Non-Wing Chun

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

Ah, this is the first time you've included "intended context" that I can recall. That actually clarifies a lot. I can see your point, but don't agree that intended context is necessary for application. If the skill being developed is fighting skill, it can be applied in many contexts, and all of those are application. The purest application would be whatever context the individual has in mind, but the broad skill can be applied elsewhere, which is beneficial to development.

I'm not arguing semantics, actually. We literally mean different things when we say "application". You keep bringing that word up. I specifcally try to avoid it because I know we don't agree on the definition, and stick to words we should be able to generally agree on.

Is "sparring" vague? Yes. So is "competition". Can either be beneficial to development? Yes, and sometimes in similar ways. Because they can be using identical rules and have much of the same context, depending how they are approached. I see competition as (potentially) the apex of sparring, rather than something different from it.

I'll go back and look for the post with the groups and see what I think of it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

So, it's impossible that someone would just not take any lesson from their competition? C'mon man. We've all met people who wouldn't even follow what was being taught in a MA class, and this isn't nearly as extreme as that.

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. Also rubbish.

There are plenty of bad drivers who refuse (or are unable?) to learn from what happens around them on the road.

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.

Those folks are trying to learn, so they will benefit. You seem to be rebutting an assertion I didn't make, and rather vigorously. Something in this triggered you, and I don't understand what. Some folks just aren't open to learning. That's not really a controversial statement.

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.

I never said it was a training model issue.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

so hoe are you showing its the competition that improves skills rather than the training for competition

Training for the competition doens't happen without the competition, so is part of the effect. The skill development doesn't happen during the competition event, but because of it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's kind of like herd immunity.

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.

What would you argue is the direct effect of the competition in this case, assuming the non-competitors are going hard with the competitors on a regular basis?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

That's actually arguing my point, in my response to Hanzou. You get the benefit of the team's competition. You are part of the group, even if you don't compete (which actually happens to some high school athletes who almost never make it on the game field).

 

[jobo]

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.

yes, but that feed back loop isnt at all necersary to improve, which is the gist of the discusion or necersary at all if your trainibg with against compition class players, you get all the feed back you need from the training

 

[jobo]

That's actually arguing my point, in my response to Hanzou. You get the benefit of the team's competition. You are part of the group, even if you don't compete (which actually happens to some high school athletes who almost never make it on the game field).

well im glad we agree, that the compitiction or nothing point is bogus

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Two quick thoughts. First, I don't think there is any meaningful distinction between groups 3 and 4. They're the same.

I'd argue there's a big difference. My approach to MA is very different from some others. I borrow good ideas and techniques from a lot of places, including folks who compete. Because of that, I'm tougher to deal with than others with similar experience within my primary art. That third school getting input on what works and getting new ideas means they aren't teaching the same thing 100 years later, when better implementation has been discovered. Now, how big is that difference? That'd be damnablly hard to try to quantify.

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

Whichever skills are involved in that hypothetical competition. And a SD-oriented school could fit in at literally any of those points, if they can find a competition model that fits well with the skills they're working to develop. Most tend to be at that last point, unfortunately. I'd like to see most of them at that second point.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

yes, but that feed back loop isnt at all necersary to improve, which is the gist of the discusion or necersary at all if your trainibg with against compition class players, you get all the feed back you need from the training

No, I never said there wouldn't be improvement without it - just that there tends to be more improvement with it. And again, if you're training with competitors, you're part of the group being improved by the competition.

 

[Hanzou]

It's kind of like herd immunity.

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.

Well let's say that your training partners are Danaher's Death Squad, and while you don't compete, you're rolling with absolute Jiujitsu monsters all the time. Wouldn't that training make you a cut above a typical Bjj practitioner who trains with ordinary people?

 

[jobo]

No, I never said there wouldn't be improvement without it - just that there tends to be more improvement with it. And again, if you're training with competitors, you're part of the group being improved by the competition.

so again how are you spkitibg the improvement from the training with the improvemebt from the compitiction? which i ask a few posts ago, to make that claim you mus have some rational ?

your second is also with iut foundation, first you would need to show that the others are being inproved by the compiticuon and thats far from a common occurrence, people tend to Plato and then need to go and train harder to make progess

 

[jobo]

Well let's say that your training partners are Danaher's Death Squad, and while you don't compete, you're rolling with absolute Jiujitsu monsters all the time. Wouldn't that training make you a cut above a typical Bjj practitioner who trains with ordinary people?

probebly not to ve honest, just like playibg tenis with mr fedrer wobt improve me any, the game will be to one sided and to short to make any difference

 

[Hanzou]

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.

I think the difference is that the skill set developed in MMA and Bjj competition can and has been directly applied to self defense.

 

[Hanzou]

probebly not to ve honest, just like playibg tenis with mr fedrer wobt improve me any, the game will be to one sided and to short to make any difference

One sided at first. However, over time, you're going to get better because you're personal skill level has to also rise with the constant competition.

It's like how the Bulls as a whole got better as a team because of Michael Jordan.

 

[jobo]

I think the difference is that the skill set developed in MMA and Bjj competition can and has been directly applied to self defense.

the skill set in karate has also been applied to self defence

 

[jobo]

One sided at first. However, over time, you're going to get better because you're personal skill level has to also rise with the constant competition.

It's like how the Bulls as a whole got better as a team because of Michael Jordan.

no thats just nit how it works, if i get tied in a knot in 2 seconds il still be gettibg tied in a knot in five years, you need someone only slightly better than you to be able to learn

 

[wckf92]

...you need someone only slightly better than you to be able to learn

Wow...can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Jobo on anything! hahaha... But he makes a good point with this statement.

 

[Hanzou]

no thats just nit how it works, if i get tied in a knot in 2 seconds il still be gettibg tied in a knot in five years, you need someone only slightly better than you to be able to learn

If you're still getting tied in knots 5 years later, you have a bad instructor, or you're simply not practicing. I got tied in knots in 2 seconds when I first started Bjj, but that stopped happening the more I learned.

the skill set in karate has also been applied to self defence

If you say so.

 

[jobo]

If you're still getting tied in knots 5 years later, you have a bad instructor, or you're simply not practicing. I got tied in knots in 2 seconds when I first started Bjj, but that stopped happening the more I learned.



If you say so.

if i get tird in a knot in two seconds i will only ever get 3 seconds of pratice, that probebly less than 30 mins over 5 years, no one will improve like that

when i had asperations of being an internation at 8 ball pool, i used to practice with ibternational players, i only got one shot every half hour, it wasnt at all good practice

 

[Hanzou]

if i get tird in a knot in two seconds i will only ever get 3 seconds of pratice, that probebly less than 30 mins over 5 years, no one will improve like that

Where did I say that the only thing you're going to be doing is sparring against a better grappler? I'm talking about standard practice, and then sparring against someone who is far better than you are. This happens in pretty much every Bjj gym, and the students always get better over time.

I would also argue that even if the only thing you were doing was constantly sparring against someone better than you, you're going to get better in that scenario as well.