Ok my issue with thinking that specificity allways means most appropriate

[JowGaWolf]

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 just watched the video and the self-defense expert said that she thought the safest place to be is on the ground. That is just such an strange thing to say in terms of self-defense. Even BJJ practitioners have stated that being on the ground is not the 1st Plan of action. So I decided to actually check out her website. This is here martial arts experience " I have studied 3 martial arts styles (Goju-ryu, Kenpo, Jujitsu) over 22 years. I specialize in in-close fighting, disabling my opponent, and mental strategy. Being the highest ranked student in my dojo and the only woman who has sustained this level, I designed this course for the awareness and protection of women as a way to give back some of what I have learned. " This brings up another issue. It took her 22 years to reach the level of her ability vs someone who takes a short class in comparison.

Then I decided to look up some of her videos

I think the danger when it comes to self-defense training is that all of the elements of a struggle aren't factored into the technique and as a result you are left with a good technique but a horrible "time and place" application for that technique. If someone grabs a woman from behind then they are usually trying to drag her somewhere which means all of that shin scrape stuff goes out the door. The victim wouldn't have the balance or the position to execute a shin scrape.

I'm not saying the lady doesn't know what she's talking about, but I am saying that some key elements of a struggle aren't being factored into deciding on what technique to use.

The good news is that she is only one person and not a representation of everyone. Some people get it right some don't regardless of how much training they have.

 

[JowGaWolf]

When a boxing girl challenged a Kung Fu girl, the Kung Fu girl accepted the challenge. During the challenge day, the boxing girl brought her boxing gloves. The kung Fu girl brought her Guan Dao.

Funny.. this is something that I would find as acceptable lol. I know if I have a challenge fight, that I'm not going to remove my shoes. I also now that I will pick an environment that is not friendly to rolling on the ground and trying a lot of things that normally would be done in a ring environment.

Challenge fights in kung fu aren't the same as a friendly match.

 

[skribs]

It is not a realistic trade off that for some reason a teacher who is a specific expert has to have some sort of deficiency in basics or something.

Where did I say they have a deficiency? I’m talking about if you have a class that teaches mostly sport or forms, as opposed to strictly self defense, you’re not going to get as much out of it as someone who dedicates the whole class to self defense.

My Master has a hapkido class that is 100% self defense, and Taekwondo classes that are about 20% self defense. Same Master, but I get different results on the self defense side of things from one class than the other.

Strength is technique. We mesure strength by how much we can move. If we dont have good technique we are physically not as strong.

There’s a big difference between using a pressure point to cause someone else to move out of pain, and using strength to move someone yourself. With the right pulley system I can lift thousands of pounds. Does that mean I’m that strong?

Strength and technique are two different things, somewhat connected by muscle memory.

skribs said: ↑

You are teaching them the techniques they would use. Experience and muscle memory are much more important than physical condition.

that's nonsense

I’ve been beat badly in sparring by people older, weaker, slower, and less flexible than me, because they had good timing. I’ve seen it work.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Strength and technique are two different things, somewhat connected by muscle memory.

I think there's a misunderstanding because I thinking I know what dropbear is coming from with that statement. When you have good technique then your strength is maximized. When you have bad technique and especially bad structure then your strength is minimized
here's an extreme example in reference to strength and technique.

Here's another example

BJJ where a smaller person beats a larger person is a good example of how technique maximizes strength. Keep in mind. When I say maximizing strength I'm saying that your strength is maximized and not that you become stronger than someone else.

 

[lklawson]

My theory on training is you look at the results. And I learned this from looking at survival stuff. Taxtical machete vs gardening machete. One isnt better for gardening and one isnt better for being tactical.

The features define its use. Not its purpose.

So yes specific features of training will be better for different environments. But you cant tell from the label.

That's because the people who "designed" or named the machete weren't actually making a real weapon but, instead were marketing to people who don't know better and are hooked by a catchy name.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Except technical fighters can be strong. In which case for training purposes your technique vs strength distinction doesn't work. And you get beaten on both fronts.

That's not my argument, at all. I don't think I've ever once argued that technique is all someone needs. Technique is a tool in the toolbox. So is strength. Best to have more and better tools than the other guy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I do street which is why I can't do sport.

Also not my argument. What I have argued is that the system I primarily train in isn't well suited to sport. That's an entirely different point. You and I have discussed that before, and you should remember it by now. I think MMA training is a pretty good way to prepare for self-defense, for the right folks. I also think SD-oriented MMA training would make it even better for that purpose, and wouldn't take a huge adjustment. I'd be surprised if there weren't some folks doing that pretty well by now.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What is stopping a solid street system say for example being able to box?

Why would they have such poor mechanics?

Do they think they won't face punches in the street?

