Non-Wing Chun

Frankly I think the underlying cause was a certain school trying to push online belt programs, where the person could do drills, but couldn't really spar. Certain affiliated schools drinking the kool-aid of the main school attempted to bring that concept into their actual gyms, much to the detriment of the students there.
It's pretty sad that since the Covid-19, my class has no contact. When my opponent

- push me from 10 feet away, my body is leaning back.
- sweep me from 10 feet away, my leg is off the ground.
- ...

I'm afraid my opponent may think that he can really do that to me.
 
im not really undestandibg your point, so il run with what ive got

practisibg karate can increse your abilities at actually fighting like hittibg a tennis ball against a wall, competition is not guarenteed to do any thing at all
like goibg up against a good tennis player is not always going to make you better at tennis and goibg up agaibst a bad tennis player certainly wont
Competition tends to raise the skill level of the group of participants, though not necessarily the skill of a given individual.
 
Sparring can be a great training tool, though it's too broad a term to be meaningful. Some sparring is probably counter productive. Some sparring is very productive. Just depends on whether it helps you or hinders you reaching the goal.

However, application is always productive because application is the goal.
This is where I run into a problem with your narrow definition of "application". By your own sentence, someone for whom competition is not the goal, then competition doesn't qualify as application.
 
That statement doesn’t make sense to me. Are you talking about exceptions to the rule?
No. As you correctly point out, competition isn't training. An individual can compete and not learn from it, not make useful adjustments. In that case, they don't benefit from it, so it won't improve their skill.

It will tend to improve the group, though, in two ways. Firstly, with folks competing, they have more feedback to improve the system. BJJ is an excellent case in point for this. Secondly, folks who aren't good in competition won't tend to stick around (there are exceptions), so the group's overall skill level improves somewhat by attrition. I assume (though can't prove) this latter is a minor effect in most cases, though it seems likely the "harder" the competition, the more of this effect there will be.
 
This is where I run into a problem with your narrow definition of "application". By your own sentence, someone for whom competition is not the goal, then competition doesn't qualify as application.

Is it possible that in a martial art driven by competition, even individuals not pursuing the art for competition purposes would still benefit from the overall elevated skill level of the group?
 
Competition tends to raise the skill level of the group of participants, though not necessarily the skill of a given individual.
possibly things that involve " team work" but even then not much to be honest.

with in all the sports, games etal ive participated with in, competition against compiticion standard players , doesnt generaly give you enough repaticions to improve your skills.

you need to go away and practice and practice if you wish to make any notable improvement, then come back to compiticion to test your progress

there is very little real world differanc3 between practice for competition andd competition standard of practice

other than the progess feedback loop, and even that is largely negated if you practice with/ against compition standards of training partners

somebody needs to be,doing competition it doesnt need to be you
 
This is where I run into a problem with your narrow definition of "application". By your own sentence, someone for whom competition is not the goal, then competition doesn't qualify as application.
My definition of "application" is expansive. It is literally that someone apply skills in their intended context. And to be clear, the issue isn't whether "sparring" can be an application of training. It's that sparring isn't an application of fighting skills. As I've said repeatedly, when you take any external application away, the training itself supplants that. Simply put, you can become an expert in the training exercises you create.

I outlined four groups of new martial arts trainees, and shared my hypothesis about their skill progression. Do you disagree? Do you think that the folks in group 2 will hold their own against the folks in group 1 after 1 year? 3 years? 5 years? How would they fare against someone who just exercises after 1 year? 3 years? 5 years?

You're arguing semantics. I'm not. I'm just stating what I think are obvious practical results based on how people train. The proof is in the pudding.

And just to restate why this matters. Because people are being misled. Sometimes on purpose, by con artists. Sometimes by other people who have also been misled. It's benign provided you don't need to use the skills. But given the subject matter, if you can't fight, you should know it.
 
