Non-Wing Chun

[Steve]

Couldn't the same be said for competition?

couldn't what be said?

 

[Steve]

Again, you're trying to make this about me and my training model (which you don't actually know). I'm just trying to understand a specific point.

Beyond that, you've put several weak arguments into my mouth that I never made. That's borderline strawmanning. You've lost your objectivity on this, in what appears to be an attempt at something directed at me (because that's who you keep bringing it back to), though I'm not sure what. What you think of my training model no longer interests me. It did when you were giving good, objective input I could learn from. You've stopped doing that.

I'm suggesting that your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge a simple point is understandable. I'm not commenting on your training model anymore. I'm simply saying you aren't qualified to teach self defense because you have no experience. You are probably a great aikido instructor and I think it's more honest and accurate to just stick to that.

The rest is a tongue in cheek, but accurate account of the progression of this discussion. If you don't think you've said those things I invite you to take a trip down memory lane. It's all here in various threads over the last few years.

Regarding objectivity, is that a thing we are striving for? What a funny thing to say. I think my points stand on their own, they're supported by experience, by external sources, and they're consistent with literally every other human activity. But I didn't know objectivity was a goal. For what it's worth, I don't think anyone in this forum is objective, nor have I ever expected otherwise.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

couldn't what be said?

What I quoted. Couldn't it be equally true if you replaced the word "sparring" with "competition"?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm suggesting that your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge a simple point is understandable. I'm not commenting on your training model anymore. I'm simply saying you aren't qualified to teach self defense because you have no experience. You are probably a great aikido instructor and I think it's more honest and accurate to just stick to that.

The rest is a tongue in cheek, but accurate account of the progression of this discussion. If you don't think you've said those things I invite you to take a trip down memory lane. It's all here in various threads over the last few years.

Regarding objectivity, is that a thing we are striving for? What a funny thing to say. I think my points stand on their own, they're supported by experience, by external sources, and they're consistent with literally every other human activity. But I didn't know objectivity was a goal. For what it's worth, I don't think anyone in this forum is objective, nor have I ever expected otherwise.

It's a point I've tried to get clarification on, but you haven't been willing to try to clarify.

As for what I've said, you've confused yourself on a few of those points. Not surprising, since you seem to read me less for comprehension these days.

As for the crap about SD, where did that even come into this thread? I've made no mention of it. We were talking about competition. You are STILL trying to make this about my training model, rather than your own statements. Your whole approach to this topic confounds any attempt I make to gain understanding.

 

[Steve]

What I quoted. Couldn't it be equally true if you replaced the word "sparring" with "competition"?

LOL. Okay. You can have a brown squirrel and a brown dog. Just because they're both brown doesn't mean they're the same thing.

 

[Steve]

It's a point I've tried to get clarification on, but you haven't been willing to try to clarify.

I disagree. I think over the years I've given it my best shot.

As for what I've said, you've confused yourself on a few of those points. Not surprising, since you seem to read me less for comprehension these days.

If you think that's true, then you're either reading more into my points than is there, or you're misunderstanding my points. There is nothing sneaky going on here. No hidden agenda. It's not style-centric. Heck, it's not even martial arts specific. How does a person learn to do anything? How much experience do you have with real world violence of any kind? I'm guessing not a lot, if any. How much experience do you have with Aikido? I'm guessing quite a lot.

As for the crap about SD, where did that even come into this thread? I've made no mention of it. We were talking about competition. You are STILL trying to make this about my training model, rather than your own statements. Your whole approach to this topic confounds any attempt I make to gain understanding.

It's intrinsic to the point. Honestly, this is exhibit A. If you don't see how self defense orientation relates to the point, I can't help you. I honestly can't. This type of statement from you is exactly what I mean when I say that every thread starts from scratch. It's not 10 or 20 different points in 10 or 20 different threads. It's a single, consistent, coherent point that applies not just to self defense, but to literally (in the non-figurative sense of the word) every activity people learn from cradle to grave.

In every thread I tie my posts back to the larger point. I did so in this thread. And I provided a clear example, with video. And I provided analogies. And I explained it in a few different ways. I tried a little humor. I tried calling back to other threads. I simplify the language and you say I'm condescending. I stop doing that and you accuse me of being confused (which is ironic).

