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

[Chris Parker]

True. Of course, if that is the case, it may be reason to raise an eyebrow as to whether or not what they claim they did, actually worked in RL.

Possibly. But the reality is that just because someone has survived a real life encounter doesn't mean they have any real expertise in the area of self defence, nor does it mean that they even used what they've taught (or been taught) in the moment. Ideally you can hope that it would highlight some form of reality in their approach, but sadly, that's just not the case each time. If you're going to insist on some experience, then it needs to be qualified and clarified just as much as the training would need to be.

I'd say a combo of all, in addition to training with those that have had RL success. Yes, I know, just because it worked for them doesn't mean it will for me, but as I said, I'd tend to lean more towards someone who's actually done something outside of the training atmosphere.

Leaning towards is fine... provided they can find a way to pass on any skills or insight gained... but, again, that's not the question here. It's not "what would you prefer", it's "is real life experience required to be considered an "expert" in self defence?"

So, leaving behind what you would prefer, do you consider it essential? Would you simply not learn from someone who hasn't had occasion to use their knowledge/skills, or would you assess on other qualities and criteria? I've said from the beginning that yes, experience can certainly help (although not definitely in all cases), but that it's just not essential the way it's been put forth.

The sniper should be just as capable using his handgun from an open position, as he would be using his gun from a concealed position.

Really? The sniper, a specialist in using a long-range, high-powered rifle, from a concealed, stable platform, who has a very specific methodology (quite removed from a defensive application of a handgun), should be "just as capable" as someone who specializes in handguns, focused on target shooting (which, if it's competition, is often done in short time-frames), probably dealing with accessing the weapon, manipulating it, and so on. I'm not saying the SEAL hasn't got experience with handguns, but if the target shooter has specialized in it, I wouldn't necessarily be saying that the sniper should be "just as capable"....

So basically, if I'm following you correctly here, your feelings are that if the training is done in the dojo, and its as alive, real, etc, as possible, then the experience of having done it in RL, isn't that important.

Well, I'm not fond of the term "alive", but that's an aside (I think it's an inaccurate distinction, borne of a lack of understanding of other training methodologies, but that's me)... other than that, yeah, that's essentially what I'm saying. The "real life" experience may help solidify the training, but it's not an essential to expertise in this sense.

 

[Steve]

I think that the mention of pilots was a very good analogy. It illustrates the root of my questions very well. It was suggested that pilots learn how to crash land a plane in simulators, and you asked how many times they should actually crash planes before being considered an expert. I would say simply that there are only a few "experts" in crashing planes. There are many people who study plane crashes, determining why and how they happen and developing processes and techniques that will surely save lives. These people are clearly expert at this, because this is what they do.

But, while there are many expert pilots and there are some experts on plane crashes, there are very few people who are expert "plane crashers." But there are some. The difference between a novice pilot and an expert pilot is experience. And in an emergency, the expert pilot is the one most likely to recall his/her training and apply the skills learned correctly under extreme stress. And how does one become an expert pilot? Playing Microsoft Flight Simulator on a very big screen in a dark room? By using simulations? By taking a lot of classes? No, or at least not only. They fly planes. They train to fly planes and then they fly them. And the more experience they have with a particular class of aircraft, the better they are at it, until at some point, they could be considered expert.

This guy is an expert pilot: Chesley Sullenberger. I would also consider him to be an expert plane crasher, because he has experience doing both successfully: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger

He was a military pilot, a flight instructor, an accident investigation board member, and had been learning and applying the craft of being a pilot since 1969. He had been flying commercially for 30 years, since 1980. The point is that he was not just an unconsciously competent pilot, he was a bona fide expert. He not only KNEW a lot about flying planes. He had done it, over and over. He had logged many hours in many different kinds of planes, in all kinds of conditions and all over the world over the course of his 40+ year career of flying.

So, in 2009, when things went awry, he was in a position to react in a way that saved many lives. But, in that situation, do you think he was running on autopilot (no pun intended)? I don't. On the model I provided earlier, he went from unconscious competence to conscious competence. He recalled his training and applied it consciously. He assessed the situation quickly and made decisions that were sound.

