Should "running" be part of your MA training?

[jobo]

Ah, advanced age, now that will come back and bite you on the bum, however fit you may be now there is much that can and will go wrong and you will not be as fit as you think you will be, in fact the fitness you are doing now may well contribute to your future unfitness.

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that many on here have actually got the experience of knowing their skills make up for what you say is their 'lack of conditioning'? Do you think we speak hypothetically? If so, you would be very wrong.

I'm aware of that, that's one of the reasons I'm doing ma, both to try and compensate for not having the reactions of a fighter jet pilot anymore and as a focus for my training. I accept that skills can make up for a short fall in general conditioning, but only to a certain point.
Fighting is one of the most physically demanding of human activities and there is a notable reality that the strongest fastest best co ordinated participent tends to win. If that isn't you then you have a real problem

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The general gist is, that if you keep dropping the test standard to accommodate the weakness of your candidate, then your tests levels become a nice to have and not a level of achievement relative to the grade in question. I suppose its a commercial reality if you want them to keep attending.

My decision has nothing to do with "commercial reality". My program loses money. It always has. Unless something odd happens and I gain a lot of students, it probably always will (even then, it might still lose money, because I could put more into equipment and space).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

err ,you don't think instructors who can correctly demonstrate a technique is a requirement of being an instructor?

to be honest it sounds like a waffly way of justifying passing people who have dropped short of the standards that you set

out of interest what % actually fail?

An instructor's job is to teach the technique. If they can manage to do so without being able to do it, that's fine. I've seen injured instructors use an existing student who had good technique perform the demonstration. What does it matter who shows them the technique, so long as they learn to use it properly? Now, if the instructor is physically capable of executing the technique, then they need to be able to do so. In other words, sloppy technique is not acceptable.

I don't recall ever failing a student on an entire test (I have made them re-test bits that needed clean-up). I have, however, declined to test students who were not ready. I decide when a student tests, and I don't test them until I know they are capable of the test. In my case, the test itself is partly a formality, partly to see how they perform under the stress of observation (not a big difference in a small program, though), and partly to let me see a lot of their work all at one viewing to watch for consistent problems. Mind you, I have a very small program, so I'm personally teaching every student, and they sometimes get accidental "private lessons" when they are the only one in class that day. With that level of interaction, it's pretty easy to know when someone will pass the test. If I had 60 students, I'd probably end up failing someone from time to time.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

err ,you don't think instructors who can correctly demonstrate a technique is a requirement of being an instructor?

to be honest it sounds like a waffly way of justifying passing people who have dropped short of the standards that you set

out of interest what % actually fail?

If I train someone to do a technique, and they show my instructor they can do it to his standards, why does it matter if I can do it or not? Clearly I was effective at teaching it.

As for the %...most instructors I know have a high % passing, simply because they have already evaluated the person beforehand, and done informal tests that they had to pass before being allowed to actually test.

 

[Tez3]

there is a notable reality that the strongest fastest best co ordinated participent tends to win. If that isn't you then you have a real problem

Actually no, not really, the one who is willing to be the dirtiest, nastiest and most offensive 'fighter' tends to win. The winner is the one who wants to win the most (both in competitions and 'real life') the one who is willing to go that bit extra even into actually killing someone will be the winner. legalities aside this is how it really is, no good being the fittest, strongest, fastest if you aren't will to do anything to win because, trust me, I am, and I will win despite not being the fittest, strongest etc.

 

[Balrog]

If you can't fight your opponent, at least you should have the ability to run away. IMO, running should be an important part of the MA training. If you can run faster than your opponent, none of his MA skill can apply on you. Your thought?

IMNSHO, running away is the first and best defense.

 

[jobo]

Actually no, not really, the one who is willing to be the dirtiest, nastiest and most offensive 'fighter' tends to win. The winner is the one who wants to win the most (both in competitions and 'real life') the one who is willing to go that bit extra even into actually killing someone will be the winner. legalities aside this is how it really is, no good being the fittest, strongest, fastest if you aren't will to do anything to win because, trust me, I am, and I will win despite not being the fittest, strongest etc.

I'm sorry mate but that's not a realistic depiction, if you hold a substantial physical advantage then it matter not what your opponent does,
dirty tricks are no good if he can't hit you.
, have you ever fought someone so strong they throws you around like a rag doll, I have
. Alternatively someone might have all the will to win, but when their cardio has gone so has their strength and coordination

 

[jobo]

If I train someone to do a technique, and they show my instructor they can do it to his standards, why does it matter if I can do it or not? Clearly I was effective at teaching it.

As for the %...most instructors I know have a high % passing, simply because they have already evaluated the person beforehand, and done informal tests that they had to pass before being allowed to actually test.

there is a general norm of instructor being able to do the things they instuct in. The seems universal true apart from ma. Ever met a driving instructor who can't reverse round a corner, or a guitar instructors who can play a c cord. Perhaps a parachute instructor who can't jump out of a plane?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

there is a general norm of instructor being able to do the things they instuct in. The seems universal true apart from ma. Ever met a driving instructor who can't reverse round a corner, or a guitar instructors who can play a c cord. Perhaps a parachute instructor who can't jump out of a plane?

If they can teach me how to do it, then sure. I learned how to parallel park from someone who doesn't ever do it, but knows what has to be done so he told me, and I listened. I've had no issues with it since.

