Martial Sport VS Self Defense

[Steve]

This is the issue, Steve. It seems to be more about seeming.

I think you're starting to get a little punchy, Gerry, but that's how cognitive dissonance works. I'm presuming you're familiar with the term. There's a conflict, something that seems wrong.

Try this. You seem to be hung up on the application. Another way to say what I've been saying is that training is preparing the student to do something. Whatever you do with the training is where you are developing expertise. The police academy will train cops. The cops then go out and work as cops, applying the training. And periodically, as their skill level increases, they receive different kinds of advance training. If application weren't important, you should be able to take a recruit, run all of the training programs back to back to back, and then have expert cops on the other side. Why don't they do that? It would be a lot more cost effective to just get all of the training done up front and have a fully capable, expert cop right out of the gate. Why just give them some of the information and some of the training?

Similarly, an MMA school trains MMAists. The guys who compete are building a higher level of proficiency than the guys who don't. And the more competition and the higher level of competition, the greater the proficiency. So, just training MMA isn't necessarily going to create an expert. It's about the training and the individual. The training facilitates application, but the individual has to have the aptitude, interest and opportunity to compete.

You train people to be expert students. You train them, and then they train some more. So, yeah, they are applying what they're learning. The issue is they're applying it to become better trainees. In this context, an expert Aikidoka isn't someone who can apply skills in a fight or in a competition or in a self defense situation. Rather, the term refers to someone who is an expert Aikido student.

And, just to remind you, I agree that there is nothing wrong with that at all. It only becomes a concern when you start believing (or worse teaching students to believe) that the skills can be reliably applied in other contexts, such as in an MMA ring or in a self defense situation.

Cognitive dissonance


In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas,

 

[hoshin1600]

I think you're starting to get a little punchy, Gerry, but that's how cognitive dissonance works. I'm presuming you're familiar with the term. There's a conflict, something that seems wrong.

Try this. You seem to be hung up on the application. Another way to say what I've been saying is that training is preparing the student to do something. Whatever you do with the training is where you are developing expertise. The police academy will train cops. The cops then go out and work as cops, applying the training. And periodically, as their skill level increases, they receive different kinds of advance training. If application weren't important, you should be able to take a recruit, run all of the training programs back to back to back, and then have expert cops on the other side. Why don't they do that? It would be a lot more cost effective to just get all of the training done up front and have a fully capable, expert cop right out of the gate. Why just give them some of the information and some of the training?

Similarly, an MMA school trains MMAists. The guys who compete are building a higher level of proficiency than the guys who don't. And the more competition and the higher level of competition, the greater the proficiency. So, just training MMA isn't necessarily going to create an expert. It's about the training and the individual. The training facilitates application, but the individual has to have the aptitude, interest and opportunity to compete.

You train people to be expert students. You train them, and then they train some more. So, yeah, they are applying what they're learning. The issue is they're applying it to become better trainees. In this context, an expert Aikidoka isn't someone who can apply skills in a fight or in a competition or in a self defense situation. Rather, the term refers to someone who is an expert Aikido student.

And, just to remind you, I agree that there is nothing wrong with that at all. It only becomes a concern when you start believing (or worse teaching students to believe) that the skills can be reliably applied in other contexts, such as in an MMA ring or in a self defense situation.

Cognitive dissonance


In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas,

i understand what your saying.
i have thought the same concept for awhile now. some people train in kata for the purpose of doing a good kata. they focus on perfecting a kata. kata for the sake of kata. rather than kata for the purpose of improving fighting skills. the same idea applies to the entire martial art. perfecting the art for the sake of the art.
but i believe this is not an inevitable result. it can be corrected but you do have to be aware of the paradigm shift in focus and purpose.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think you're starting to get a little punchy, Gerry, but that's how cognitive dissonance works. I'm presuming you're familiar with the term. There's a conflict, something that seems wrong.

