Non-Wing Chun

[jobo]

Where did I say that the only thing you're going to be doing is going up 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.

where did you sayibg anythibg about, other training, i can only go of what you write, unless i take up mind reading

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

You'd need to show me that it's not a common occurrence that groups aren't improved by competition. You keep going back to discussing individuals, not the population. Each individual will plateau eventually, but each successive generation of people in that population starts a bit more advanced by the knowledge of the folks previous to them. Competition is the consistent feedback loop that helps measure what works and what doesn't (in the context of the competition).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

You'd need to show me that it's not a common occurrence that groups aren't improved by competition. You keep going back to discussing individuals, not the population. Each individual will plateau eventually, but each successive generation of people in that population starts a bit more advanced by the knowledge of the folks previous to them. Competition is the consistent feedback loop that helps measure what works and what doesn't (in the context of the competition).

 

[jobo]

You'd need to show me that it's not a common occurrence that groups aren't improved by competition. You keep going back to discussing individuals, not the population. Each individual will plateau eventually, but each successive generation of people in that population starts a bit more advanced by the knowledge of the folks previous to them. Competition is the consistent feedback loop that helps measure what works and what doesn't (in the context of the competition).

not i dont, the burden of poof lies with the one who affirms and thats you

 

[Gerry Seymour]

where did you sayibg anythibg about, other training, i can only go of what you write, unless i take up mind reading

By understanding how communication works, maybe? Context matters.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

not i dont, the burden of poof lies with the one who affirms and thats you

So, when I make a claim, I must support with direct scientific evidence (which you'll invariably find doesn't suit your needs). But when you make a direct claim, "nuh-uh".

Got it.

 

[Steve]

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.

Okay. Go back and look, and I think you'll find I say "context" and "intended context' pretty much every time. I think I've used those actual words, but if you're going to ding me for not saying "intended context" (as in that exact phrase), then yes you're having a semantics discussion and not a practical one.

Competition is a very broad term for a specific context where people apply skills. Welding is a broad term. Blacksmithing is a broad term. Piloting is a broad term. Within each, a person can develop specialized skills that develop some skills to a high degree while allowing others to atrophy. Or, conversely, a person can apply skills across a broad spectrum creating a more well rounded skill set (possibly, at the expense of highly specialized expertise). That in no way means that they are not examples of application.

All of that aside, I've been thinking about this, and I think the root of where you and I disagree is what we consider to be a fight. Fights can have rules or not. A cop has rules when he/she fights, but that's still a fight. A bouncer has rules when he/she fights, but that's still a fight. A boxing match, or a muay thai match, or a BJJ match... they have rules, but they are still fights. Sparring is not a fight. At least, I would not consider it a fight. So, if you're fighting, you're applying fighting skills. If you're not fighting, you aren't.

So, you seem to get hung up on the semantics of "application." but I encourage you to remember what we're talking about, which is learning how to fight. If the goal is to be an expert in some fighting context, you have to actually get into some fights.

 

[jobo]

So, when I make a claim, I must support with direct scientific evidence (which you'll invariably find doesn't suit your needs). But when you make a direct claim, "nuh-uh".

Got it.

well you could try not presenting uniformed unsupportable oppinions as facts

second i havent asked for scientific proof only your rational for havibg formed that opinion

and third you said i had to provived evidence to dis prove your uniformed unsuportable opinion, and thats silly, its on you

 

[Hanzou]

where did you sayibg anythibg about, other training, i can only go of what you write, unless i take up mind reading

Again this is what happens when you randomly jump into conversations without looking at the discussion that led up to the post your were responding to. The context was Student A being someone who doesn't compete, but is in a school of elite Bjj monsters who compete, and Student B being in a typical Bjj with typical training partners. The argument was that student A would develop a higher level of skill because he's training with a group that has a higher skill level, despite his personal lack of competing.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

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.

When you teach your new students a new drill, you have to tell him what he is doing.

For example,

- Use right hand to grab on opponent's left wrist.
- Use left hand to control his right elbow joint.
- Move right hand to pull his neck.
- Use right leg to hook his leading leg.