Why would I consider him an expert on plane crashing? Because, in addition to his expertise as a pilot, and what was undoubtedly a strong foundation in the theory of successfully crashing planes including many hours in the simulator landing on freeways and handling all manner of potential catastrophe. In addition to all of the training, he has actually been there. He can speak to a class of expert pilots and relate to them the difference between a simulator and the real thing. This is what happened. This is what I did. This is what I would do differently next time. I wish I had known this. And the expert pilots in that class would be foolish not to listen. As Tgace said, there are experts and then there are EXPERTS.

Because, as we mentioned earlier, while there are many expert pilots, there are very few expert plane crashers. In that same situation, I would suggest that most pilots, particularly those who are less experienced, would move to conscious incompetence.

Ultimately, Chris, I agree with many of the other posters in this thread, and I'm willing to consider anyone's thoughts on the matter. I have heard yours. You have made your position very clear and we just simply don't agree. I want to assure you, though, that I understand your position. Let me say that again, so you don't feel like you must tell me that I don't understand. I hear you. I get it. I just don't agree.

 

[MJS]

Possibly. But the reality is that just because someone has survived a real life encounter doesn't mean they have any real expertise in the area of self defence, nor does it mean that they even used what they've taught (or been taught) in the moment. Ideally you can hope that it would highlight some form of reality in their approach, but sadly, that's just not the case each time. If you're going to insist on some experience, then it needs to be qualified and clarified just as much as the training would need to be.

Ok, let's look outside the martial arts box for a moment. Lets look at a plumber or doctor. Would you want someone fixing the pipes in your house if all they did was read a do it yourself book? How about a doc who never did an operation? IMO, there comes a time, when hands-on, real world training, is necessary.

Leaning towards is fine... provided they can find a way to pass on any skills or insight gained... but, again, that's not the question here. It's not "what would you prefer", it's "is real life experience required to be considered an "expert" in self defence?"

So, leaving behind what you would prefer, do you consider it essential? Would you simply not learn from someone who hasn't had occasion to use their knowledge/skills, or would you assess on other qualities and criteria? I've said from the beginning that yes, experience can certainly help (although not definitely in all cases), but that it's just not essential the way it's been put forth.

If I had no other option and as long as the training was conducted in the most realistic fashion possible, yes, I would.

Really? The sniper, a specialist in using a long-range, high-powered rifle, from a concealed, stable platform, who has a very specific methodology (quite removed from a defensive application of a handgun), should be "just as capable" as someone who specializes in handguns, focused on target shooting (which, if it's competition, is often done in short time-frames), probably dealing with accessing the weapon, manipulating it, and so on. I'm not saying the SEAL hasn't got experience with handguns, but if the target shooter has specialized in it, I wouldn't necessarily be saying that the sniper should be "just as capable"....

That is correct, they do specialize in a specific weapon. However, prior to that, they are experienced in using the other weapons, ie: handgun. You just don't get hired by a PD and move right to SWAT, anymore than you'd join the Navy and move to ST6. My point was simply this: how often do we see the average Joe, who has a gun permit, shooting a moving target, shooting in low light, shooting under stress, etc? Probably not very often, if ever at all. Now sure, would the target shooter have more experience than the guy who's never shot a day in his life? Of course. But when it comes to actually applying what you've trained for.....

Well, I'm not fond of the term "alive", but that's an aside (I think it's an inaccurate distinction, borne of a lack of understanding of other training methodologies, but that's me)... other than that, yeah, that's essentially what I'm saying. The "real life" experience may help solidify the training, but it's not an essential to expertise in this sense.

Out of curiosity, what term do you prefer? Now, a few more questions for you. 1) Going on what you said earlier, that there're things that you teach that you've never done in RL, am I safe to assume that you feel comfortable teaching those things, and that those things will be effective? 2) Am I safe to assume that your students feel the same?

 

[Steve]

Ok, let's look outside the martial arts box for a moment. Lets look at a plumber or doctor. Would you want someone fixing the pipes in your house if all they did was read a do it yourself book? How about a doc who never did an operation? IMO, there comes a time, when hands-on, real world training, is necessary.