Try this. You seem to be hung up on the application. Another way to say what I've been saying is that training is preparing the student to do something. Whatever you do with the training is where you are developing expertise. The police academy will train cops. The cops then go out and work as cops, applying the training. And periodically, as their skill level increases, they receive different kinds of advance training. If application weren't important, you should be able to take a recruit, run all of the training programs back to back to back, and then have expert cops on the other side. Why don't they do that? It would be a lot more cost effective to just get all of the training done up front and have a fully capable, expert cop right out of the gate. Why just give them some of the information and some of the training?

Similarly, an MMA school trains MMAists. The guys who compete are building a higher level of proficiency than the guys who don't. And the more competition and the higher level of competition, the greater the proficiency. So, just training MMA isn't necessarily going to create an expert. It's about the training and the individual. The training facilitates application, but the individual has to have the aptitude, interest and opportunity to compete.

You train people to be expert students. You train them, and then they train some more. So, yeah, they are applying what they're learning. The issue is they're applying it to become better trainees. In this context, an expert Aikidoka isn't someone who can apply skills in a fight or in a competition or in a self defense situation. Rather, the term refers to someone who is an expert Aikido student.

And, just to remind you, I agree that there is nothing wrong with that at all. It only becomes a concern when you start believing (or worse teaching students to believe) that the skills can be reliably applied in other contexts, such as in an MMA ring or in a self defense situation.

Cognitive dissonance


In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas,

My pilot analogy still offers an alternative view of this, and is valid for things we can’t predictably go do. You appear stuck on the term “application”. You and BD have both made a more cogent point in the past about the advantage of competition. I think that’s a much more useful point of discussion than whether it’s actually possible to train for SD and what technically constitutes “application”.

I don’t see a place here for cognitive dissonance, since you appear to be hanging an argument on a concept, rather than a practical point.

 

[hoshin1600]

My pilot analogy still offers an alternative view of this, and is valid for things we can’t predictably go do. You appear stuck on the term “application”. You and BD have both made a more cogent point in the past about the advantage of competition. I think that’s a much more useful point of discussion than whether it’s actually possible to train for SD and what technically constitutes “application”.

I don’t see a place here for cognitive dissonance, since you appear to be hanging an argument on a concept, rather than a practical point.

i think i get what Steve means. there is a difference between training for a concrete goal and one of abstract purpose. many people train in martial arts with no real thought about having to actually use it. the idea of self defense is a far off in the future slim possibility .it doesnt seem real. where as a LEO has to go to work later that night and may actually have to use what he was just working on. its a subtle difference in mentality but it can make a big difference in how you train and the results of that training. ill have to think about this some more because i see it in my head but its not easy to describe in words or type.

 

[Steve]

My pilot analogy still offers an alternative view of this, and is valid for things we can’t predictably go do. You appear stuck on the term “application”. You and BD have both made a more cogent point in the past about the advantage of competition. I think that’s a much more useful point of discussion than whether it’s actually possible to train for SD and what technically constitutes “application”.

I don’t see a place here for cognitive dissonance, since you appear to be hanging an argument on a concept, rather than a practical point.

I've taken different runs at this over the years. I'm glad you like some, and it's not a surprise that some resonate more with you than others.

And once again, your pilot analogy starts with a pilot. You just sort of gloss over that. In order for your analogy to work, your pilot needs to be a pilot, and not a flight simulator X expert, even if you have the ultimate setup.

 

[Steve]

i think i get what Steve means. there is a difference between training for a concrete goal and one of abstract purpose. many people train in martial arts with no real thought about having to actually use it. the idea of self defense is a far off in the future slim possibility .it doesnt seem real. where as a LEO has to go to work later that night and may actually have to use what he was just working on. its a subtle difference in mentality but it can make a big difference in how you train and the results of that training. ill have to think about this some more because i see it in my head but its not easy to describe in words or type.

Yes. Exactly. And one more step... you need to ensure that the means for application is accessible. IN other words, an office worker can't train "to be a cop" effectively without actually being a cop. You can train "like a cop" but that's not the same thing.

So, the application you are training for needs to be something that you will actually do repeatedly and often.