Since you don't want to have any physical contact, you stay 10 feet away and respond to his attack.

 

[Graywalker]

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

As can and has been demonstrated, by all other martial arts, in some way or another. If the individual has proven it for themselves, then can they speak with experience. If not, for me personally, I will not learn from them, nor will I respect their opinion concerning non-sport combat.

I believe that all sport combat, is simply sparring, not fighting, so I am bias when it comes to subject.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

not i dont, the burden of poof lies with the one who affirms and thats you

You also made a claim, which you've not even provided any logic for. But you'll just argue it's not a claim, and so on, rather than discussing the points I made with any attempt at discussion. So, I suspect we're done with the topic unless you intend to actually add or debate the actual topic.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay. Go back and look, and I think you'll find I say "context" and "intended context' pretty much every time. I think I've used those actual words, but if you're going to ding me for not saying "intended context" (as in that exact phrase), then yes you're having a semantics discussion and not a practical one.

You're taking that as an attack, and it wasn't meant as such. I better understand your position with that in mind. If you've said it that way before, I'll just assume I hadn't had enough coffee when I read it.

Competition is a very broad term for a specific context where people apply skills. Welding is a broad term. Blacksmithing is a broad term. Piloting is a broad term. Within each, a person can develop specialized skills that develop some skills to a high degree while allowing others to atrophy. Or, conversely, a person can apply skills across a broad spectrum creating a more well rounded skill set (possibly, at the expense of highly specialized expertise). That in no way means that they are not examples of application.

I would say those are all, in fact, examples of application. My use of the term is just broader than yours.

All of that aside, I've been thinking about this, and I think the root of where you and I disagree is what we consider to be a fight. Fights can have rules or not. A cop has rules when he/she fights, but that's still a fight. A bouncer has rules when he/she fights, but that's still a fight. A boxing match, or a muay thai match, or a BJJ match... they have rules, but they are still fights. Sparring is not a fight. At least, I would not consider it a fight. So, if you're fighting, you're applying fighting skills. If you're not fighting, you aren't.

I agree with most of that. But where's the key difference that makes sparring a fight during competition but not outside that competition? Let's be clear: the basic activity is the same, but the context changes. Heck, I've even ended up in briefly uncontrolled fights during sparring, when someone got frustrated and forgot there were rules.

So, you seem to get hung up on the semantics of "application." but I encourage you to remember what we're talking about, which is learning how to fight. If the goal is to be an expert in some fighting context, you have to actually get into some fights.

You're now arguing the semantics of "fight". In fact, the real basis of this recurring discussion is your argument over the semantics of the term "application". You claim I'm arguing semantics, but look at exactly what you're doing. You're arguing the definition and usage of a term - arguing, in fact, that your usage is correct and mine is not. That's semantics, Steve.[/quote]

 

[Steve]

You also made a claim, which you've not even provided any logic for. But you'll just argue it's not a claim, and so on, rather than discussing the points I made with any attempt at discussion. So, I suspect we're done with the topic unless you intend to actually add or debate the actual topic.

What you don't realize is that this is effortless for @jobo... he could do this all day. If there is such a concept as aiki for online discussion, he is the master.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well you could try not presenting uniformed unsupportable oppinions as facts

second i havent asked for scientific proof only your rational for havibg formed that opinion

and third you said i had to provived evidence to dis prove your uniformed unsuportable opinion, and thats silly, its on you

I've presented the basic rationale. You've just rebutted with something like "that's not what commonly happens". Which, of course, is a claim.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When you teach your new students a new drill, you have to tell him what he is doing.

For example,

- Use right hand to grab on opponent's left wrist.
- Use left hand to control his right elbow joint.
- Move right hand to pull his neck.
- Use right leg to hook his leading leg.

Since you don't want to have any physical contact, you stay 10 feet away and respond to his attack.

