Non-Wing Chun

[Steve]

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?)

I know, and to be clear, I'm not going to address it for two main reasons. First, I think it's self apparent. I mean, there is a fundamental difference, and I can't begin to diagnose why you choose not to recognize it. Don't get me wrong. I could give explaining it a shot, but I think it would end up being a tremendous amount of wasted time on my part. It's happened before. I explain it in a long post that takes up time I'd much rather be doing something else. You respond with two sentences that makes it clear you don't get it. I explain it again differently. You still don't get it. I start to try and simplify my explanation, and you say I'm being condescending. I explain it again, and that's about the time I'm told that what I'm saying is obvious and everyone already knows it (but then asks the same question again). I get frustrated. Don't get me wrong. There are things with enough meat on the bone that we can discuss them. But if we can't agree as a given... as a fundamental understanding... that sparring is not fighting, well, I'm not sure where things go. As I've said in the past, if you insist on holding that to be true, I hope you AND your students never have to test your practical skill level in an actual fight.

Second, I think the questions you ask above aren't all that relevant. They get into semantics. The salient question, I think, is whether or not sparring is fighting. I don't think it is. I think sparring with training partners is obviously not a fight. You seem to believe otherwise, and I think you have a vested interest in promoting a style of training where you can learn the art of fighting without needing to fight.

I have reservations about anything that says it can teach you to do something without any actual application on the part of the student. I understand how skills develop, and have personally trained literally tens of thousands of people to do things at an expert level over the years. So, when I hear that folks are learning to fight without fighting, I am skeptical (to be as generous as possible). So, when someone trains and only spars, he or she is becoming an expert training partner. And if that person ever gets into an actual fight with someone, they will need to transfer their training partner skills to a different context. Their likelihood of success will depend on two things: their skill level, and how similar those skills are to the new context. We see evidence all the time that the two contexts are dissimilar enough that transfer of skill is unreliable and break down in an actual fight. As I mentioned above, we even have examples from highly skilled practitioners.

 

[jobo]

I know, and to be clear, I'm not going to address it for two main reasons. First, I think it's self apparent. I mean, there is a fundamental difference, and I can't begin to diagnose why you choose not to recognize it. Don't get me wrong. I could give explaining it a shot, but I think it would end up being a tremendous amount of wasted time on my part. It's happened before. I explain it in a long post that takes up time I'd much rather be doing something else. You respond with two sentences that makes it clear you don't get it. I explain it again differently. You still don't get it. I start to try and simplify my explanation, and you say I'm being condescending. I explain it again, and that's about the time I'm told that what I'm saying is obvious and everyone already knows it (but then asks the same question again). I get frustrated. Don't get me wrong. There are things with enough meat on the bone that we can discuss them. But if we can't agree as a given... as a fundamental understanding... that sparring is not fighting, well, I'm not sure where things go. As I've said in the past, if you insist on holding that to be true, I hope you AND your students never have to test your practical skill level in an actual fight.

Second, I think the questions you ask above aren't all that relevant. They get into semantics. The salient question, I think, is whether or not sparring is fighting. I don't think it is. I think sparring with training partners is obviously not a fight. You seem to believe otherwise, and I think you have a vested interest in promoting a style of training where you can learn the art of fighting without needing to fight.

I have reservations about anything that says it can teach you to do something without any actual application on the part of the student. I understand how skills develop, and have personally trained literally tens of thousands of people to do things at an expert level over the years. So, when I hear that folks are learning to fight without fighting, I am skeptical (to be as generous as possible). So, when someone trains and only spars, he or she is becoming an expert training partner. And if that person ever gets into an actual fight with someone, they will need to transfer their training partner skills to a different context. Their likelihood of success will depend on two things: their skill level, and how similar those skills are to the new context. We see evidence all the time that the two contexts are dissimilar enough that transfer of skill is unreliable and break down in an actual fight. As I mentioned above, we even have examples from highly skilled practitioners.

for any of that to make,sence, you need both a defintion of sparing and one for fighting

at the moment your defintion of either changes from post to post to fit what ever point your tryibg to make

i think there doesnt have to be any differance at all and in my exsperiabce of sparing in my club with a few " partners "there is no differance
if you get hit its hurts greatly, its certainly a good faximily of a,ring fight, though not at all like a pub fight

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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. 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.
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.

Okay, but if we are allocating, say 6 hours a week to the metered activity, and the MMA class is vigorous, I wouldn't expect a huge difference in overall fitness. Would there be a measurable difference? Probably. How much of that would transfer? That depends what they're working on. If it's basic strength training and cardio, I'd have to see some evidence that makes someone inherently better at fighting than someone with good overall fitness (remember, 6 hours a week of MMA) AND who is trained in movement, punching speed/power/timing, etc. I think you'd need an immense difference in fitness level for that, and I don't think you can get that with equal hours.

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, your basic assertion is that training a year with a boxing coach without competing - doing literally everything else a competitive boxer does - you'd learn almost nothing about actually boxing? That's an absurd stance, Steve.

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?