 

[Anarax]

I think the topic is rather simple which was more so the context of the OP's post. What the video illustrates is essentially a difference in the parameters of someone's training vs parameters they haven't trained. Meaning, one who trains in Karate semi-contact point "fighting" will probably not do well in a live situation. However; a Karateka that participates in full-contact Kyokushin tournaments in Japan will probably do much better in a live situation. Competition/sport is a double edged sword when it comes to self-defense. Depending on the training parameters, some competitions are further removed from live situations than others, like Karate point fighting. Competition rules, parameters, training, focus and goals are too broad to say "that won't work in a self-defense scenario" nor "all type of competitions are good to develop as a marital artist." As I mentioned before, "Self-defense courses" are not a good source to learn martial skills to defend oneself. Self-defense concepts? Yes, but not the physical skills. A good Marital arts school is a great place to train for martial skills, there are no shortcuts when it comes to learning how to fight/defend yourself. Though there are those that say otherwise.

 

[hoshin1600]

As I mentioned before, "Self-defense courses" are not a good source to learn martial skills to defend oneself. Self-defense concepts? Yes, but not the physical skills.

i do wish you would clarify and define that statement a little more. there are long term / on going self defense courses and systems. i think you mean short term 8 hour type classes. but if that is what you mean then your statement should state that. otherwise readers lump all self defense classes into one negative opinion.

 

[Steve]

I think the topic is rather simple which was more so the context of the OP's post. What the video illustrates is essentially a difference in the parameters of someone's training vs parameters they haven't trained. Meaning, one who trains in Karate semi-contact point "fighting" will probably not do well in a live situation. However; a Karateka that participates in full-contact Kyokushin tournaments in Japan will probably do much better in a live situation. Competition/sport is a double edged sword when it comes to self-defense. Depending on the training parameters, some competitions are further removed from live situations than others, like Karate point fighting. Competition rules, parameters, training, focus and goals are too broad to say "that won't work in a self-defense scenario" nor "all type of competitions are good to develop as a marital artist." As I mentioned before, "Self-defense courses" are not a good source to learn martial skills to defend oneself. Self-defense concepts? Yes, but not the physical skills. A good Marital arts school is a great place to train for martial skills, there are no shortcuts when it comes to learning how to fight/defend yourself. Though there are those that say otherwise.

In general, I agree. I'll also point out that clear application helps facilitate the evaluation. In other words, if you apply what you're learning, you can evaluate how well it will work in another context and adapt (or change) if necessary.

Also, marital arts is always a super funny typo. I like that almost as much as calling someone a rouge.

 

[Steve]

i do wish you would clarify and define that statement a little more. there are long term / on going self defense courses and systems. i think you mean short term 8 hour type classes. but if that is what you mean then your statement should state that. otherwise readers lump all self defense classes into one negative opinion.

The only actual, scientific study I've ever seen on self defense did not focus on physical skills, wasn't very long, and was actually pretty effective. It focused on things like esteem, judgment, high risk behaviors and such.

 

[Anarax]

there are long term / on going self defense courses and systems.

Though I will say that long term SD courses are better than short term, I still place MA training above a "long-term" self defense course(s). A structured MA school will teach them not only to defend themselves, but how to fight trained combatants as well. I know there are SD certificates instructors can get, but there's nothing required to advertise yourself as an SD instructor. There's no level of authenticity nor history one can verify to see how legitimate an SD instructor is. Which differs from a Martial Artist who creates their own style because there's still a traceable background and authenticity one can verify with a new style founder.

I've encountered/trained with SD students throughout my training, consistent traits I found in all of them were they didn't know breakfalls, 2 dimensional footwork nor how to spar. In summary, I rather have three dimensional(MA) training and get lucky and only encounter 2 dimensional(untrained attackers) situations. Rather than the other way around.

 

[hoshin1600]

Also, marital arts is always a super funny typo. I like that almost as much as calling someone a rouge.

and cereal killer

 

[hoshin1600]

Though I will say that long term SD courses are better than short term, I still place MA training above a "long-term" self defense course(s). A structured MA school will teach them not only to defend themselves, but how to fight trained combatants as well. I know there are SD certificates instructors can get, but there's nothing required to advertise yourself as an SD instructor. There's no level of authenticity nor history one can verify to see how legitimate an SD instructor is. Which differs from a Martial Artist who creates their own style because there's still a traceable background and authenticity one can verify with a new style founder.

