What good is sport martial arts?

[dancingalone]

Lord of the Flies? I think that is a fantasy movie, the settings I am referring to are real. As an example, you can find them in just about any urban ghetto.

It was a simile. I can drop the literary references if you must make them a distraction from the discussion.

Yes, from hard, full contact based training, not theatrical pretend scenarios.

Again, you assume a lot. There's a decent amount of real data about how violent encounters typically unfold. Some of it has been mentioned before here, including the so-called Habitual Acts of Violence and other models that owe from it. Using this research as a starting place for development of SD case studies, for example, would hardly qualify as theatrical. Heck, even if someone is a bouncer, which some here are or have been, he will have been exposed personally to a myriad of violent scenarios which HAVE unfolded in real life.

It gives an advantage over the enthusiast participant, any "likely" SD value is "likely" small.

Well, that's fine and good if that's what you provide and your students want that. Others are definitely training for different goals with different levels of effectiveness through methodology unused by yourself.

I would imagine their results would likewise differ.

I'd rather have the reality discussion. "Oh that's nice, how cool, sweet, etc", is not what we are doing here, I thought we were talking about our view of self defense? I think most of us are being courteous, and we are all big boys I assume? I mean, I don't feel a single person has to agree with anything I write, and I'm not insulted, so let's just stick with facts and opinions.

Courtesy goes hand in hand with taekwondo. At least the version I learned.

My own personal experience tells me that martial arts athletes, train longer hours and harder and thus have superior skills as compared to the SD/recreational/enthusiast general martial artist. I don't see that as fallacious at all, how could you? I see it as fact

Again, you frame it in such a way as to 'win' your argument. Take the same level of physical conditioning and honing and then apply it to someone training specifically against scenarios like a drawn knife or a 'football' tackle. Suddenly your whole athlete argument disappears as it should. As I've stated, it should be a comparison of specific training drills and methodology, rather than some nebulous view of athlete vs. 'enthusiast'.

 

[mastercole]

As I said, I was not avoiding answering; I simply asked you to answer first.

You really didn't. You responded with this:


Which is fine, though it really doesn't describe training methodology.

I am going to take it good faith then that you are not familiar with WTF style/Shihap Kyorugi. Today, it is all over the net and you can find many training videos. I took a quick look and found a few that should give you an idea of what most TKD athletes (and mine) do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XFHrtuVdk8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZKB5n-cr60&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xfivDk9L8Q&feature=related

As for my own methodology,

In hapkido:
I start students off with basic strikes and blocks, footwork drills, stance work, and some basic hoshinsul. Beginning hoshinsul includes escapes from and counters to same side wrist grabs, how to perform a basic wristlock, arm bar, leg sweep, hip toss, and over the back throw. I focus a lot on unballancing the opponent. In addition, students learn to roll and fall. Strikes are either performed in the air or against focus targets and bags.

As students advance, they learn more advanced strikes, escapes and counters to different grabs and holds, both standing and seated, more advanced footwork drills, and more challenging rolling and falling.

I make it a point to connect what they are doing with the sorts of encounters that they are likely to have; anything from school bullies to drunks at the bar, and to the kind of unarmed attacks an attacker is likely to use.

I employ five step, three step, and one step drills, and free sparring after the students have gained a measure of control.

In kumdo:
My student learn the eight basic cuts. They do a lot of repetitions of basic strikes and blocks, footwork drills, posture and stance drills, and distance drills. They practice hyeong using a mokdo and sparring drills using the jukdo.

I am very familiar with Hapkido. That all sounds great. A well established curriculum.

In hapkido, I don't call them fighters because we do not 'fight' competitively. Students begin free sparring with light contact. Once they have demonstrated control and are comfortable, students practice full contact. We use WTF taekwondo style protective gear.

Lot's of styles use our gear these days. I assume that when these students get to the point where they can fight full contact, they are fighting full contact against another person, correct? If so, that would be fighting competitively.

