Non-Wing Chun

[Hanzou]

no your sayibg that, im saying you dont know coz your dead

You didn't answer the question.

 

[jobo]

You didn't answer the question.

but id never know if they survived or not, would i, coz im dead, so how could a dead man answer your question

nb if you partner thought anything of you they would stop and help, so clearly they arnt that bothered about you

 

[Steve]

well they would both loose then

if someone never fights, how would you kbow how good they were at fighting ?

Lol.

 

[Hanzou]

but id never know if they survived or not, would i, coz im dead, so how could a dead man answer your question

Okay, so let's make you an observer to the situation instead of the person it's happening to. Now answer the question.

 

[jobo]

Okay, so let's make you an observer to the situation instead of the person it's happening to. Now answer the question.

am i an observer in an inertial reference frame ?

 

[Hanzou]

am i an observer in an inertial reference frame ?

So you're going to intentionally avoid the question. Got it.

 

[jobo]

So you're going to intentionally avoid the question. Got it.

YOU KEEP CHANGING THE SCENARIO, NOW THERE IS AN OBSERVER, I NEED TO KNOW WHAT TYPE OF OBSERVER I AM

 

[Hanzou]

YOU KEEP CHANGING THE SCENARIO, NOW THERE IS AN OBSERVER, I NEED TO KNOW WHAT TYPE OF OBSERVER I AM

LoL! I didn't change the scenario at all. I just made you the observer instead of the participant.

Seriously, this is not difficult. You're just being obtuse.

 

[jobo]

LoL! I didn't change the scenario at all. I just made you the observer instead of the participant.

Seriously, this is not difficult. You're just being obtuse.

OF COURSE you've changed it, you've added an observer, , youl probably change it again

 

[Hanzou]

OF COURSE you've changed it, you've added an observer, , youl probably change it again

Wow... Like I said, "Got it".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

youve already said your was a " rational"
so not an observation then!

So observations are irrational?

 

[jobo]

So observations are irrational?

no their data, they are nether a rationale or irrational

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no their data, they are nether a rationale or irrational

But something rational can't be an observation?

 

[jobo]

But something rational can't be an observation?

its, data , data collection doesnt require processing , to be data, as its nit been run through yoyr logic funxtions it is nether ratonal or irational.

its your eye acting as a camera, a picture is not rational or irational its just a picture.

if YOU decided the picture shows big foot, then its you beibg irrational, not the picture

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's true. I see a clear, black and white difference between competition and sparring. They are not the same thing. One is training and the other is not training. Honestly, and I'm being completely serious, I do not understand how this is controversial or confusing in any way. To me, it's like saying fish are not frogs, even though they both like water.What are we actually talking about here? You're seem to think it's a given that sparring is equivalent to even a pick up game of soccer. I don't think that's true, though it's definitely not the same as playing in a league. I get that you think they're the same, but that's because you have a vested interest in validating sparring as fighting.

But once again, that really misses the entire point. Why are we picking nits over this, when the outcome so clearly makes my point? To borrow my words from another thread (where all of this is far more on topic). We have had debates/arguments/discussions ad nauseum about the subtle differences between competing and not competing make on the overall learning and performance of the people who train in a style. You're so close to the wall, you can't see the shape of the room.

How reliably can someone expect to apply their fighting skills within the context of their style and without? I believe if you took 400 people in a study where their practical skills are evaluated at regular intervals, the results would speak for themselves, and it wouldn't even be close. To be clear, I'm talking about evaluating relative performance within the specific trained context of the art, and also tested outside of the context of the art.

So, 400 people, all about the same age, all with average fitness levels and health, randomly assigned to one of the following four groups:

• Group 1: 100 trained in MMA (or BJJ, or Judo, etc).
• Group 2: 100 in that same style, but without competition.
• Group 3: 100 who trained in a performance based fitness program (crossfit, parkour, etc), and
• Group 4: 100 who don't train as a control group.

In each of the groups, to eliminate as many variables as possible, they all start from scratch with no previous martial arts experience, and they train only as a group (i.e., no other training partners) under a well qualified instructor.

After a year, I think Groups 1 and 3 would be most capable of defending themselves in a fight and would perform pretty similarly. Group 2 would, I believe, be no more capable of fighting than Group 4, and in a fight would probably be indistinguishable.