I've encountered/trained with SD students throughout my training, consistent traits I found in all of them were they didn't know breakfalls, 2 dimensional footwork nor how to spar. In summary, I rather have three dimensional(MA) training and get lucky and only encounter 2 dimensional(untrained attackers) situations. Rather than the other way around.

but again your lumping all SD together and i keep trying to break you of your bias and explain to you that not everyone (read that as i am referring to myself) is like that and i dont like being lumped into that bias. i could easily say all traditional martial arts is garbage and could give multiple reasons why but it wouldnt be any more accurate than your statement.

 

[hoshin1600]

I know there are SD certificates instructors can get, but there's nothing required to advertise yourself as an SD instructor. There's no level of authenticity nor history one can verify to see how legitimate an SD instructor is. Which differs from a Martial Artist who creates their own style because there's still a traceable background and authenticity one can verify with a new style founder.

i will agree with this but i will also point out that i know plenty of authentic high ranking karate teachers who suck.

 

[Steve]

i will agree with this but i will also point out that i know plenty of authentic high ranking karate teachers who suck.

What do they suck at?

 

[Anarax]

but again your lumping all SD together and i keep trying to break you of your bias and explain to you that not everyone (read that as i am referring to myself) is like that and i dont like being lumped into that bias. i could easily say all traditional martial arts is garbage and could give multiple reasons why but it wouldnt be any more accurate than your statement.

There's no bias, just reality. SD courses don't teach how to deal with trained combatants, this has nothing to do with quality, it's simply something they don't teach. Yes, you could use the argument that there are a lot of Traditional Martial Artists that "suck", but the training curriculum and the end results don't always coincide. Meaning, I could use the same logic of you statement and say "Lyoto Machida got knocked out, he trains Karate, thus Karate sucks". You've somehow misinterpreted any criticism for SD training to mean it's "crap" or it's "garbage"(both your choice of words). I said I place MA training above long-term SD training for developing martial art skills. From a technical standpoint there are things to gain from MA that you're not going to get from SD training. This isn't a personal attack on you nor your program, but it's simply stating the technical differences between MA and SD courses.

 

[Anarax]

i will agree with this but i will also point out that i know plenty of authentic high ranking karate teachers who suck.

The same goes with medical doctors. Are there bad doctors? Absolutely. However; I still want my doctor to have an actual medical degree.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i think i get what Steve means. there is a difference between training for a concrete goal and one of abstract purpose. many people train in martial arts with no real thought about having to actually use it. the idea of self defense is a far off in the future slim possibility .it doesnt seem real. where as a LEO has to go to work later that night and may actually have to use what he was just working on. its a subtle difference in mentality but it can make a big difference in how you train and the results of that training. ill have to think about this some more because i see it in my head but its not easy to describe in words or type.

If that has been his point, I missed it. I see nothing in that I’d argue with. Juany has made a similar point at times. A lot of people who train for SD go through phases where that’s not really the point of their training. For some, though it was their motivation for starting, it might never really be why they train. And even those who always have it as a motivation, it’s not usually an “I’m likely to need this tomorrow” kind of thing. Just not the urgency I’d have if I was working a door or wearing a badge.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I've taken different runs at this over the years. I'm glad you like some, and it's not a surprise that some resonate more with you than others.

And once again, your pilot analogy starts with a pilot. You just sort of gloss over that. In order for your analogy to work, your pilot needs to be a pilot, and not a flight simulator X expert, even if you have the ultimate setup.

Actually, the pilot starts as a trainee. But that’s neither here nor there. Your comment com a back to what is technically “application”. Doing a hip throw against a resisting opponent is application. Some opponents are more serious in their resistance, and some situations are more chaotic. Just like a pilot flying sometimes has calm air and clear skies, and sometimes it’s stormy. Both times, he is flying.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

SD courses don't teach how to deal with trained combatants

Not true of all SD courses.