Ok my issue with thinking that specificity allways means most appropriate

[drop bear]

I have thrown around my issues with the idea that specific training somehow just being automatically more appropriate. So training for the ring makes you better in the ring. Training for war makes you better in war. Training self defence makes you better at self defence and so on.

And my issue has been. Well no, it really kind of doesn't.

And the issue is that specific training doesn't prevent it from just being bad. To showcase this idea. I found a self defence expert. Who has a specific focus on womens self defence. So her method should be the most appropriate method. For women who want to be safe on the streets yeah?

An expert in self defence reveals how to fight back if you're pinned to the ground

But personally I think her method needs work. Her system needs work. And the individual, the training or the instructor is not going to be able to salvage a useable method from this.


I just think people can look at the wrong things when assesing a martial art.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And the issue is that specific training doesn't prevent it from just being bad.

I agree entirely. If you recall some of our early debates on this, my point was that really good training is even better when it addresses the context in question. Specificity is a plus, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient for good training. The higher the level of the context, the more it becomes necessary (I doubt anyone will reach an elite level of ring/cage training without training specifically for that context or something very similar).

 

[lklawson]

I have thrown around my issues with the idea that specific training somehow just being automatically more appropriate. So training for the ring makes you better in the ring. Training for war makes you better in war. Training self defence makes you better at self defence and so on.

And my issue has been. Well no, it really kind of doesn't.

You are sorta right, but I think for the wrong reason. Yes, actually specifically training for a venue DOES make the training more appropriate and therefore more likely to succeed. "If." IF it's the right training and that training actually addresses things which are specific to that venue. There are some generalities such as strength and cardio fitness. But training in punching, kicking, takedowns, and groundwork is going to be very limited value if you're part of a 5-man Fire Team equipped with small arms (M4, SAW, etc.) and facing groups of similarly armed people. Conversely, if you are highly trained in small-group maneuvering and tactics, with small arms but never trained anything pas MAC in basic, then you're gonna get your butt handed to you in the ring.

Yes, specific training for the venue does make you better at that venue. But just thinking you have the right "specific training" doesn't actually make it so.

And the issue is that specific training doesn't prevent it from just being bad. To showcase this idea. I found a self defence expert. Who has a specific focus on womens self defence. So her method should be the most appropriate method. For women who want to be safe on the streets yeah?

An expert in self defence reveals how to fight back if you're pinned to the ground

But personally I think her method needs work. Her system needs work. And the individual, the training or the instructor is not going to be able to salvage a useable method from this.

That is wrong on so many levels.

I just think people can look at the wrong things when assesing a martial art.

People don't know that they don't know.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[JR 137]

Using my school teacher lens...

If you’re expecting a specific outcome, you need to train appropriately for that outcome. What’s the best thing to do? Visualize the desired outcome realistically. Then break that outcome apart into larger picture things. Then break down those large pictures into smaller and smaller things.

After that, you start the training with the smallest pictures, and move up progressively.

Same as what the schools here in the US (at least NYS) went through about 10 years or so ago. They asked what knowledge and skills they wanted all high school graduates to have, then designed curriculums downwards instead of continuing on doing what they’ve done seemingly forever - just looking at individual grade-level curriculums.

When you plan downward and implement upward, you eliminate gaps (or at least minimize them).

If you’re putting a women’s SD program together, need to look at what successful women’s self defense realistically looks like. Analyze all the skills that are required to get there. Analyze how to acquire those skills. Then make a plan that starts out on lesson 1 and gradually progresses to full competence. Same for training for the cage, battlefield, pub crawls, and everything else.

 

[skribs]

Quality vs. Quantity.

If you have two competent teachers, one who spends 10 minutes of each class on self defense and one who spends 45 minutes of each class on self defense, you're going to get better self defense learning from the 2nd teacher.

If you have a stellar teacher who spends 10 minutes on self defense, and a competent teacher who spends 45 minutes, then it will likely depend on the student (if you practice a lot on your own you might get more out of the stellar teacher, but if you need class to practice you will get more out of the competent teacher).

If you have a competent teacher who spends 10 minutes on self defense, and a terrible teacher who spends 45 minutes, then you'll definitely get more out of the 10 minutes.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Quality vs. Quantity.

If you have two competent teachers, one who spends 10 minutes of each class on self defense and one who spends 45 minutes of each class on self defense, you're going to get better self defense learning from the 2nd teacher.

If you have a stellar teacher who spends 10 minutes on self defense, and a competent teacher who spends 45 minutes, then it will likely depend on the student (if you practice a lot on your own you might get more out of the stellar teacher, but if you need class to practice you will get more out of the competent teacher).