After 3 years, I think Group 1 pulls clearly ahead of Group 3. In a fight, groups 2 and 4 would still be indistinguishable (as far as fighting skill). It's possible that group 2 fights better than group 4, but I think performance will be very close between the two groups, both far below groups 1 and 3.

After 5 years, group 1 would begin to display visible expertise in the area. Group 3 would be very fit, but fighting ability would have plateaued. I would expect the only question at 5 years to be whether Group 2 fights better than Group 4. Maybe after 5 years, they would, more likely if the training is excellent (e.g., includes sparring). But I don't see group 2 even now outfighting the fitness group (group 3), and well below the competitive group. Their lack of actual fighting experience will not (I believe) be enough for them to overcome the athleticism of the fitness group.

And, as I said before, I think we all know that this is true.

I'm going to reply twice, because you're dismissing something as unimportant that I really want to understand. You seem to see my questions about it as an attack on your position - some nit picking. It's not. I want to understand your position, because it confuses me. But I'll come to that in the other post.

As to the 4 groups, if you assume (which would be an unsafe assumption, in my opinion) that group 3 gets MUCH better fitness than group 2 (who are, after all, spending all that same time in something that requires significant effort), then 3 would be better equipped to escape. I see no reason to expect group 2 would be less capable at fighting than group 3, and you'd have to show me something to support that. My other post will get to the heart of this, but I'm separating it out because you keep coming back to this.

If you honestly think a boxing coach (to take just one area of MMA) can't give someone signfiicant improvements in their fighting skills without them ever entering a competition, you appear to have real disstain fro coaches and instructors. They are largely ineffective in your stated position.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Oh, those are two separate things, and not mutually exclusive. Yes, the only way to get good at fighting (or anything) is to fight. Specially, the only way to get REALLY good at anything is to accumulate enough experience to become an expert.

And, yes, training and sparring do really help. Good training can make the transition to application a lot faster, and people who train a little, apply a lot, train a little more, etc. are generally going to progress faster than without training.

Your second paragraph is in direct contradiction, in my reading, to your assertion in your longer post.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's true. I see a clear, black and white difference between competition and sparring. They are not the same thing. One is training and the other is not training. Honestly, and I'm being completely serious, I do not understand how this is controversial or confusing in any way. To me, it's like saying fish are not frogs, even though they both like water.What are we actually talking about here? You're seem to think it's a given that sparring is equivalent to even a pick up game of soccer. I don't think that's true, though it's definitely not the same as playing in a league. I get that you think they're the same, but that's because you have a vested interest in validating sparring as fighting.

But once again, that really misses the entire point. Why are we picking nits over this, when the outcome so clearly makes my point? To borrow my words from another thread (where all of this is far more on topic). We have had debates/arguments/discussions ad nauseum about the subtle differences between competing and not competing make on the overall learning and performance of the people who train in a style. You're so close to the wall, you can't see the shape of the room.

How reliably can someone expect to apply their fighting skills within the context of their style and without? I believe if you took 400 people in a study where their practical skills are evaluated at regular intervals, the results would speak for themselves, and it wouldn't even be close. To be clear, I'm talking about evaluating relative performance within the specific trained context of the art, and also tested outside of the context of the art.

So, 400 people, all about the same age, all with average fitness levels and health, randomly assigned to one of the following four groups:

• Group 1: 100 trained in MMA (or BJJ, or Judo, etc).
• Group 2: 100 in that same style, but without competition.
• Group 3: 100 who trained in a performance based fitness program (crossfit, parkour, etc), and
• Group 4: 100 who don't train as a control group.

In each of the groups, to eliminate as many variables as possible, they all start from scratch with no previous martial arts experience, and they train only as a group (i.e., no other training partners) under a well qualified instructor.

After a year, I think Groups 1 and 3 would be most capable of defending themselves in a fight and would perform pretty similarly. Group 2 would, I believe, be no more capable of fighting than Group 4, and in a fight would probably be indistinguishable.

After 3 years, I think Group 1 pulls clearly ahead of Group 3. In a fight, groups 2 and 4 would still be indistinguishable (as far as fighting skill). It's possible that group 2 fights better than group 4, but I think performance will be very close between the two groups, both far below groups 1 and 3.