No. As you correctly point out, competition isn't training. An individual can compete and not learn from it, not make useful adjustments. In that case, they don't benefit from it, so it won't improve their skill.
What? That's rubbish. If you train in BJJ 3 to 4 times per week diligently and compete 2 or 3 times per year regularly, you may not be the next coming of Rickson Gracie, but you will certainly become skilled enough to earn a purple belt. Absent injury or illness, you just simply can't fail. Though there may be some exceptions to this rule.

It's like learning to drive. Driving is a difficult and complex task. But just about everyone learns it. They spend some time in focused training, where they are expected to also apply the skills under the watchful eye of a coach. And then off they go. Bad drivers who, hopefully, through application, will become good drivers.
It will tend to improve the group, though, in two ways. Firstly, with folks competing, they have more feedback to improve the system. BJJ is an excellent case in point for this. Secondly, folks who aren't good in competition won't tend to stick around (there are exceptions), so the group's overall skill level improves somewhat by attrition. I assume (though can't prove) this latter is a minor effect in most cases, though it seems likely the "harder" the competition, the more of this effect there will be.
Also rubbish. There are all kinds of people who HATE competing who do it because they know how important it is to their development. There are people who compete and lose every time. Not everyone is a phenom, and there are sharks in every school. You are articulating an argument against competition based on, I believe, your own hang ups and insecurity about losing. The thing about a performance based art like boxing, BJJ, MMA, or any of the numerous others, is that in order to improve you have to get over looking foolish or feeling embarrassed because you suck. Everyone sucks relative to someone else. The only way to get better is to lose less often.

The group gets better because the group supports the individuals.

The above rationalization is a perfect example of the kind of rationalization I mentioned to @skribs in another thread when he talked about training in BJJ. There are a lot of people who are worried about looking foolish who can't get over that ego, and so they create fiction like yours above to rationalize their decisions. So, to be clear, the reason people leave is because they are not resilient enough to do something that is actually hard to do, where they may not see immediate results. But that's not a training model issue. That's a resilience issue, and something we really need to address in our culture, where folks are told all the time that they can lose weight by taking a pill, or gain lean muscle by strapping on some electrodes.
 
how much time? and how much skill and how are you measuribg outcomes
As Steve (I think) said, competition supports skill development in what's required in the competition. So, looking at the skills used in the competition, are the competitors (as a group) better than those who don't compete? And how much does that change over time?

As for how much time, that'd depend on a lot of factors, including how much change folks involved are willing to embrace. BJJ has seen a lot of progress in a fairly short history, because the proponents largely embrace change, so readily adopt anything that improves performance (in this case, in the competition).
 
Sparring can be a great training tool, though it's too broad a term to be meaningful. Some sparring is probably counter productive. Some sparring is very productive. Just depends on whether it helps you or hinders you reaching the goal.

However, application is always productive because application is the goal.
I agree with everything except the implicit hard border between sparring and application. I simply don't think it's a binary thing. If the skill being developed is the ability to put someone on the ground who is trying to resist that, then doing that is application, mostly regardless of the context.
 
It's pretty sad that since the Covid-19, my class has no contact. When my opponent

- push me from 10 feet away, my body is leaning back.
- sweep me from 10 feet away, my leg is off the ground.
- ...

I'm afraid my opponent may think that he can really do that to me.
I can't really see the point of miming at a distance. I've converted entirely to movement drills and such, where there's some benefit without contact, and little chance of folks developing false expectations of what they're working on.
 
As Steve (I think) said, competition supports skill development in what's required in the competition. So, looking at the skills used in the competition, are the competitors (as a group) better than those who don't compete? And how much does that change over time?

As for how much time, that'd depend on a lot of factors, including how much change folks involved are willing to embrace. BJJ has seen a lot of progress in a fairly short history, because the proponents largely embrace change, so readily adopt anything that improves performance (in this case, in the competition).
so hoe are you showing its the competition that improves skills rather than the training for competition
 
Is it possible that in a martial art driven by competition, even individuals not pursuing the art for competition purposes would still benefit from the overall elevated skill level of the group?
It's kind of like herd immunity. :D

Seriously, though, folks who don't compete don't progress as quickly as those who do. Right? In the same school where two people start at the same time, one competes regularly and one doesn't, who do you think is going to develop reliable skills faster?