You say you want to understand. I'll take you at your word. But this is exactly what leads me to say that I don't think you are going to get it... and I wonder if you can. After the thousands of words we've exchanged on the subject, what I'm telling you is I'm out of ideas. I think the only thing that would make it clear to you is if you got into a real fight where there are real, physical consequences of failure, and I truly don't want that to happen to you. I'm not being facetious when I say I hope you never have to test your skills, because I believe you would probably get hurt. But that kind of revelatory experience is the only thing that could possibly open your eyes at this point, to where you'd say, "Oh ****. I am NOT very good at this."

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Good points. How constructive the sparring will be is entirely dependent upon how much experience the students have, how much experience their training partners have, and how much experience their coaches have?

Simply put, two people can spar with full intent on winning, and lack the foundation to learn anything constructive.

I agree with this, but I don't think it really answers my question, i.e.

My question to you is, when two practitioners in the gym are both sparring with full intent on winning (rather than just having fun or exploring a certain aspect of their game), how is that not competition just because an official tournament has not been declared?

Let's say the two sparring partners in question have a reasonably solid foundation of training and competition experience from experienced coaches at a gym which regularly send competitors to tournaments. They decide to go at it full out with full intent on winning the same way they would at a tournament. In what way is this sparring match significantly different from the full "application" of having the match at an officially sanctioned tournament (aside from incidentals like paying admission fees, waiting around half the day for the match, depending on a possibly incompetent referee, etc)?

Or let's go another direction. Suppose the students are newbies at a gym with crappy instructors. They decide to go full out in their sparring in preparation for a tournament. (Honestly, newbies tend to do this anyway. They mostly haven't learned to use sparring as a more subtle learning method yet.) Then one goes to the tournament and get matched up with another newbie who also had crappy instructors. In what way is the first match qualitatively different from the second?

(We've previously discussed ways in which sparring and competition can be different and the value which official competition experience can bring. Right now I'm trying to get at your assertion that sparring and competition must be different and can't count equally as "application.")

Simply put, two people can spar with full intent on winning, and lack the foundation to learn anything constructive.

This brings up another fuzzy aspect of the whole training vs application argument. There are people out there who have been in a lot more street fights (real application experience) than I have who I would still reliably wreck in a street fight. That's because they've only fought other people who suck at street fighting. As you say, they lacked the foundation to learn anything constructive. Of course, there are other people who have only been in street fights and never done much formal training who would wreck me in a street fight. Those individuals have fought a bunch of tough opponents and have various physical and mental attributes (either natural or developed through life experience) which make them dangerous.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In what way is this sparring match significantly different from the full "application" of having the match at an officially sanctioned tournament?

When people talk about there 23-0 undefeated record, they are talking about their official tournament record. and not their personal sparring record.

Could someone with undefeated record ever lost in sparring? It's possible. One may be sick one day and lost in sparring. But if one loses in official tournament when he is in good shape, he will have no excuse for it. This is why the official tournament record is so import.

 

[Steve]

I agree with this, but I don't think it really answers my question, i.e.

Let's say the two sparring partners in question have a reasonably solid foundation of training and competition experience from experienced coaches at a gym which regularly send competitors to tournaments. They decide to go at it full out with full intent on winning the same way they would at a tournament. In what way is this sparring match significantly different from the full "application" of having the match at an officially sanctioned tournament (aside from incidentals like paying admission fees, waiting around half the day for the match, depending on a possibly incompetent referee, etc)?

Couple of ways, but first, just want to emphasize the part I bolded above. Learning any skill set, not just MA, involves a natural cycle of training and then applying, training some more, than applying some more. It's an intuitive part of everything. The foundation you mention that is based on experience is crucial to making gains beyond a basic comprehension level.

To answer your question, though, outside of the obvious differences, the most crucial one is context. As you allude to above, sparring like you mention is valuable, but would be particularly valuable AFTER some period of application.

Or let's go another direction. Suppose the students are newbies at a gym with crappy instructors. They decide to go full out in their sparring in preparation for a tournament. (Honestly, newbies tend to do this anyway. They mostly haven't learned to use sparring as a more subtle learning method yet.) Then one goes to the tournament and get matched up with another newbie who also had crappy instructors. In what way is the first match qualitatively different from the second?

Unconstructive application doesn't invalidate application. Once again, I think this is something that only makes any superficial kind of sense because it's MA. Let's say you have a poor golfing instructor who trains a golf student poorly, and that golf student can't hit the ball. Congratulations, you've got bad training that leads to poor application.