If you have a competent teacher who spends 10 minutes on self defense, and a terrible teacher who spends 45 minutes, then you'll definitely get more out of the 10 minutes.

As long as your evaluation of the teacher includes the content they are teaching (and its applicability to reality), I'd agree.

 

[skribs]

As long as your evaluation of the teacher includes the content they are teaching (and its applicability to reality), I'd agree.

Obviously when you make gross generalizations in a comparison of hypotheticals, you have to assume that other variables are constants (in this case, the ability of the practitioner to judge the instruction).

 

[jobo]

I have thrown around my issues with the idea that specific training somehow just being automatically more appropriate. So training for the ring makes you better in the ring. Training for war makes you better in war. Training self defence makes you better at self defence and so on.

And my issue has been. Well no, it really kind of doesn't.

And the issue is that specific training doesn't prevent it from just being bad. To showcase this idea. I found a self defence expert. Who has a specific focus on womens self defence. So her method should be the most appropriate method. For women who want to be safe on the streets yeah?

An expert in self defence reveals how to fight back if you're pinned to the ground

But personally I think her method needs work. Her system needs work. And the individual, the training or the instructor is not going to be able to salvage a useable method from this.


I just think people can look at the wrong things when assesing a martial art.

i think people who run( short) self defend,courses are snake oil salesmen( or women) .

once you have told them not to go out on their own, lock there doors and all the other very obvious stuff, they should tell them they are not strong enough, not fast enough and don't have,sufficient cardio, tell them to hit the gym for,6 months and then sign on to a proper ma class. Instead they give tips that are border line useless and charge some times a lot of money for it, absolutely shameless

nb that vid never got round to telling you what to do if someone,a 100 lbs heavier pins you to the floor

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Obviously when you make gross generalizations in a comparison of hypotheticals, you have to assume that other variables are constants (in this case, the ability of the practitioner to judge the instruction).

Agreed. I was just adding that stipulation, because I've seen some excellent teaching of absolute rubbish (and some rubbish teaching of good, solid technique). I just wanted to keep the discussion from following that side branch, by adding that assumption.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i think people who run( short) self defend,courses are snake oil salesmen( or women) .

once you have told them not to go out on their own, lock there doors and all the other very obvious stuff, they should tell them they are not strong enough, not fast enough and don't have,sufficient cardio, tell them to hit the gym for,6 months and then sign on to a proper ma class. Instead they give tips that are border line useless and charge some times a lot of money for it, absolutely shameless

nb that vid never got round to telling you what to do if someone,a 100 lbs heavier pins you to the floor

Cardio and strength don't have to come first. I can teach a weak, out-of-shape person to escape simple attacks. Since that's where everyone starts, they can develop their cardio in parallel.

 

[skribs]

In my hapkido class we get yelled at if we use more than 1% of our strength. So I'd say practice comes before physical training in there.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In my hapkido class we get yelled at if we use more than 1% of our strength. So I'd say practice comes before physical training in there.

I hope you eventually also train the "hard" side of the techniques. The soft side is easier for a skilled fighter to take away.

 

[jobo]

Cardio and strength don't have to come first. I can teach a weak, out-of-shape person to escape simple attacks. Since that's where everyone starts, they can develop their cardio in parallel.

no you can't, not if the person attacking n them is notably physically superior to them, as may well be he case

 

[skribs]

no you can't, not if the person attacking n them is notably physically superior to them, as may well be he case

I will never be as physically fit as a professional athlete. Since there will always exist someone stronger than me, should I stop training martial arts?

 

[hoshin1600]

I have thrown around my issues with the idea that specific training somehow just being automatically more appropriate. So training for the ring makes you better in the ring. Training for war makes you better in war. Training self defence makes you better at self defence and so on.

And my issue has been. Well no, it really kind of doesn't.

And the issue is that specific training doesn't prevent it from just being bad. To showcase this idea. I found a self defence expert. Who has a specific focus on womens self defence. So her method should be the most appropriate method. For women who want to be safe on the streets yeah?

An expert in self defence reveals how to fight back if you're pinned to the ground

But personally I think her method needs work. Her system needs work. And the individual, the training or the instructor is not going to be able to salvage a useable method from this.