Who do you want doing your double bypass surgery? Do you want the guy who's doing it for the very first time or the guy who's done it hundreds of times? They both know the same things. What's the difference?

 

[rframe]

I am a commercial pilot and flight instructor. We train constantly for things we hope never happens. A large portion of instructor training is covering the psychology of learning and stress. We know that a "normal" human being reacts automatically in times of stress. This is why pilots train for emergency procedures constantly. Relatively few pilots will experience a critical in-flight emergency, but human psychology and experience shows that when you train regularly your body will go into automatic response in a time of stress. If you look at airline pilot recurrency training, very little of that time is spent in normal procedures, it is almost entirely reviews of emergency procedures.

 

[MJS]

Who do you want doing your double bypass surgery? Do you want the guy who's doing it for the very first time or the guy who's done it hundreds of times? They both know the same things. What's the difference?

Well, the guy who's doing it for the first time, of course! Seriously though...there're enough medical mishaps that happen. All kidding aside, I'd rather have the doc whos done it hundreds of times over the newb. Up above, we apparently posted at the same times, but when I started reading your post, I'm going thru the first paragraph, and the first thing that came to my mind was Capt. Sully. Sure enough, I continue on, and that's exactly who you mentioned! Now, I don't know if or how many other pilots out there, are like that man, but IMO, had those people had any other pilot, there would've been many casualties.

 

[Steve]

I am a commercial pilot and flight instructor. We train constantly for things we hope never happens. A large portion of instructor training is covering the psychology of learning and stress. We know that a "normal" human being reacts automatically in times of stress. This is why pilots train for emergency procedures constantly. Relatively few pilots will experience a critical in-flight emergency, but human psychology and experience shows that when you train regularly your body will go into automatic response in a time of stress. If you look at airline pilot recurrency training, very little of that time is spent in normal procedures, it is almost entirely reviews of emergency procedures.

Awesome. I'd welcome your thoughts on my previous post. Do you disagree? If so, with what? Your thoughts on the pilot analogy would be very interesting.

 

[rframe]

Awesome. I'd welcome your thoughts on my previous post. Do you disagree? If so, with what? Your thoughts on the pilot analogy would be very interesting.

Sully is a hero. He did the right things at the right time and based on what was happening he made decisions that worked out for him and was blessed to survive a crash that could've ended in complete disaster. 3 minutes later and his same responses could've killed everyone on board and he might not have had any other options. I take nothing away from him.

What I see as an instructor is that you can explain an emergency procedure to someone, have them intellectually comprehend it, and recite it back to you... then you go up and fly and kill and engine and they freeze. Intellectual knowledge is not the same as building an automatic response. So we go through the processes, I explain each step, we work the checklists. Then we do it again, and again, and again.

Eventually we can be in the middle of a maneuver, talking with ATC, planning for some other phase of flight... and I kill an engine and the student automatically does everything right calmly and smoothly. They've been drilled to do it and they just do it automatically.

Now that is not to say that a fresh First Officer (who's fully type qualified to fly the aircraft and has gone through all the emergency training procedures) will handle emergencies as well as an experienced captain. They have the same automatic responses programmed, however they dont have all the experience to process situations the same... their perceptions are not as highly refined. Yes they could respond to a fire bell automatically just fine, but can they make multiple decisions on the fly when none of those decisions are great... that's where they'll suffer simply because they dont have the experience to draw from to decisively choose a path and follow it. They'll hesitate and get stuck in mental processing loops.

How does all this relate to martial arts? If someone studies some defensive techniques, they might see them demonstrated and try them a few times...and be even be able to demonstrate them in a staged attack very nicely. But under unexpected pressure, they will likely not be able to react. You see this all the time when someone who studies martial arts gets into a street fight or even gets their first dose of non-cooperative partner training and the next thing you know it's nearly uncontrolled flailing and haymakers... you think "where did their training go??!?!".

But if they drill the same technique thousands of times under realistic scenarios it becomes an automatic response. If someone with a threatening persona approaches rapidly and grabs their wrist and they've drilled escapes and countering combinations, that's exactly what you will do.