The hapkido association that I am in does not have HKD tournaments, but after many years of taekwondo, I feel that a full contact element is necessary. We essentially use WTF TKD rules with allowances for kicks to the outer thigh and outter calf, sweeps, takedowns, and some joint locks. Yes, there is a possibility of a KO in our full contact sparring.

Well there you go, if you do this, I feel your students will have an advantage over the non-full contact student should a SD situation arise.

Kumdo/kendo sparring is full contact. Student usually don't start actual sparring for about eight months to a year (around 6th geub/green belt usually). We both spar and fight under FIK rules. Daniel

A few years back I watched a regional Kendo championship at Cleveland State University, and it was serious bad a$z stuff. Kendo and Kumdo both competing at this event. I keep asking my friend who owns a Taekwondo school in the next town to join this Kendo club with me, but he and I are pretty busy.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Just to clarify, this ...

OK, so your students are not encouraged to knock each other out, there for there is no threat of real serious physical harm in your SD classes.

So this begs the question, if there is no real threat of serious physical harm in your classes, well, there is no real experience in dealing with a real serious threat. That is not SD oriented in my book.

...and this...

Since the beginning of time.

If there is no REAL threat of harm (full contact sparring), then basically no REAL physical and psychological self defense learning is taking place, like I said, it's all just fluff, sounds and looks good to the customer.

And I'm not talking about class, I'm talking about my students who are fighters who train during off hours.

...are what I have been trying to discuss with you. The comparisons between the part time recreational enthusiast and the serious competitive athlete is, at least for me, another discussion entirely. Not sure if you have been debating this with another poster(s), but it is not what I was asking you about. Somehow, it seems to have made its way into our exchange.

Simply to nip that in the bud, here is my opinion; take it for what its worth.

The harder one trains and practices and the better one conitions themselves, the better their chances of surviving a violent encounter.

The more good sense and good habits a person developes in their daily life, the less likely they will be to end up in a violent encounter.

I really don't think that what you train in is nearly as important as training well in whatever it is that you train. The best thing that an MA instructor can do for their students with regards to self protection is to instill good sense into them regarding how they go about their lives, none of which are related to physical defense in an attack. This will help them to avoid needlessly putting themselves at risk of being in a violent altercation or of being the victim of a crime of opportunity. It won't eliminate the possibility, but it will certainly reduce it.

The best thing that an instructor can do for their students to prepare them for a violent encounter is to instill sound basics and to pressure test the students so that they will not freeze up if they are confronted with a violent attacker.

The reason that competitive fighters have an edge in a violent encounter is not because they are knock out specialists (not all sport MA is striking based and thus a KO is not always a possible outcome) but because they practice what they do regularly and are constantly trying to get better. They practice by themselves, in a class setting, and against resisting opponents in both training and in competition.

In short, the competitor is less likely to freeze up and in a better position due to superior conditioning to survive the encounter.

Not all martial arts have a competitive element, but most will allow for what I described above.

Also, not all schools are equal, regardless of the art or of whether or not there is a competitive element. A crappy school tends to produce students with crappy skills.

Really, my point of disagreement with you revolves around your contention that aspects of training that do not involve threat of physical harm are just fluff for the customers.

Daniel

 

[mastercole]

Again, what does a recreational martial arts enthusiast have to do with the scenario?

I thought you were asking me to choose between the mugger and the athlete. You said you'd put money on the athlete. I said I'd need more info and provided some of the questions that I would have with regards to predicting the outcome of the encounter. Again, when did a recreational MA enthusiast enter the picture and when did we start comparing competitive athletes to recreational MA enthusiasts?

If I have either misread your scenario or if you were asking something else, please clarify.

I am stating that the martial art athlete has an advantage over the non-athlete martial artist, in any these SD situations.

Methinks we were composing our posts at the same time.

See my last post. If any of your questions are still unanswered, specify which ones and I will endeavor to answer them.