I just think people can look at the wrong things when assesing a martial art.

you didnt go into a lot of depth in this post but going by what you did write i think you are way off.

the idea that specific training somehow just being automatically more appropriate.

this statement is not reflective of the specific training concept. nothing is automatic. what specific training does is produce a process of investigation and adaption of what works and what doesnt. it is the same process as evolution. that being said we dont get to jump to the absolute and the final product. it also doesnt prevent crappy stuff from being tried but over time it should be proven out and discarded when it is proven not to work.
i would think you would be a big proponent of specific training since that is the defining quality of MMA. we all did TMA for ages then the UFC came along and we found that TMA will lose every time to a specificly trained MMA fighter.
so do you think that if i study karate exclusively that it is only a matter of training hard enough in my style to be a champion UFC fighter? i think we proved out that fallacy back with Fred Ettish.

And the issue is that specific training doesn't prevent it from just being bad.

this is a failure in logic not a failure of training concepts. we can reverse the logic and say "random training doesnt prevent poor results". if the women in the clip cross trained in Tai Chi would she be better at her self defense? how about knitting ? ok then what should she train in? what are the determining constructs that would lead us to decide what she should train in to help be better in self defense? the only answer is that the training has to be relevant to the desired goal. and just what is that......specific training for the venue or the desired goal.

 

[jobo]

I will never be as physically fit as a professional athlete. Since there will always exist someone stronger than me, should I stop training martial arts?

but nether, i hope, are you weak and out of condition , which was the specific i was answering to.
but if you are,,, then yes, reduce you ma time. And get some,conditioning training in, you know it makes sense

 

[skribs]

but nether, i hope, are you weak and out of condition , which was the specific i was answering to.
but if you are,,, then yes, reduce you ma time. And get some,conditioning training in, you know it makes sense

Even if you are...martial arts can be about exercise. Forms are good anaerobic exercise. Sparring can be aerobic exercise. Cardio kickboxing is a thing. People usually sweat hard in our classes, especially if they're putting proper effort into their forms or during sparring.

The only time we turn someone away at our school is if it is dangerous for them to be in class. i.e. pregnant woman, someone with an injury that could be made worse by participating, someone with an illness who not only should be resting - but we don't want to get everyone else sick. I don't see "you're too weak" as a good reason to turn people away from a martial arts class, unless you're specifically a competitive team and are only looking for people who are already athletic.

 

[jobo]

Even if you are...martial arts can be about exercise. Forms are good anaerobic exercise. Sparring can be aerobic exercise. Cardio kickboxing is a thing. People usually sweat hard in our classes, especially if they're putting proper effort into their forms or during sparring.

The only time we turn someone away at our school is if it is dangerous for them to be in class. i.e. pregnant woman, someone with an injury that could be made worse by participating, someone with an illness who not only should be resting - but we don't want to get everyone else sick. I don't see "you're too weak" as a good reason to turn people away from a martial arts class, unless you're specifically a competitive team and are only looking for people who are already athletic.

BUT, if you are out of condition then its clearly not working for you.
it not a case of turning people away, ma, as practised at a lot of,schools is not going to make you FIT, fitter maybe, but not fit. You should be honest with them in and hat if self defence is an,aim, that they need fitness,first and for most

 

[skribs]

BUT, if you are out of condition then its clearly not working for you.
it not a case of turning people away, ma, as practised at a lot of,schools is not going to make you FIT, fitter maybe, but not fit. You should be honest with them in and hat if self defence is an,aim, that they need fitness,first and for most

I disagree. I believe people can increase their fitness in martial arts class, in which they're also gaining muscle memory while they increase their fitness. It won't be as much as they would if all they did is go to the gym, but it's a different approach.

Martial arts is also more fun than going to the gym, and easier to motivate people to go to.

If I was training at a school and saw someone go up to the Master and said, "I want to join your school because I see you teach self defense", and the Master said "I'm sorry, but you're too weak, go hit the gym for a while and come back when you've proven yourself worthy", I would leave the school immediately and find one who is willing to train without discriminating based on physical condition.

 

[jobo]

I disagree. I believe people can increase their fitness in martial arts class, in which they're also gaining muscle memory while they increase their fitness. It won't be as much as they would if all they did is go to the gym, but it's a different approach.

Martial arts is also more fun than going to the gym, and easier to motivate people to go to.

If I was training at a school and saw someone go up to the Master and said, "I want to join your school because I see you teach self defense", and the Master said "I'm sorry, but you're too weak, go hit the gym for a while and come back when you've proven yourself worthy", I would leave the school immediately and find one who is willing to train without discriminating based on physical condition.

but if you are teaching self defence. To weak out of condition people, you are conning them, taking their money under,a lie, that they can,adequately defend themselves