So, two takeaways. First, poor training and application doesn't invalidate application. Second, without application (even poor) how would you even diagnose the quality of the training?

(We've previously discussed ways in which sparring and competition can be different and the value which official competition experience can bring. Right now I'm trying to get at your assertion that sparring and competition must be different and can't count equally as "application.")

See above.

This brings up another fuzzy aspect of the whole training vs application argument. There are people out there who have been in a lot more street fights (real application experience) than I have who I would still reliably wreck in a street fight. That's because they've only fought other people who suck at street fighting. As you say, they lacked the foundation to learn anything constructive. Of course, there are other people who have only been in street fights and never done much formal training who would wreck me in a street fight. Those individuals have fought a bunch of tough opponents and have various physical and mental attributes (either natural or developed through life experience) which make them dangerous.

Sure. So, again, this is along the same lines as above where poor application doesn't negate the intrinsic need for application. I've mentioned before that a person CAN develop real world skill without any training. A person who has good training and relevant experience can learn skills more reliably without the gaps that someone who is self taught will surely have. Any person's ceiling is going to be unique to that person. The training smooths out the gullies, fills in the gaps, and reinforces the right habits while mitigating the wrong ones.

Training alongside application will also allow people to move beyond just application. So, let's consider our golfers. A person who decides to teach himself golf may eventually (given some amount of time and perseverance) hit the ball. What the swing looks like is anyone's guess. But without any instruction, this person will eventually plateau. They will get to a point there they will progress no further. This could be due to a limitation of their aptitude or natural ability, but it's surely going to be a function of their just not knowing what they don't know. You can't solve a problem you don't know exists. And, interestingly, the same thing happens with training only. People will get to a certain point and then plateau.

I said earlier that my point isn't style vs style. I'll say now it's not training vs not training. If you think I'm discounting the critical role that good training has in the learning process, I've done a bad job of explaining my points. What I'm saying is that training alone is an incredibly inefficient and unreliable way to develop skill. In particular, complex skill sets like fighting. And that folks who don't have the experience shouldn't profess to be experts. You can be an expert in ninjutsu and a complete novice at fighting. You can be an expert in BJJ and a complete novice at MMA (even though BJJ is a significant element of many MMA practitioner's training).

Think back to every thread that has existed on this forum, from WC, Ninjutsu, and Aikido stylists who themselves point out that their concepts and techniques are notably absent from even very experienced practitioners when in a real altercation. Think of Royce Gracie vs Matt Hughes, when he really genuinely didn't realize that he lacked the striking and wrestling experience to hang. He didn't know what he didn't know, and lacked the experience to realize that the context for which he had trained was different than the context in which he was going to be applying his skills.

So, to bring this back to the hypothesis I proposed regarding three groups, I think there's no question that a person who trains AND applies skills will progress faster than someone who trains only. So, could a person who trains only ever become competent? That question is at the root of the study I proposed. I wouldn't expect so after one or three years, and think that even at five years the skill level would be questionable.

 

[Steve]

Just to add to the above, "application" is an expansive term, and not exclusive. While I can't think of a safe and effective way for people who aren't professionally violent to apply fighting skills outside of competition, there may be something out there. And competition, as with any kind of application, is going to have a lot of influence over the skills being developed. So, a chi sao competitor will develop those related skills. And if that's the only venue for application, other skills might atrophy.

Look at TKD. We hear from TKD stylists that some Olympic competitors drop their hands and develop other bad habits because they compete. If someone is angling to become an elite level competitor, sure, maybe they want to focus on just that. However, if they wanted to build a more well rounded skill set, they could simply apply their skills in different venues. Kickboxing under various rulesets, even MMA. Some TKD'ists have done very well in MMA, and I think it's pretty clear that they are better fighters as a result.

 

[drop bear]

What I quoted. Couldn't it be equally true if you replaced the word "sparring" with "competition"?

Competition is a different training tool designed to explore different dynamics. So if you compete against really bad guys then yeah same as full contact sparring with your brother in your basement.

But competition comes with standards for pretty much that reason.

 

[drop bear]

I agree with this, but I don't think it really answers my question, i.e.



Let's say the two sparring partners in question have a reasonably solid foundation of training and competition experience from experienced coaches at a gym which regularly send competitors to tournaments. They decide to go at it full out with full intent on winning the same way they would at a tournament. In what way is this sparring match significantly different from the full "application" of having the match at an officially sanctioned tournament (aside from incidentals like paying admission fees, waiting around half the day for the match, depending on a possibly incompetent referee, etc)?