So, the person who doesn't compete, but trains with competitors will benefit from that competitive environment. But their own individual progression will be a function of what they're doing, not what the competitors are doing.
 
Is it possible that in a martial art driven by competition, even individuals not pursuing the art for competition purposes would still benefit from the overall elevated skill level of the group?
Absolutely, assuming they're not insulated. So, let's take BJJ as an easy example. Let's look at four schools.

  1. This school, everyone competes. The benefit is as we've discussed elsewhere in this thread (and others).
  2. This school, some folks compete. The rest of the folks there are rolling with those folks, so get a secondary benefit. The school, as a whole, is working on new discoveries from those competitions, and they get good feedback from the competitors.
  3. This school, nobody competes, but they follow trends coming from schools that compete. They probably still get some marginal benefit, but certainly less than the first two.
  4. This school, nobody competes, and they only develop internally (meaning very limited input from competitors). They won't develop even as much as #3.
Even a couple of competitors being involved makes a difference. I'd argue even some former competitors are a benefit, since they bring some savvy from what they learned and experienced - kind of like when a person with some BJJ joins a school that has limited ground grappling. Even if that person isn't great at BJJ, they bring a bit of that experience with them and improve their partners by simply being harder to work against.
 
possibly things that involve " team work" but even then not much to be honest.

with in all the sports, games etal ive participated with in, competition against compiticion standard players , doesnt generaly give you enough repaticions to improve your skills.

you need to go away and practice and practice if you wish to make any notable improvement, then come back to compiticion to test your progress

there is very little real world differanc3 between practice for competition andd competition standard of practice

other than the progess feedback loop, and even that is largely negated if you practice with/ against compition standards of training partners

somebody needs to be,doing competition it doesnt need to be you
This is a discussion I've had before (with Steve, probably). You're correct that the competition doesn't directly improve skill. It's the feedback and input from competition that does the deed. Folks find out what works in a broader context, and probably see things done differently than they saw at their school.
 
They're intrinsically linked.
no they are not, i can go and train with my local rugby team with no intent to compete, repeat for a thousand sports including bjj

in fact im doibg just that with the chess club, ive refuse to play competive matches.

my abilities from playibg competition class players is definetly improving
 
Reading through this thread, reminds me of the arguments and the excuses, that point fighters used to justify point competition in the 80's.

30yrs later and it seems to have not changed at all.

Although competition can improve a person's ability, it is still based on rule set and the safety of the competitor. But, it still remains the same...if competition is what and all you have ever done, it's best just to keep your skill set and career, in competition.

I find it hard to respect the opinion of artist, that have 100% of their knowledge in competition. Their skill is simply limited.

One of the biggest cons in the martial arts, are those who have never used it outside of the ring, saying that it will work in reality. IMO that is.
 
Absolutely, assuming they're not insulated. So, let's take BJJ as an easy example. Let's look at four schools.

  1. This school, everyone competes. The benefit is as we've discussed elsewhere in this thread (and others).
  2. This school, some folks compete. The rest of the folks there are rolling with those folks, so get a secondary benefit. The school, as a whole, is working on new discoveries from those competitions, and they get good feedback from the competitors.
  3. This school, nobody competes, but they follow trends coming from schools that compete. They probably still get some marginal benefit, but certainly less than the first two.
  4. This school, nobody competes, and they only develop internally (meaning very limited input from competitors). They won't develop even as much as #3.
Even a couple of competitors being involved makes a difference. I'd argue even some former competitors are a benefit, since they bring some savvy from what they learned and experienced - kind of like when a person with some BJJ joins a school that has limited ground grappling. Even if that person isn't great at BJJ, they bring a bit of that experience with them and improve their partners by simply being harder to work against.
Two quick thoughts. First, I don't think there is any meaningful distinction between groups 3 and 4. They're the same.

Second, can you remind me what you think we're developing? And can you explain how a self defense school fits into this model?
 
Back
Top