Agreed. My point was only that there are a lot more MA places (including MMA) than MAA places. Most other MA places don't seem to offer open-mat, so that limits the number of places. I think MMA is more inviting to outsiders (in general, there are exceptions) than most other groups, but those of us outside that group tend to either not know or to forget that.
There is still a difference. An important one. The competitor spars to prepare for competition. You spar to... what again?
See, here's where you lose me, Steve. How is competition (a controlled fight with rules and safety) not a simulation of fighting? Perhaps it's all about perspective. Since my primary focus has always been SD, I see competition as a simulation, and don't see how it can NOT be one but other, nearly identical, situations still are.
Okay, I think we're actually on the same page now. Our disconnect is that we're each arguing from our point of view. From my point of view, competition is training, so not a distinct difference from some of the other sparring/rolling/randori options. You're looking at competition as the end point, which makes it not training. In that context, I mostly agree with you, though I still don't see a stark distinction of any real substance between two people from different schools sparring with rules, versus two people from different schools sparring with the same rules in a formal competition.
I truly believe someday you’ll just get it. It often occurs when a person realizes that they can’t do what they always thought. Like the unfortunate kids on American idol who were always told they sang like angels.
The difference is that one has some consequence for losing and represents a culmination of training. The other isn’t.
Agreed. I'm not saying they're not useful, but I think there are those that are taught "just do this and it'll end the fight".
It's not about being on trial. However; when you repeatedly state how you're a different kind of SD instructor and how your course is better, some will naturally inquire on how you are. When you dictate how someone should word their posts you also open yourself up to criticism, as with any other forum.
The lack of standards in MA is a deviation from what it came from though. I agree that a lot of MA schools are watered down and have problems. However; I know the watered down nature of some MA styles taught in some schools isn't how the Samurai, Okinawans warriors, Lapu Lapu, etc trained in them. What you're referring to is more so the training culture of schools and not the actual structure nor design of the MA styles themselves. That's the biggest difference between SD and MA criticism. There's no traceable history with SD, not only lineage, but history. I have faith that the Filipino's needed their Kali to be top notch given their lives depended on it, and they still do considering more than 80% of murders in the Philippines are done with blades. Same goes for other historical groups that had to develop effective fighting styles for survival. That doesn't guarantee every MA school is going to be great, but the doesn't mean the source material is the problem, it's usually the school culture.
It's not for amusement, when you involve yourself into a thread people are bound to ask questions about your credentials. It's not always out of disrespect.
You are assuming, though, that I can't. My skills have held up reasonably well working with people from different disciplines - as well as you might expect for a hobbyist (as Tony puts it). I try to be pretty honest with myself about my limitations, and from time to time I seek out someone who can show up some of my weaknesses. I do those things because I knew some folks who did them and were surprised by some of their weaknesses - I took that as a cautionary tale for myself.
I can certainly see that. I do think (as DB pointed out) that most people are more affected by loss in front of a group than in private (though that doesn't compute for me - I'd be more interested in not losing in front of a few people who know me than 1,000 strangers). That probably means the opponent is likely to be fighting harder. I agree there's a potentially large difference, but not a clear delineation. If I didn't make that clear, that's on me. I see them as potentially (not necessarily) variations of the same thing.
I have definitely heard people say that. I give some of those people a pass, since I heard them say it before YouTube. There's really no excuse for saying it now - there's too much evidence that they sometimes have little positive effect. They sometimes work spectacularly, but training should center around the contingency.
What is the consequence for losing in a competition that doesn't exist in an unofficial sparring session? As for representing "a culmination of training", that's only if you trained specifically for the competition and with the competition as the point. If the competition is just seen as a training tool, then it's no more a culmination than the sparring session. Whether a point is a culmination depends how one sees it. I just don't see it that way. Maybe a really big competition, after a long series of competitions and preparing for each, but that really just goes back to my point that it depends whether that competition is the point of your training.
Okay, so what I teach is a SD course, by that calculation, unless you include some of the self-development that occurs (which will occur to some extent in any focused endeavor). My teaching is centered around SD. I use NGA as a primary tool toward that, and the style itself is focused on SD. I've blended in other techniques and approaches from other sources to improve the SD focus. I evaluate every technique (and teach my students to do so) for its strengths and weaknesses as a SD tool, or as a tool for learning principles useful in SD.
no traceable history??? so what people just pulled stuff out of their butts??
so let me rephrase your words to see if i understand your view point.