Now being able to react to specific situations might be automatic, but experience brings the ability to perceive a process the bigger picture.

In BJJ, a blue belt might be able to demonstrate a nice pallet of positional control and submissions, but in live rolling they often seem to be stuck in positions where they should have many options... they just dont have the experience to perceive the flows needed to quickly transition to superior positions and control. Give them a loose arm from the side and boom they automatically slip into an armbar, but it's a much slower and cumbersome process to ever get to that position where automatic response can happen.

Now an experienced black belt has the perception to see a dozen paths from almost any position they are in, and whatever feels like the best route becomes and automatic response of transitions and posturing to submission... like an experience chess player, their automatic response is already looking 3-4 moves ahead and when the time and pressure is right, boom it just happens.

 

[Steve]

Sully is a hero. He did the right things at the right time and based on what was happening he made decisions that worked out for him and was blessed to survive a crash that could've ended in complete disaster. 3 minutes later and his same responses could've killed everyone on board and he might not have had any other options. I take nothing away from him.

What I see as an instructor is that you can explain an emergency procedure to someone, have them intellectually comprehend it, and recite it back to you... then you go up and fly and kill and engine and they freeze. Intellectual knowledge is not the same as building an automatic response. So we go through the processes, I explain each step, we work the checklists. Then we do it again, and again, and again.

Eventually we can be in the middle of a maneuver, talking with ATC, planning for some other phase of flight... and I kill an engine and the student automatically does everything right calmly and smoothly. They've been drilled to do it and they just do it automatically.

Now that is not to say that a fresh First Officer (who's fully type qualified to fly the aircraft and has gone through all the emergency training procedures) will handle emergencies as well as an experienced captain. They have the same automatic responses programmed, however they dont have all the experience to process situations the same... their perceptions are not as highly refined. Yes they could respond to a fire bell automatically just fine, but can they make multiple decisions on the fly when none of those decisions are great... that's where they'll suffer simply because they dont have the experience to draw from to decisively choose a path and follow it. They'll hesitate and get stuck in mental processing loops.

Thanks for the insight. But... did you say you actually kill the engine in a real flight? To my lay ears, that sounds really crazy!!!! I'm sure it's effective, though, as the stakes are pretty high. You're actually in the air and the plane is really not running.

Do you think it's possible in MA to replicate that sort of drill?

I also appreciate your comments on BJJ. It's often said that the difference between a white belt and a blue belt is knowing technique. The difference between a blue belt and a black belt is experience.

 

[rframe]

Thanks for the insight. But... did you say you actually kill the engine in a real flight? To my lay ears, that sounds really crazy!!!! I'm sure it's effective, though, as the stakes are pretty high. You're actually in the air and the plane is really not running.

Do you think it's possible in MA to replicate that sort of drill?

I also appreciate your comments on BJJ. It's often said that the difference between a white belt and a blue belt is knowing technique. The difference between a blue belt and a black belt is experience.

When we first start training I will usually retard the throttle to idle. Once they know the processes I get sneaky and turn off mixture of fuel valves to actually kill the engine when they are not expecting it. Hearing the engine sputter and stop creates an intensity that is a whole new experience for the student to process. The "experience of the unexpected" enhances their learning greatly. As an instructor its my job to keep us all safe, so if I kill an engine I already know we are within gliding distance of a safe landing area and I know there is plenty of time for a restart. I've had many flights where we've glided to a landing without restarting, which is also a good experience as it reinforces the understanding that the airplane doesn't just fall out of the air but is gliding nicely with full directional control. This helps a student keep their head when under pressure.

In martial arts, I think many instructors would do well to learn a lot more about the psychology of learning or "fundamentals of instruction" as we call them.

Some examples of replicating this type of learning. I've seen in our school the instructor has had a student pad up and "attack" some of the advanced students with little to no warning. This is an educational and humbling experience to people the first time it happens.