Daniel

Answered.

 

[dancingalone]

I am stating that the martial art athlete has an advantage over the non-athlete martial artist, in any these SD situations.

And Chuck Norris (or insert other MA idol/icon of your choice) would beat up anyone.

Big deal. This still has nothing to do with the discussion that one can or can't train for SD within a martial arts school environment. You say no. I say yes.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I am going to take it good faith then that you are not familiar with WTF style/Shihap Kyorugi. Today, it is all over the net and you can find many training videos. I took a quick look and found a few that should give you an idea of what most TKD athletes (and mine) do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XFHrtuVdk8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZKB5n-cr60&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xfivDk9L8Q&feature=related

I am familiar with it and practice it. Haven't competed in about two years, mainly due to time constraints.

I am very familiar with Hapkido. That all sounds great. A well established curriculum.

Lot's of styles use our gear these days. I assume that when these students get to the point where they can fight full contact, they are fighting full contact against another person, correct? If so, that would be fighting competitively.

I guess that it depends on how you define "competitively." We don't go to competitions and compete and we don't have a point system.

Well there you go, if you do this, I feel your students will have an advantage over the non-full contact student should a SD situation arise.

Yes, but non contact vs. full contact is not where I disagree with you.

The reason that I asked you to describe your training methodology first was not to avoid the question but to see if I actually disagree with it. It is entirely possible that we are on the same page, so I did not want to mischaracterize your teaching methodology without at least knowing what it is.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I am stating that the martial art athlete has an advantage over the non-athlete martial artist, in any these SD situations.

Okay, that is a different topic. You phrased it as mugger versus athlete, with your money being on the athlete, not as 'who would fare better against the mugger; the athlete MA-ist or the non athlete MA-ist.

My response of 'not enough info' was relating strictly to mugger vs. athlete.

I don't see this as having a clear cut answer because not all arts have a competive element but many that don't have other ways of achieving the same end.

The question of the serious competitor versus the weekend warrior isn't even a question in my opinion; the weekend warrior will never be as prepared as someone who trains hard four to six days a week and practices outside of class regularly, whether or not they are competing.

Daniel

 

[mastercole]

Just to clarify, this ...


...and this...


...are what I have been trying to discuss with you. The comparisons between the part time recreational enthusiast and the serious competitive athlete is, at least for me, another discussion entirely. Not sure if you have been debating this with another poster(s), but it is not what I was asking you about. Somehow, it seems to have made its way into our exchange.

I was debating martial art athlete vs the non-athlete martial artist, in SD situations.

Simply to nip that in the bud, here is my opinion; take it for what its worth.

The harder one trains and practices and the better one conitions themselves, the better their chances of surviving a violent encounter.

The more good sense and good habits a person developes in their daily life, the less likely they will be to end up in a violent encounter.

I really don't think that what you train in is nearly as important as training well in whatever it is that you train. The best thing that an MA instructor can do for their students with regards to self protection is to instill good sense into them regarding how they go about their lives, none of which are related to physical defense in an attack. This will help them to avoid needlessly putting themselves at risk of being in a violent altercation or of being the victim of a crime of opportunity. It won't eliminate the possibility, but it will certainly reduce it.

The best thing that an instructor can do for their students to prepare them for a violent encounter is to instill sound basics and to pressure test the students so that they will not freeze up if they are confronted with a violent attacker.

The reason that competitive fighters have an edge in a violent encounter is not because they are knock out specialists (not all sport MA is striking based and thus a KO is not always a possible outcome) but because they practice what they do regularly and are constantly trying to get better. They practice by themselves, in a class setting, and against resisting opponents in both training and in competition.

In short, the competitor is less likely to freeze up and in a better position due to superior conditioning to survive the encounter.

Not all martial arts have a competitive element, but most will allow for what I described above.

Also, not all schools are equal, regardless of the art or of whether or not there is a competitive element. A crappy school tends to produce students with crappy skills.