If I brought in a new student right now, they'd get weapon work (and maybe strikes) only. Not something I'd normally do, but this isn't normal times. They'd be working on movement, power when a heavy bag is handy, and not much else. Because anything else, for them to understand it, they'd need to tussle with a partner, whether for grappling or striking, and for now my classes are entirely no-touch. I don't think grappling (including sweeps) can be effectively learned without touch. I'd argue that it's likely to create bad habits that are harder to unlearn than the correct method would be to learn from scratch.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What you don't realize is that this is effortless for @jobo... he could do this all day. If there is such a concept as aiki for online discussion, he is the master.

It's a way to pass the time.

 

[Steve]

You're taking that as an attack, and it wasn't meant as such. I better understand your position with that in mind. If you've said it that way before, I'll just assume I hadn't had enough coffee when I read it.

Not at all. No sense of attack or anything. Just calling the balls and strikes like I see them.

I would say those are all, in fact, examples of application. My use of the term is just broader than yours.

I'm actually okay with adjusting my vernacular to your own. A few months ago, I aligned my use of the term to your own. So, if you want to call sparring an "application" of your style, fine. Hopefully, this makes it easier for you to understand. The problem isn't whether you're getting better at sparring. It's whether sparring is fighting, or similar enough to a fight so that you can use the skills if you get into a fight.

I agree with most of that. But where's the key difference that makes sparring a fight during competition but not outside that competition? Let's be clear: the basic activity is the same, but the context changes. Heck, I've even ended up in briefly uncontrolled fights during sparring, when someone got frustrated and forgot there were rules.

You're making my left eye twitch.

You're now arguing the semantics of "fight". In fact, the real basis of this recurring discussion is your argument over the semantics of the term "application". You claim I'm arguing semantics, but look at exactly what you're doing. You're arguing the definition and usage of a term - arguing, in fact, that your usage is correct and mine is not. That's semantics, Steve.

Not semantics. I'm actually really tired of the vocabulary tests we all have to take around here. It's exhausting. This is why I proposed the four groups of people. It's a simple proposition. Do you disagree why my hypothesis? Honestly? Do you genuinely believe that a group of people who never fights (even if they "spar" in class) will learn reliable, observable skills in a year? I don't. I think you pair them up in a fight with someone who doesn't train at all, and there would be no real difference in performance. After three years? Maybe... maybe not. After five years? Yeah, probably some, if the training is high quality.

But even after five years, I would not expect them to perform well against someone with even 1 year of performance based training where they are actually expected to fight.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not at all. No sense of attack or anything. Just calling the balls and strikes like I see them. I'm actually okay with adjusting my vernacular to your own. A few months ago, I aligned my use of the term to your own. So, if you want to call sparring an "application" of your style, fine. Hopefully, this makes it easier for you to understand. The problem isn't whether you're getting better at sparring. It's whether sparring is fighting, or similar enough to a fight so that you can use the skills if you get into a fight. You're making my left eye twitch. Not semantics. I'm actually really tired of the vocabulary tests we all have to take around here. It's exhausting. This is why I proposed the four groups of people. It's a simple proposition. Do you disagree why my hypothesis? Honestly? Do you genuinely believe that a group of people who never fights (even if they "spar" in class) will learn reliable, observable skills in a year? I don't. I think you pair them up in a fight with someone who doesn't train at all, and there would be no real difference in performance. After three years? Maybe... maybe not. After five years? Yeah, probably some, if the training is high quality.

But even after five years, I would not expect them to perform well against someone with even 1 year of performance based training where they are actually expected to fight.

You made a sidelong comment on what I think is the key part of my post. I've never quite understood why you draw a black-and-white difference between competition and sparring. I've never competed in MA, but I've competed in plenty of other things. A pick-up game of soccer has all the bits of a formal soccer game. In pick-up games, I've actually played against folks who were at a skill level I'd never have run into in competition (I wasn't good enough to get to that level). To me, they're the same in most ways. Take it to a game against a close rival team and things change. Same for a playoff game. But most formal matches weren't distinctly different from the scrimmages and pick-up games.

How does that change with MA?

 

[jobo]

I've presented the basic rationale. You've just rebutted with something like "that's not what commonly happens". Which, of course, is a claim.

thats not a claim it is an observation