I don't think anything stops a solid street system from boxing. But they'll never be as good as a similarly invested boxer, because he's training specifically for that context. Even if the street system was taught by someone with solid boxing mechanics, and all the punches were standard boxing punches, if they are investing time to work on groundwork, kicks, grappling, situational awareness, etc., that's time taken away from pure boxing training. And they are developing some habits that play against them in boxing. They may work on distancing and entry to takedowns, which they can't use in a boxing ring. And they aren't learning the rules, both to avoid penalties and to take advantage of how the rules favor certain approaches. They could change their training to better equip them for boxing in a ring, but then they're just training boxing, aren't they? What makes boxing so effective for the ring is two things: good training, and context specificity.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think the danger when it comes to self-defense training is that all of the elements of a struggle aren't factored into the technique and as a result you are left with a good technique but a horrible "time and place" application for that technique. If someone grabs a woman from behind then they are usually trying to drag her somewhere which means all of that shin scrape stuff goes out the door. The victim wouldn't have the balance or the position to execute a shin scrape.

I agree entirely with this. I saw some of it in my own training - defenses that were quite effective against the attack out of context, but not so much once placed in context. I often ask my students, "So if they do that, what are some of their likely goals - what are they actually trying to do?" I want them thinking while they train, rather than just doing a technique. If someone grabs a wrist, they're not just going to stand there and say "my precious" and pet it. They had something they wanted to do when they grabbed the hand (pull, punch/stab with the other hand, etc.). We have to look at both parts. If we just react to the grip, we get pulled, punched, or stabbed while we're trying to do a nice grip release.

 

[jobo]

[QUOTE="gpseymour, post: 1876757, member: 27826" What makes boxing so effective for the ring is two things: good training, and context specificity.[/QUOTE]
and fitness?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

[QUOTE="gpseymour, post: 1876757, member: 27826" What makes boxing so effective for the ring is two things: good training, and context specificity.

and fitness?[/QUOTE]
That'd fall under "good training".

 

[jobo]

and fitness?

That'd fall under "good training".[/QUOTE]
no , not not always, good boxers who turn up for a fight out of condition tend to lose, boxing training tends to creat a reasonable standard of fitness by its nature, you can't do it with out, that's not true of a lot of ma and certainly not self defence focused training,

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no , not not always, good boxers who turn up for a fight out of condition tend to lose, boxing training tends to creat a reasonable standard of fitness by its nature, you can't do it with out, that's not true of a lot of ma and certainly not self defence focused training,

I'd argue showing up for a fight without good conditioning means you've missed something in your training. Conditioning is part of training.

 

[DaveB]

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.

Apologies if someone said this already, but surely bad training is bad training. Or are you arguing that sport based training is automatically good?

 

[jobo]

I'd argue showing up for a fight without good conditioning means you've missed something in your training. Conditioning is part of training.

well in that case any ma training that doesn't deliver fitness at the level of a competative boxer is therefore deficient. Which is close to my original point

 

[JowGaWolf]

certainly not self defence focused training

It depends on the school and if the course is just a 4 week course. There are some schools that teach self-defense as a school and not a seminar. One of the school near me teaches women's self-defense and one of their biggest marketing points is that the women will be getting in shape as well. Some places have the "fit to fight" perspective.

 

[jobo]

Apologies if someone said this already, but surely bad training is bad training. Or are you arguing that sport based training is automatically good?

i think the point is that any deficiences in techneque or fitness are quickly very apparent and bad trainers don't last long, where as someone selling self defence training can give out any old tosh and get away with it for years, like the vid in the op

 

[jobo]

It depends on the school and if the course is just a 4 week course. There are some schools that teach self-defense as a school and not a seminar. One of the school near me teaches women's self-defense and one of their biggest marketing points is that the women will be getting in shape as well. Some places have the "fit to fight" perspective.

hat sounds like a step forward, but how fit exactly, and how fit do they need to be to be quietly confident they can fight of an attacker

 

[JowGaWolf]

well in that case any ma training that doesn't deliver fitness at the level of a boxer is therefore deficient.

Martial arts does a lot of other type of conditioning that boxers don't do. Just because a person isn't fit or have the cardio to do boxing doesn't mean that they are deficient. Boxers usually have weaker legs and and leg defenses than martial artists so a Martial artist could exploit that and still win the fight even though the boxer had better cardio.

 

[jobo]

Martial arts does a lot of other type of conditioning that boxers don't do. Just because a person isn't fit or have the cardio to do boxing doesn't mean that they are deficient. Boxers usually have weaker legs and and leg defenses than martial artists so a Martial artist could exploit that and still win the fight even though the boxer had better cardio.

well it sort of does, I'm not sure you can say they have weaker legs, they certainly tend to have fast legs, though not in kicking as they don't tend to train that.

but gerrys point was boxing training that doesn't deliver the fitness to fight is deficient or at least lacking. It seem then fair to use that as a comparative and say if your training doesn't deliver a similar level of fitness in general terms, then it to has deficiencies