I pretty much agree with most of what you state here. But how do you effectively pressure test your students without unpredictable full contact against opponents?

Really, my point of disagreement with you revolves around your contention that aspects of training that do not involve threat of physical harm are just fluff for the customers. Daniel

No, my point is that stuff labeled as SD specific training that does not involve the REAL threat of physical harm (and the psychological stress that goes with it), is fluff. Our students can learn Hapkido, Taekwondo, Karate, etc, but we should not lead them to believe they are now qualified in SD.

 

[mastercole]

.
I don't see this as having a clear cut answer because not all arts have a competive element but many that don't have other ways of achieving the same end.

Daniel

What would be that other way of achieving what the martial art athlete achieves? Not talking about medals and awards.

 

[mastercole]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastercole
I am stating that the martial art athlete has an advantage over the non-athlete martial artist, in any these SD situations.

And Chuck Norris (or insert other MA idol/icon of your choice) would beat up anyone.

What are you talking about?

We were not talking about idols and icons. The subject was martial art athletes, they are in most every MA school, (not movie stars) compared to the non-athlete martial artist in SD situations.

Big deal. This still has nothing to do with the discussion that one can or can't train for SD within a martial arts school environment. You say no. I say yes.

Sure it does, we have all been talking about it for hours now.

 

[puunui]

I really don't know why is sounds that way to you? I don't really think you've fully grasped everything I've tried to communicate with you. No disrespect intended. From what you've indicated of your free sparring, from a SD perspective, it is very unrealistic because it doesn't seem to take into account the considerations I've listed in this (and other threads). I'm sure it is great sport training, and nothing wrong with that. But it isn't SD as it is extremely limited in its considerations, again, as I've listed above.

Speaking of extremely limited, I think one of the big differences between competition and self defense is that in competition you are training for something that you know will happen, whose skill may approximate your own. In self defense, you are training for an event that will most likely never happen, unless you get paid to be in such situations. If I am a soccer mom, why do I have to train like I am fighting one of Iraq's Republican Guard or a VC, looking suspiciously around every corner and at every person assuming they are some sort of threat? Who wants to live like that?

 

[puunui]

The question of the serious competitor versus the weekend warrior isn't even a question in my opinion; the weekend warrior will never be as prepared as someone who trains hard four to six days a week and practices outside of class regularly, whether or not they are competing.

How about the athlete or the person who takes an 8-24 hour weekend course on self defense every eighteen months or so? Who in your opinion is more prepared? That is the real discussion and the position of Kong Soo Do, that he says the 8-24 hour person is better prepared than an athlete.

 

[dancingalone]

Quote:
What are you talking about?

We were not talking about idols and icons. The subject was martial art athletes, they are in most every MA school, (not movie stars) compared to the non-athlete martial artist in SD situations.

Sure it does, we have all been talking about it for hours now.

Sigh. On the chance that you are NOT being disingenuous, I will make a serious reply.

You have asserted multiple times on various threads that martial arts instructors can't and don't teach self-defense. That is my primary point of contention with you. It may be that you don't, preferring to focus on other things (nothing wrong with that), but you make a blanket statement for everyone else too. You also cloud the whole line of discussion by engaging in this absurd comparison of 'athletes' vs. 'enthusiasts', effectively stating that an athlete will always outdo a lesser gifted person, yet that's not even what other people, myself included, are arguing at all.

So let's make it easy. This is my worldview:

You will have a higher rate of success in accomplishing a specific task if you have trained for it instead of not, all other things being equal.

Thus, if we take two identical people and one has trained to defend himself against a sideways knife slash and the other has trained to win a WTF rules TKD match, I believe the first people will have better success vs. a sideways slash from a knife. Just as I believe the second person will fare much better comparatively in a TKD match.

This is not rocket science. It's common sense. Trying to confuse the issue by comparing results from an elite athlete vs. Average Joe is only that, clouding the issue. This should be a discussion about training methods such as Kong Soo Do has described and whether they lead to martial artists that are prepared for SD encounters.