I also think a lot of this experience is gained in live drilling and higher intensity sparring. Getting hit in the face is a sobering experience the first few times it happens. Of course that's not for everyone. If a school is focused on sport, then it might be totally inappropriate. If a school positions their training as even partially "self defense" related, then I think fight simulation and drilling realistic situations with at least mildly uncooperative training partners is essential. However, that has to come after students have the intellectual understanding of the basics first.

 

[rframe]

The attached video is a great example that highlights the difference between a lot of training we see in martial arts and the reality of a self defense situation and how an instructor can use intensity and drilling to help people prepare for reality vs fantasy.

 

[Steve]

rframe, that video was pretty cool. The instructor is a real character. Thanks for sharing it. I agree with pretty much everything you've written so far, so I don't have a lot to say about the content of your posts.

I do have another question. In this thread, one of the the other issues that has come up has to do with instructor credentials. It's related to the definition of expert and that line of discussion. What do you think? You mention martial arts in particular. I'm interested to hear your opinion about what distinguishes you and the instructor in the video? You've been clear about the differences in the actual training. I'm thinking specifically of the differences in the instructors? Also, if you have any other thoughts on the relationship between experience and expertise, I'm interested in that, as well.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm thinking about this comment from you:

I also think a lot of this experience is gained in live drilling and higher intensity sparring. Getting hit in the face is a sobering experience the first few times it happens. Of course that's not for everyone. If a school is focused on sport, then it might be totally inappropriate. If a school positions their training as even partially "self defense" related, then I think fight simulation and drilling realistic situations with at least mildly uncooperative training partners is essential. However, that has to come after students have the intellectual understanding of the basics first.

I agree with this from the perspective of the student. But what about the instructor? What sort of credentials would you expect from the instructor? Once again, this is central to the original questions I was thinking about. How does an instructor claim expertise in a skillset he has never applied outside of a training environment? Do you think it's possible?

 

[rframe]

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm thinking about this comment from you: I agree with this from the perspective of the student. But what about the instructor? What sort of credentials would you expect from the instructor? Once again, this is central to the original questions I was thinking about. How does an instructor claim expertise in a skillset he has never applied outside of a training environment? Do you think it's possible?

That's a great set of questions that I dont have an answer to. I am admittedly fairly cynical of a lot of martial arts, I see a lot of BS, self-certification, and blatant lies.

I'm not aware of any good credentialing system to show how an instructor or system has been pressure tested or uses reality based training to test their systems regularly. I see organizations like the World Combat Association forming, and they give me hope. Grounded people bringing reality back into martial arts is a good thing. Will credentialing flow out of these groups? Maybe. Or maybe it will just help reset the standards that the martial arts community has and it will be a more organic change from within? Maybe even better.

For now, one just seems to need to wander the world of martial arts with their BS meter fully active.

 

[MJS]

Chris....earlier you said that as long as the training was realistic, that that would be good enough to suffice the 'real world' training. Now, as I said earlier, when we were talking about youtube clips, and how many times, people put up clips that aren't very real at all, yet in that persons mind, they are. So, the same can apply to the training. You can have someone who isn't really training realistic at all, but in their mind, they are. How does that solve the problem?

This next question is for Steve and TGace, if he's still floating around this thread. During a discussion with Chris, I had mentioned that I'd prefer to train with people with RW experience. Chris and I agreed that in many cases, we're teaching things that we haven't done in the RW. So the question is: Since its probably not possible to have experienced every single little thing, as long as you're training with someone with some RW experience, someone who's seen a lot and does have a lot of experience, would you still get something out of the training, even if the teacher himself, hasn't experienced certain things?

 

[Steve]

Since its probably not possible to have experienced every single little thing, as long as you're training with someone with some RW experience, someone who's seen a lot and does have a lot of experience, would you still get something out of the training, even if the teacher himself, hasn't experienced certain things?

Good questions, MJS. I think that, as with most things, it depends.

There are generalists and specialists, and there's value in learning from each, depending upon what it is that you are learning.

I want to distinguish something here. There are two roles we're discussing, and while the emphasis so far has been on the expertise of the trainer, but I've also mentioned that there is a transition from theory to application to expertise that happens in the student.

