighting in the cage. Which is, in turn, not the same thing as self defense. And so on. So, training is training. There are a million different ways to train, some more effective at others. And training is an important step in the development of expertise. But, training it remains. The question becomes experience at what.

Additionally, it is a replacement (well, not actually a replacement, it's more an analogue when done well and properly, a true representation... it doesn't take the place of a real experience, it is one) for practical experience, as it is practical experience. It's just practical experience geared towards a certain aim or goal. This really isn't that easy to explain, but if your training isn't a real, true representation, done in a way that replicates and creates the same conditions while allowing the goal to be achieved, then get a new school, or a new approach. If it's so extreme that it's just pure chaos, and no real goal can be achieved, then the "training" isn't working. And, if it's so easy that the same conditions (which are more to do with internal reality, rather than external, when you really understand it) are not created, then the "training" is just calisthenics. This is what I'm talking about when I talk about kata training, by the way. It should always be real. Even when there isn't a "real" opponent.

I'd also say that there has been nothing in this thread that has "amply demonstrated" anything of the sort, for the record. All it's told me is about some lacking training approaches. In fact, looking back over the thread, I can't find any examples of anything of the kind... some approximations, but that's about it.

Well, if you've already decided that you are right, I appreciate your contribution. Thanks. It's helpful for me to know what your thoughts are on the subject.

Actually, Steve, speaking as someone who has trained in BJJ, and does train in Iai, you might be surprised as to how much it might help you...

Where have I suggested that it must be otherwise?

But to get to the crux of all of this,

Excellent. The crux. The nut, as they say.

I think the wrong equation has been made from the very beginning, and that is that "expert" equals someone who can apply the skills of the art, while ignoring the context of the art itself. I've said many times that I don't believe any martial art is designed for (modern) self defence, so to insist that an "expert" is someone who can, or even has applied it in self defence is, to me, completely besides the point.

Ah... here it is. You don't understand at all what I'm saying. Because if you did, you'd understand that I agree that most (if not all) modern martial arts are NOT designed for modern self defence.

An "expert" is someone who knows a subject deeply.

It's helpful to understand your definition of the term. I define the term differently. To me, an expert is someone who has particular skill and knowledge. Obviously, if the subject is academic, then the expertise will also be academic. But in a physical skill being taught, there must be an intimate, physical familiarity.

I am not saying that only experts can teach. Certainly, even a novice can share helpful information. What I am saying is that an expert is, IMO, deeper than knowing. Knowing is the lowest form of understanding. I've said before, I see learning as moving through predictable and unavoidable stages:
Developing Expertise:

1. Knowing something,
2. Understanding that thing,
3. then you can do it (this stage, in martial arts, can take a while)

Refining Expertise:

1. Evaluation (this is where you start to think about the skill in context)
2. then you can synthesize it (this is where you start to examine this skill in connection to other, skills)
3. and, finally, you can innovate

Some would reserve the term expert to the very last stage.

That's it. So, even if you've never been in a self defence situation, if you know your subject (martial arts, your personal art, self defence, whatever) deeply, then you're an expert. If you've "done it" (in this case referring to having defended yourself against some form of assault or attack), then you're "experienced". You're not an "expert" based on that. As a result, the idea that "all of the skills remain theoretical" is, firstly, incorrect, and secondly, irrelevant. You might as well say that a studied and skilled chef only has theoretical skills until they've fed 350 people at a sitting in a busy restaurant.

I don't agree. To use your chef analogy (which I think I have earlier in the thread), I'd say that one could not call himself a chef if he has only ever read cookbooks. So, in order to be a chef, one must have experience actually, physically cooking. To be an expert chef, one must have done this... a lot. How much? Well, that depends. As Tgace pointed out, there is expert and then there is EXPERT.

To extend your analogy further, one doesn't need to work in a restaurant kitchen in order to be an excellent cook. However, to be an expert in cooking AND in managing a kitchen in a restaurant, one must have expertise in both skill sets. And you don't become an expert chef in a busy restaurant without experience.

I think that's the real issue. The very premise of this thread is taking a false approximation of what being an "expert" really is.

You forgot to add, "in my opinion." Surely you understand that, in spite of your absolute declaration, your definition of expert is your own. As I said before, it's helpful to know how you define the term, but I don't agree.

 

[MJS]

That's exactly my question, MJS. Further, is it possible for him to teach someone, who also never uses the skills in context, well enough to pass the skills along? And so on...

IMO, I can view this 2 different ways. In the first case, I'd say yes, it is possible for someone to pass on the skills. Second, I'd say that the quality may not be that good. Just like anything, I think it's always wise to question things. I've seen many 'suspect' things that were taught by people who seemed to be living in a fantasy land, whereas if things were taught by someone with more real world/hands on experience, well, perhaps the transmission of the techs would be passed on better.