Or let's go another direction. Suppose the students are newbies at a gym with crappy instructors. They decide to go full out in their sparring in preparation for a tournament. (Honestly, newbies tend to do this anyway. They mostly haven't learned to use sparring as a more subtle learning method yet.) Then one goes to the tournament and get matched up with another newbie who also had crappy instructors. In what way is the first match qualitatively different from the second?

(We've previously discussed ways in which sparring and competition can be different and the value which official competition experience can bring. Right now I'm trying to get at your assertion that sparring and competition must be different and can't count equally as "application.")



This brings up another fuzzy aspect of the whole training vs application argument. There are people out there who have been in a lot more street fights (real application experience) than I have who I would still reliably wreck in a street fight. That's because they've only fought other people who suck at street fighting. As you say, they lacked the foundation to learn anything constructive. Of course, there are other people who have only been in street fights and never done much formal training who would wreck me in a street fight. Those individuals have fought a bunch of tough opponents and have various physical and mental attributes (either natural or developed through life experience) which make them dangerous.

More risk.

So say as a training tool for self defence you want to replicate the super scary life or death aspect of a fight. You need to increase the risk without making the fight life or death.

 

[Steve]

More risk.

So say as a training tool for self defence you want to replicate the super scary life or death aspect of a fight. You need to increase the risk without making the fight life or death.

This is what I was trying to get at. I can't think of a different way to get at this than competition, but there may be something out there that is reasonable, accessible to the average person, and not unnecessarily dangerous.

 

[Steve]

For the record, if your instructor is as experienced as Geoff Thompson, your sparring looks like that, and it's informed by sound technique validated outside of training, maybe we have something to talk about. He's talking about many of the same things I've been saying, including pressure and transfer of learning. He's also very experienced using his skills in a violent profession.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Competition is a different training tool designed to explore different dynamics. So if you compete against really bad guys then yeah same as full contact sparring with your brother in your basement.

But competition comes with standards for pretty much that reason.

I'm confused here. I can't figure how this is a response to what I asked. Couldn't someone lack the foundation to learn from competition?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

More risk.

So say as a training tool for self defence you want to replicate the super scary life or death aspect of a fight. You need to increase the risk without making the fight life or death.

This is what I think folks don't struggle with enough in the SD-oriented world. You need to know where your compromise lies. The safer the class, the less intense the situations you can test yourself in (and get used to). Most of us don't want to risk big injury, and a lot of folks don't want to risk painful injuries (even if they're ones that will heal well).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is what I was trying to get at. I can't think of a different way to get at this than competition, but there may be something out there that is reasonable, accessible to the average person, and not unnecessarily dangerous.

Animal day at the gym sounds riskier (and potentially scarier) than most competition, to me. Competition has other benefits.

 

[Saheim]

Questions for some of you non chunners out there. Why are you on this forum? Not meaning this is a rude way. Just a sincere question. While some of you seem to actually want to help the threads by giving a new insight from a different prospective. Some of you seem to just want to disrupt the discussion.

That's simple - ENVY!

Non Chunners know we are the superior artists. Deep down, they hate themselves and the arts they train because of how inherently inferior they are (them and the art). Some times, they will manage to forget about WC and, for a while the pain and self hatred will ease up. Then, out of nowhere, they will hear an Ip Man ring tone, or accidentally see a preview for a WC movie and it all comes crashing back on to them - that nagging voice telling them they could've have been US. So.... they slip in here to peak around and dream of a life that will never be (for them)

We all know there are 2 types of people: Chunners and everyone else

Or at least, that is why I figured they did

 

[Hanzou]

That's simple - ENVY!

Non Chunners know we are the superior artists. Deep down, they hate themselves and the arts they train because of how inherently inferior they are (them and the art). Some times, they will manage to forget about WC and, for a while the pain and self hatred will ease up. Then, out of nowhere, they will hear an Ip Man ring tone, or accidentally see a preview for a WC movie and it all comes crashing back on to them - that nagging voice telling them they could've have been US. So.... they slip in here to peak around and dream of a life that will never be (for them)

We all know there are 2 types of people: Chunners and everyone else

Or at least, that is why I figured they did

Not going to lie, Yip Man was an awesome movie.