To answer your question, it is, IMO, very unlikely that one person will have experienced every possible situation in a complex skillset. There's a difference between teaching someone to make a cheeseburger and teaching someone to be a surgeon. You can learn from an academic. You can acquire skills and practice them. But, IMO, the thing that an expert has that you don't (as a student) is experience. Whether it's hours logged in the cockpit or number of times performing a surgery, tours in a combat zone, years working as a first responder. It's all experience. And so, no matter how well trained you are, you are not an expert in something until you take the leap into actual, real world, unscripted experience. And the higher the stakes, the more important that experience is.

I referred to Bloom's taxonomy earlier. Essentially boiled down to this:

Developing Expertise:


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


Refining Expertise:


4: Evaluation/Analysis (this is where you start to think about the skill in context)
5: Synthesis: then you can synthesize it (this is where you start to examine this skill in connection to other, skills)
6: and, finally, you can innovate

Over the last 50 or so years, this model remains pretty consistent. Couple of points about this. First, application is about the furthest one can go in a training environment, and that's only if the training is REALLY GOOD. Most training falls short of application. But, given the right circumstances, a person at the application level can do the job, can perform the tasks or execute the technique. He or she can fly a plane or perform CPR.

What you're talking about, in an expert trainer, is someone who is at the the synthesis level. While it's unlikely that a person will have done EVERYTHING, a person at the synthesis level understands the skills to the point that he or she can apply them in any context. What's the difference between someone at the application level and someone at the synthesis level? Experience.

So, is the question whether someone can learn sufficient self defense skills to protect him or herself? We've already well established that it's very possible. Done all the time.

The question is whether a person who has never applied the skills or acquired practical, real life experience can be considered an expert? And if this person chooses to teach these skills, should he or she be very careful to stay in his/her lane? And further, if this person who has no experience teaches someone else who has no experience, who teaches someone else, can any of them be considered an expert, and at what point does the training lose efficacy?

 

[MJS]

[/COLOR]Good questions, MJS. I think that, as with most things, it depends.

There are generalists and specialists, and there's value in learning from each, depending upon what it is that you are learning.

I want to distinguish something here. There are two roles we're discussing, and while the emphasis so far has been on the expertise of the trainer, but I've also mentioned that there is a transition from theory to application to expertise that happens in the student.

To answer your question, it is, IMO, very unlikely that one person will have experienced every possible situation in a complex skillset. There's a difference between teaching someone to make a cheeseburger and teaching someone to be a surgeon. You can learn from an academic. You can acquire skills and practice them. But, IMO, the thing that an expert has that you don't (as a student) is experience. Whether it's hours logged in the cockpit or number of times performing a surgery, tours in a combat zone, years working as a first responder. It's all experience. And so, no matter how well trained you are, you are not an expert in something until you take the leap into actual, real world, unscripted experience. And the higher the stakes, the more important that experience is.

I referred to Bloom's taxonomy earlier. Essentially boiled down to this:

Developing Expertise:


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


Refining Expertise:


4: Evaluation/Analysis (this is where you start to think about the skill in context)
5: Synthesis: then you can synthesize it (this is where you start to examine this skill in connection to other, skills)
6: and, finally, you can innovate

Over the last 50 or so years, this model remains pretty consistent. Couple of points about this. First, application is about the furthest one can go in a training environment, and that's only if the training is REALLY GOOD. Most training falls short of application. But, given the right circumstances, a person at the application level can do the job, can perform the tasks or execute the technique. He or she can fly a plane or perform CPR.

What you're talking about, in an expert trainer, is someone who is at the the synthesis level. While it's unlikely that a person will have done EVERYTHING, a person at the synthesis level understands the skills to the point that he or she can apply them in any context. What's the difference between someone at the application level and someone at the synthesis level? Experience.

So, is the question whether someone can learn sufficient self defense skills to protect him or herself? We've already well established that it's very possible. Done all the time.

The question is whether a person who has never applied the skills or acquired practical, real life experience can be considered an expert? And if this person chooses to teach these skills, should he or she be very careful to stay in his/her lane? And further, if this person who has no experience teaches someone else who has no experience, who teaches someone else, can any of them be considered an expert, and at what point does the training lose efficacy?