So, if someone competes once, how much does that change their skill level? And how the heck did they get good enough to compete the first time, if they can't learn to fight without competing??

Here's the example I'll use. I've talked with @drop bear at some length about the first-fight program they run where he trains. The new person puts real effort in for I think 12 weeks. It's a really dedicated process, with tons of training and fitness. They then get in for their first fight. I'll bet if that person put in all that effort and then just didn't decide to do that first fight, they'd still be just as good 24 hours later as if they took the first fight. And their folks apparently make a pretty good showing off that program.

Competition matters, but lack of it doesn't magically negate the effect of training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

No, you've drawn a conclusion. And made a claim that somethign isn't common. I've observed exactly the opposite, and given you the reason why it likely happens the way I observed.

You're talking yourself in circles now. Try again - I'm having fun.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I know, and to be clear, I'm not going to address it for two main reasons. First, I think it's self apparent. I mean, there is a fundamental difference, and I can't begin to diagnose why you choose not to recognize it. Don't get me wrong. I could give explaining it a shot, but I think it would end up being a tremendous amount of wasted time on my part. It's happened before. I explain it in a long post that takes up time I'd much rather be doing something else. You respond with two sentences that makes it clear you don't get it. I explain it again differently. You still don't get it. I start to try and simplify my explanation, and you say I'm being condescending. I explain it again, and that's about the time I'm told that what I'm saying is obvious and everyone already knows it (but then asks the same question again). I get frustrated. Don't get me wrong. There are things with enough meat on the bone that we can discuss them. But if we can't agree as a given... as a fundamental understanding... that sparring is not fighting, well, I'm not sure where things go. As I've said in the past, if you insist on holding that to be true, I hope you AND your students never have to test your practical skill level in an actual fight.

Second, I think the questions you ask above aren't all that relevant. They get into semantics. The salient question, I think, is whether or not sparring is fighting. I don't think it is. I think sparring with training partners is obviously not a fight. You seem to believe otherwise, and I think you have a vested interest in promoting a style of training where you can learn the art of fighting without needing to fight.

I have reservations about anything that says it can teach you to do something without any actual application on the part of the student. I understand how skills develop, and have personally trained literally tens of thousands of people to do things at an expert level over the years. So, when I hear that folks are learning to fight without fighting, I am skeptical (to be as generous as possible). So, when someone trains and only spars, he or she is becoming an expert training partner. And if that person ever gets into an actual fight with someone, they will need to transfer their training partner skills to a different context. Their likelihood of success will depend on two things: their skill level, and how similar those skills are to the new context. We see evidence all the time that the two contexts are dissimilar enough that transfer of skill is unreliable and break down in an actual fight. As I mentioned above, we even have examples from highly skilled practitioners.

So, you're willing to argue your point, but not to help me understand. Not groovy. Not at all.

I think we've gone about as far as we can. You make absurd claims (training can't produce skill without competition) and refuse to engage when someone wants to understand.

 

[jobo]

No, you've drawn a conclusion. And made a claim that somethign isn't common. I've observed exactly the opposite, and given you the reason why it likely happens the way I observed.

You're talking yourself in circles now. Try again - I'm having fun.

no i haven't drawn a conclusion,

elephants are not common round here is a simple statement of fact based on not ever having seen an elephant, just as there are a lot of dogs round here is again a report of an observation
a conclusion would be why i think ive never seen an elephant

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no i haven't drawn a conclusion,

elephants are not common round here is a simple statement of fact based on not ever having seen an elephant, just as there are a lot of dogs round here is again a report of an observation
a conclusion would be why i think ive never seen an elephant

Actually, you've got it backwards. Your observation would be that you've not seen any elephants about. The conclusion is that they are, therefore, not common.

Try again.

 

[jobo]

Actually, you've got it backwards. Your observation would be that you've not seen any elephants about. The conclusion is that they are, therefore, not common.

Try again.

no, its a summation of the data

 

[Steve]

Look, at this point, I'm frankly tired of arguing the theory. The difference between training (including sparring) and application is all around us. We can see examples within MA training and in literally every other practical skill human beings learn from childhood to adulthood. We can agree to disagree, but it really seems like you're the one who feels attacked, and that's not my intention. I'm not arguing anything at this point. I'm just repeating the same points over and over in different ways in a vain effort to help you understand them. So, when you say I am willing to argue my point but not help you understand it, I take exception, because I've been trying to explain this concept to you for months. I've written hundreds of words trying to explain this to you in different ways to help you understand.

I believe you won't or can't understand it because it would mean that you would need to reevaluate your training model, which I believe you won't or can't do.

 

[Steve]

So, you're willing to argue your point, but not to help me understand. Not groovy. Not at all.

I think we've gone about as far as we can. You make absurd claims (training can't produce skill without competition) and refuse to engage when someone wants to understand.

For the record (should one exist), I'm saying you develop skills that you apply. And that if you don't apply skills outside of training, then the training becomes a circular loop. Training isn't really about producing skills. Training prepares people to develop skills through experience. As I've said repeatedly, you can't become competent in an activity you don't do, much less become expert in that activity. This is true whether you are fighting or knitting. And competition isn't the only kind of fighting that exists. It is simply the safest and most accessible to people who aren't professionally violent. This isn't absurd, though I understand why you have an interest in characterizing it as such.

