Sure. Although, honestly, I wouldn't say they "train to the test", as, well, they don't. They train to the application. Testing really isn't a part of it, when looked at accurately, as that would mean that you train in order to test whether or not boxing works... in a boxing ring, in a boxing match, under boxing rules, in a boxing context. You don't. You train to be able to apply the skill of boxing in a boxing ring/match/context. That could be seen as testing yourself (and your abilities) in such a context, but that's all. And really, non-sporting arts do exactly the same thing, just differently. We train to the skill.
It sounds like you have a definite idea of what "the test" is, and you're applying the filter of self defense to that test. When I say that a sport art teaches to the test, what I mean is a pure sport art, such as Western Boxing or freestyle wrestling, does not purport to be a self defense art. While you can easily see some self defense application, they aren't teaching you self defense. You're learning to box or to wrestle within the rules of the sport.
My point is that this is a double edged sword. The down side is that you are very likely learning habits that could be great for the sport but terrible for self defense (ie, pulling guard in a street fight.) The up side, though, is that you are building skills and technical ability that can provide a solid foundation for self defense. A boxer is not learning self defense. The test that the boxer is training for is a boxing match. And what does that mean? It means that a boxer KNOWS that he or she can execute a straight jab, a cross, a hook or an uppercut, with good head movement and footwork against people trained to stop them from doing so. He or she knows how powerful each technique really is. "Oh, that punch REALLY knocks people out, and I have the timing and experience to make it work." Sport does this for you. If a technique is too deadly to ever execute it against a real person at full speed, you will not really know if you can pull it off.
Bottom line is that a boxer can become an expert boxer. A jiu-jitiero can become an expert jiu-jitiero. A bujinkan taijutsu practioner can become an expert at taijutsu. But NONE of those equal expertise at self defense.
As far as your last comment there ("The skills can translate, of course, but the context of the skills you're learning remains very clear and easy to understand"), well, yes. That's kinda what we've been saying. And we've been saying that that context is not self defence or real world application. It's a sporting contest. Having that context clear and easily understood sounds fine... but the nuances seem to be being missed. Sports ability does not equal combat or defensive ability. Nor does self defence training equal applicable skills in competition.
But, try to remember that this isn't strictly a thread about self defense. If self defense is your goal, than it would be a great idea to cross train or at least spend time widening the scope of your training. Once again, it seems as though you are defaulting to a filter where effectiveness for self defense is the measure. I used "well rounded" as a way to suggest that self defense ISN'T everyone's goal in training. However you define it is important, and maybe the lesson to be learned here is that knowing what you want out of training is important. A self defense school may not be the best school for everyone.
That's true, but it's only a part of the entire equation. Realistically, focusing on competition at all can be detrimental. When training in something (martial arts), it's vital to have a clear goal in mind, and to have everything you do geared towards that goal. You need to only focus on that single approach and methodology... anything else takes time away, removes you from doing what you're needing to do, and can very easily counter-man otherwise good work you may have been doing. The clearer you are in what you're doing, and why, the more powerful the training will be. Otherwise, it's two steps forwards, one step back.
possibly, but sport provides objective feedback. If you have a clear focus on your training, and you have a clear and realistic understanding of what you expect to learn about your training from the sport, I don't believe it can be anything but positive. If self defense skills are your goald, sports can be a way to hide bad training ("I'm great at deep half guard, so it's my go to in a street fight"). But lack of sport is also a terrific way to hide bad training.
I disagree completely. It's absolutely possible to become an expert in self defence... but you have to work towards that context specifically. Again, well rounded just isn't the way.
Yes. We disagree completely. You cannot be an expert in self defence without practical, real world experience in the field applying the techniques. You CAN become an expert in a system. Call it Parker-fu, put whatever techniques you want, apply measures for proficiency and teach people to an expert level in your system. Because THAT'S what they're learning and applying. They are not defending themselves in your class. They are applying your system.
This is not to say that your system doesn't work. It may. But it doesn't create self defense experts. It creates Parker-fu experts.
Yeah, I know John's schools... great guy, good solid head on his shoulders. I don't always agree with what he writes, but he's generally got a good approach. Of course, John is basically the most well-known BJJ instructor in Australia, and a frequent writer in magazines here... but his schools doing well doesn't mean that BJJ as a whole is making much of a splash here. It's certainly got it's place, but it's lost it's sheen of "the new thing", and is settling like many other arts around. As ever, it's arts like TKD that are probably the most "dominant" (in terms of market penetration) here.
Its' been around long enough that it's not a fad. There are schools popping up all over the world. It's not a competition. I'm not opening a school in Australia. I get that Hanzou is ruffling some feathers, and frankly, saying that BJJ "isn't a big deal" sounds to me to be a petty attempt to take Hanzou down a notch or two. When I said, "who gives a rip?" what I mean is, "This is completely irrelevant."
Hey, I was getting to it...!