Sorry for the delay in reply Steve. So, basically, in a nutshell, it seems like we're on the same page. I've trained in a realistic fashion, against multiple opponents, however, to date (Thank God..lol) I've never been attacked by more than 1 person, although the opportunity presented itself when I was working in Corrections. I valued the training, but you're right...until you actually are hands on, its all speculation.

So, another question to toss into the mix: Going on what you said, on what we both are in agreement, would you say that this probably discredits a lot of instructors out there? I mean, if they haven't actually done stuff that they've taught, how credible does that make them?

 

[Steve]

Sorry for the delay in reply Steve. So, basically, in a nutshell, it seems like we're on the same page. I've trained in a realistic fashion, against multiple opponents, however, to date (Thank God..lol) I've never been attacked by more than 1 person, although the opportunity presented itself when I was working in Corrections. I valued the training, but you're right...until you actually are hands on, its all speculation.

So, another question to toss into the mix: Going on what you said, on what we both are in agreement, would you say that this probably discredits a lot of instructors out there? I mean, if they haven't actually done stuff that they've taught, how credible does that make them?

Well, I don't know about discrediting anyone, but that's a big part of what I wanted to talk about. If people who have no experience in real world self defense are considered experts, what makes this one area different from all others? Or is there any other complex, physical skillset where the expertise is considered credible even though it remains theoretical?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Rich Parsons]

Sorry for the delay in reply Steve. So, basically, in a nutshell, it seems like we're on the same page. I've trained in a realistic fashion, against multiple opponents, however, to date (Thank God..lol) I've never been attacked by more than 1 person, although the opportunity presented itself when I was working in Corrections. I valued the training, but you're right...until you actually are hands on, its all speculation.

So, another question to toss into the mix: Going on what you said, on what we both are in agreement, would you say that this probably discredits a lot of instructors out there? I mean, if they haven't actually done stuff that they've taught, how credible does that make them?

Well, I don't know about discrediting anyone, but that's a big part of what I wanted to talk about. If people who have no experience in real world self defense are considered experts, what makes this one area different from all others? Or is there any other complex, physical skillset where the expertise is considered credible even though it remains theoretical?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

And what about those who do have experience with multiple attackers and in various situations? Do their opinion weigh more for their experience? or Less as they "obviously" have done something wrong to have been in those situations?

 

[Steve]

And what about those who do have experience with multiple attackers and in various situations? Do their opinion weigh more for their experience? or Less as they "obviously" have done something wrong to have been in those situations?

Great question. My initial thought is that it really depends upon what is being taught. What do you think?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Flying Crane]

late to the discussion here, and maybe this has already been touched upon but I haven't gone back to read all 12 pages of the discussion.

In my experience, it's very easy for most people to get thru life without ever having to fight or defend themselves for real, or at least very seldom and probably not at all as an adult. Most of us put the schoolyard scraps behind us when we get out of gradeschool. It's been easy for me at least, and I spent a number of years living in a neighborhood that has it's own level of grit to it. I just don't find it difficult to not get into fights or altercations. But maybe that's just me.

So it's very possible that one might be teaching martial arts, and yet have no "real world" experience using it. That's me, in fact. I certainly don't encourage anyone to go out and deliberately seek out "real world" experience. Certainly not for the purpose of simply adding credibility to themselves as a teacher. It's dangerous for one thing and in my opinion, downright immoral to seek out and perhaps provoke a violent encounter.

If real world experience is seen as a mandate for teaching martial arts, then I suspect there would be far far fewer teachers out there. That might not necessarily be a bad thing, I personally believe most of the "teachers" out there should not be teaching. But I'm not sure real world experience in using it must be a qualification. I think it's possible to have a reasonable and realistic approach to training, as well as a realistic recognition of one's skill and experience. As long as that is honestly presented to the students, so the students know the honest experience and training level of the teacher, then it's possible to still train and teach quality martial arts without real world experience using it.

If real world experience were a mandate to teach, then I think a lot of the systems will simply go extinct, or become very rare, at least.