 

[Tez3]

I'm sorry mate but that's not a realistic depiction, if you hold a substantial physical advantage then it matter not what your opponent does,
dirty tricks are no good if he can't hit you.
, have you ever fought someone so strong they throws you around like a rag doll, I have
. Alternatively someone might have all the will to win, but when their cardio has gone so has their strength and coordination

Sweetheart, one thing... I am not your mate. I have seen over the years more so called street fights than I care to think about, I have had to stop more of those fights than I want to think about (not alone luckily), I have been in riots, I have been attacked and had to take down people fighting so we could arrest them etc etc. At this point in my life ie retired it's actually quite boring.
I have seen and been in more violence that is possibly good for me, acid attacks on schoolgirls, Irishmen determined to kill Brits, big Fijian soldiers who want to take the world apart, Royal Marines fighting with squaddies, squaddies fighting with squaddies and civvies, the Black Watch, The Royal Irish, the Fusiliers, the Greenjackets, and the 'Kingos' all regiments that fight on a night out and they fight mean, trust me. I've also had the privilege of seeing them fight in circumstances that are appropriate for fighting. I've seen fat out of condition civvies beat up squaddies by the way, they don't run out of cardio because as I said before they make sure their one shot at winning is a very good shot, I've seen MMA fighters like that as well, they know they can't go the distance so they make sure they don't have to. Short fights. Promoters nightmare of course but the out of condition fighter's ideal.
Your experiences are just that yours, other people's experiences are just as valid even if they differ from yours.

 

[Danny T]

I'm sorry mate but that's not a realistic depiction, if you hold a substantial physical advantage then it matter not what your opponent does,
dirty tricks are no good if he can't hit you.
, have you ever fought someone so strong they throws you around like a rag doll, I have
. Alternatively someone might have all the will to win, but when their cardio has gone so has their strength and coordination

So the older, weaker person will always lose? Nah.

Yes I have.

I agree but that doesn't stop them from being sneaky, sly, and deceptive. Though they are very important there is more to fighting than size, strength, and cardio.

 

[Tez3]

Piece of info for you, Michael Bisping's brother was severely injured when another soldier put a pick axe into his head, that's the sort of fights we're talking about.

 

[jobo]

Sweetheart, one thing... I am not your mate. I have seen over the years more so called street fights than I care to think about, I have had to stop more of those fights than I want to think about (not alone luckily), I have been in riots, I have been attacked and had to take down people fighting so we could arrest them etc etc. At this point in my life ie retired it's actually quite boring.
I have seen and been in more violence that is possibly good for me, acid attacks on schoolgirls, Irishmen determined to kill Brits, big Fijian soldiers who want to take the world apart, Royal Marines fighting with squaddies, squaddies fighting with squaddies and civvies, the Black Watch, The Royal Irish, the Fusiliers, the Greenjackets, and the 'Kingos' all regiments that fight on a night out and they fight mean, trust me. I've also had the privilege of seeing them fight in circumstances that are appropriate for fighting. I've seen fat out of condition civvies beat up squaddies by the way, they don't run out of cardio because as I said before they make sure their one shot at winning is a very good shot, I've seen MMA fighters like that as well, they know they can't go the distance so they make sure they don't have to. Short fights. Promoters nightmare of course but the out of condition fighter's ideal.
Your experiences are just that yours, other people's experiences are just as valid even if they differ from yours.

you not my mate, but I'm your sweetheart?? Ok.
I'm not at all sure what most of your examples have to do with out discussion, perhaps you thought posting your CV would make up for the deficiences in your logic.

let's consider a footballer, all the skills in the world won't win a game if his cardio is poor, even David Beckham had to face that fact eventually. Your whole point seems to be if you can over welm your opponent with strength or speed quickly , then your cardio doesn't matter. Yep that's true, but then you need more strength and or speed than your opponent. A lot of fat guys are very strong,
I'm beginning to think there is a bit of a collective fantasy going round, that if you practise your skill then that will see you through against a superior physical specimen. I think a lot of middle age men think they still have it, despite them neglecting their fitness.

 

[jobo]

So the older, weaker person will always lose? Nah.

Yes I have.

I agree but that doesn't stop them from being sneaky, sly, and deceptive. Though they are very important there is more to fighting than size, strength, and cardio.

yes there is, there is technique and mindset. But if you have little strength, slow reaction and very poor cardio. Then you will need exemplary skill to offset the disadvantages

 

[Tez3]

yes there is, there is technique and mindset. But if you have little strength, slow reaction and very poor cardio. Then you will need exemplary skill to offset the disadvantages

or a pickaxe.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I'm beginning to think there is a bit of a collective fantasy going round, that if you practise your skill then that will see you through against a superior physical specimen. I think a lot of middle age men think they still have it, despite them neglecting their fitness.

I think you are reading a whole lot into this that isn't there. You also appear to be focusing solely on the Sport side of things while negating traditional and RBSD side of things

 

[jobo]

or a pickaxe.

or a base ball bat or tyre lever, or a broken bottle, or a claw hammer all good if your fast enough to use them

 

[Tez3]

or a base ball bat or tyre lever, or a broken bottle, or a claw hammer all good if your fast enough to use them

Personally I always get my retaliation in first.

 

[jobo]

I think you are reading a whole lot into this that isn't there. You also appear to be focusing solely on the Sport side of things while negating traditional and RBSD side of things

people keep telling me that they are not fit, but it doesn't matter in a fight as there techniques' are sound. If its a discuss on the multitude of non marshal benefits of doing a ma. I'm in agreement its very good for your mind and general well being , but there does need to be some element of reality as to its/ their short coming

 

[Tez3]

but there does need to be some element of reality as to its/ their short coming

Ah but whose reality, those of people who have been doing martial arts for decades or those of someone who is disparaging them?