After 5 years, group 1 would begin to display visible expertise in the area. Group 3 would be very fit, but fighting ability would have plateaued. I would expect the only question at 5 years to be whether Group 2 fights better than Group 4. Maybe after 5 years, they would, more likely if the training is excellent (e.g., includes sparring). But I don't see group 2 even now outfighting the fitness group (group 3), and well below the competitive group. Their lack of actual fighting experience will not (I believe) be enough for them to overcome the athleticism of the fitness group.

And, as I said before, I think we all know that this is true.

Okay, for the second response to this. You've still missed answering my question of how sparring (in all iterations) is so very distant from competiiton (in all iterations).

So, let me ask you to answer two questions:

1. How does a pick-up soccer game differ from a league event among people of the same level?
2. How is sparring not analogous to a pick-up soccer game? (As in, where does the analogy fail?)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

its, data , data collection doesnt require processing , to be data, as its nit been run through yoyr logic funxtions it is nether ratonal or irational.

its your eye acting as a camera, a picture is not rational or irational its just a picture.

if YOU decided the picture shows big foot, then its you beibg irrational, not the picture

So, your conclusion - from your observation - that it's common that "it's far from a common occurrence" is the part that's irrational.

That makes more sense.

 

[Steve]

I'm going to reply twice, because you're dismissing something as unimportant that I really want to understand. You seem to see my questions about it as an attack on your position - some nit picking. It's not. I want to understand your position, because it confuses me. But I'll come to that in the other post.

I can't wait. But once again, just so you know, I don't feel like attacked in any way. It's also not so much that you're attacking the position than I think you're throwing out red herrings that are irrelevant to my post.

As to the 4 groups, if you assume (which would be an unsafe assumption, in my opinion) that group 3 gets MUCH better fitness than group 2 (who are, after all, spending all that same time in something that requires significant effort), then 3 would be better equipped to escape. I see no reason to expect group 2 would be less capable at fighting than group 3, and you'd have to show me something to support that. My other post will get to the heart of this, but I'm separating it out because you keep coming back to this.

If you look at martial artists and compare them to regular people who train specifically for fitness (e.g., crossfit, ninja warrior type training), there is a clear difference in fitness level. I'm not speaking theoretically (i.e., could a hypothetical person who trains in a "TMA" style be as fit as a different hypothetical person who trains in crossfit). I'm saying, walk into a crossfit gym and look at a representative sample of folks who have been training for a year, three years, or five years. Compare them to a similar representative sample of folks who have been training in an uncompetitive, training focused MA for one, three, or five years. I guess, simply put, I think you're mistaken, but if my dreams come true, we could actually conduct the study and find out definitively.

If you honestly think a boxing coach (to take just one area of MMA) can't give someone signfiicant improvements in their fighting skills without them ever entering a competition, you appear to have real disstain fro coaches and instructors. They are largely ineffective in your stated position.

I think it has little to do with the boxing coach. He can certainly teach them about all kinds of things that are important. I'm saying the boxing coach can do a lot of things, but he can't physically move the trainees arms or think for the trainee. He can't get into a boxing ring and box for the trainee. And absent real time application of the technique in its intended context, you're taking away an essential coaching tool, which is timely feedback on actual performance.

I think coaches/instructors can make a HUGE difference. But ultimately, people learn to do things all the time without a coach. You can replace a coach with application, but you can't replace application with a coach. So, all that to say, if a school of 20 beginners never actually boxes, they aren't going to progress nearly as quickly as the group who does. And after a year, I am pretty confident that any skill they have will not transfer to an actual fight. Look at videos of Kung Fu masters who get into actual fights. We have all seen those videos. Their WC or what have you looks excellent in training and in training drills... even sparring. But when two WC masters actually get into a fight, it looks like elementary school grappling on the ground without any technique. If you didn't know they were WC masters, you wouldn't be able to tell they trained in an MA at all.

So, just to restate the main point here. Don't get caught up in whether someone can LOOK like a boxer after a year without competition. The real question is, can they fight? In a fight, will they be able to leverage the boxing skills they have learned? Do they have sufficient skill level and are the contexts similar enough for a reliable and predictable transfer of learning to occur?

 

[jobo]

So, your conclusion - from your observation - that it's common that "it's far from a common occurrence" is the part that's irrational.

That makes more sense.

no its still an observation, a simple statement of fact, not observing somethibg is just as much data as observing it