And for what it's worth, you're getting snippy.

 

[jobo]

Look, at this point, I'm frankly tired of arguing the theory. The difference between training (including sparring) and application is all around us. We can see examples within MA training and in literally every other practical skill human beings learn from childhood to adulthood. We can agree to disagree, but it really seems like you're the one who feels attacked, and that's not my intention. I'm not arguing anything at this point. I'm just repeating the same points over and over in different ways in a vain effort to help you understand them. So, when you say I am willing to argue my point but not help you understand it, I take exception, because I've been trying to explain this concept to you for months. I've written hundreds of words trying to explain this to you in different ways to help you understand.

I believe you won't or can't understand it because it would mean that you would need to reevaluate your training model, which I believe you won't or can't do.

can you give some examples,

all training includes a go at simulated reality, if it doesnt then its not training by any reasonable measure, lots of training includes the actual application in varying amounts, usually increasing amounts

bus drivers start off driving a bus, in a yard, then the road then the road with passengers, each step includes the application

what thing are you thinking of were training makes no attempt to include application

 

[Hanzou]

what thing are you thinking of were training makes no attempt to include application

Forms/Kata.

 

[jobo]

Forms/Kata.

he said examples " were all around us" kata is not all around me, i doubt its all aroubd either you or him so im guessing he had something else in mind

 

[jobo]

Forms/Kata.

that said kata is/ can be closely tied to the devekopment of skills for an application, i dont think its the most efficient or time effective way of gettibg there. but its wrong to say its not tied to an application, unless there is no appkication beyond the form

 

[Steve]

can you give some examples,

all training includes a go at simulated reality, if it doesnt then its not training by any reasonable measure, lots of training includes the actual application in varying amounts, usually increasing amounts

bus drivers start off driving a bus, in a yard, then the road then the road with passengers, each step includes the application

what thing are you thinking of were training makes no attempt to include application

Sure, I'll give one example of what I mean.

Emin Boztepe sparring:

Emin Boztepe fighting:

 

[Hanzou]

he said examples " were all around us" kata is not all around me, i doubt its all aroubd either you or him so im guessing he had something else in mind

Kata/Forms are all around the martial arts.

Sure, I'll give one example of what I mean.

Emin Boztepe sparring:

Emin Boztepe fighting:

I gotta say, that is a fantastic example.

 

[jobo]

Sure, I'll give one example of what I mean.

Emin Boztepe sparring:

Emin Boztepe fighting:

i thiugh you were talkibg abiut examples " all around us" this is just the db tactic of building strawman of bizare you tube vids and sayibg look all tma are like this, i thought better of you

non of those people are even near me by several thiusand miles,, what examples have you got that are " all around us " ?

 

[jobo]

Kata/Forms are all around the martial arts.



I gotta say, that is a fantastic example.

he said us, so thats him,me and as youve jumped in you

and as ive said kata is not with out benifit to ma performance, just not much benifit

 

[Hanzou]

he said us, so thats him,me and as youve jumped in you

"Us" as in the MA community as a whole, not "us" as in just the three of us. We're in different parts of the globe.

 

[Steve]

i thiugh you were talkibg abiut examples " all around us" this is just the db tactic of building strawman of bizare you tube vids and sayibg look all tma are like this, i thought better of you

non of those people are even near me by several thiusand miles,, what examples have you got that are " all around us " ?

I think you misunderstood, then.

to be clear, this isn't about whether it was a successful fight or not. It's whether his skills transferred from one context (training/sparring) successfully to another (fighting). BJJ has real issues in a fight. Alone, it can be a problem. That's not my point. I'm not arguing one style over another. This isn't about one style vs another, and truly isn't about whether or not WC is an excellent style. I think WC looks really cool, and as a tween/teen in the 80s, I wanted to be a ninja in the worst way.

I'm strictly talking about transfer of learning. Does a person's skill in one context transfer successfully to another. A BJJ guy, good or bad, is skilled enough that you will see those skills clearly in a fight. A boxer or MMA fighter is skilled enough that you will see those skills clearly in a fight. They translate clearly. Emin Boztepe's WC was unrecognizable as WC in the real fight we have on tape.

So, yeah, transfer of learning is all around us. You provided several examples yourself. Look at it this way. A person who plays gran turismo on their PS4... can that person drive a bus? Probably not... at least not without a lot of practice. First try, I expect they would not be successful, particularly under pressure to perform.

What about someone who has been driving a car for a long time? Maybe... given some time. Right out of the gate? Possibly, if they are given lots of room, don't have to negotiate any tight corners, and aren't under any pressure. But again, I wouldn't expect their skills to transfer reliably. The context is just too different.

What about someone who is experienced driving a semi towing a 40ft trailer? I'd expect that person to have no trouble at all driving a bus, even if they've never done it before. Because their skill level is high and the contexts are similar.