And in my opinion, yes we can train SD within martial arts schools effectively. Effective training means the introduction of risk and regular full contact striking and grappling at some point, but it does NOT mean that knock outs should be a possibility in EVERY single training session. Just as knife fighters do not always cut each other, so too is SD training graduated in intensity. You ramp up to level 10 and you also ramp down too. You don't go to level 10 instantly and stay there all the time.

 

[mastercole]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastercole
Lord of the Flies? I think that is a fantasy movie, the settings I am referring to are real. As an example, you can find them in just about any urban ghetto.<<<<

It was a simile. I can drop the literary references if you must make them a distraction from the discussion.

The only distraction I see here is the one you provided. Best to just stay on task then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastercole
Yes, from hard, full contact based training, not theatrical pretend scenarios.<<<

Again, you assume a lot. There's a decent amount of real data about how violent encounters typically unfold. Some of it has been mentioned before here, including the so-called Habitual Acts of Violence and other models that owe from it. Using this research as a starting place for development of SD case studies, for example, would hardly qualify as theatrical. Heck, even if someone is a bouncer, which some here are or have been, he will have been exposed personally to a myriad of violent scenarios which HAVE unfolded in real life.<<<

No you assume a lot, I know all about real life violence and I have scene all the latest and greatest scenarios models and gimmicks for SD. They are great tools for the MA business owner and if you play it right you can make some extra cash. But my point is, if it is marketed as SD, it's fluff. You can not teach SD, you acquire it from your environment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastercole
It gives an advantage over the enthusiast participant, any "likely" SD value is "likely" small.<<<

Well, that's fine and good if that's what you provide and your students want that. Others are definitely training for different goals with different levels of effectiveness through methodology unused by yourself. I would imagine their results would likewise differ.

You assume I never used it. Did I say that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastercole
I'd rather have the reality discussion. "Oh that's nice, how cool, sweet, etc", is not what we are doing here, I thought we were talking about our view of self defense? I think most of us are being courteous, and we are all big boys I assume? I mean, I don't feel a single person has to agree with anything I write, and I'm not insulted, so let's just stick with facts and opinions.<<<

Courtesy goes hand in hand with taekwondo. At least the version I learned.

What version was that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastercole
My own personal experience tells me that martial arts athletes, train longer hours and harder and thus have superior skills as compared to the SD/recreational/enthusiast general martial artist. I don't see that as fallacious at all, how could you? I see it as fact<<<

Again, you frame it in such a way as to 'win' your argument.

Take the same level of physical conditioning and honing and then apply it to someone training specifically against scenarios like a drawn knife or a 'football' tackle. Suddenly your whole athlete argument disappears as it should.

Actually the argument stands, thanks to you! If that non-athlete recreational weekend warrior enthusiast decided to kick their training up a hundred notches or so, guess what they would transform into.......drum roll...... a big mean fighting machine, martial arts athlete!

As I've stated, it should be a comparison of specific training drills and methodology, rather than some nebulous view of athlete vs. 'enthusiast'.

You might think so, but I don't think so and I have stated why.

 

[mastercole]

Speaking of extremely limited, I think one of the big differences between competition and self defense is that in competition you are training for something that you know will happen, whose skill may approximate your own. In self defense, you are training for an event that will most likely never happen, unless you get paid to be in such situations. If I am a soccer mom, why do I have to train like I am fighting one of Iraq's Republican Guard or a VC, looking suspiciously around every corner and at every person assuming they are some sort of threat? Who wants to live like that?

Now that was funny! LOL! Imagine that poor soccer mom....

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I was debating martial art athlete vs the non-athlete martial artist, in SD situations.

Understood, but I was not.

I pretty much agree with most of what you state here. But how do you effectively pressure test your students without unpredictable full contact against opponents?

Two things get pressure tested: the technique and the student. The technique can be learned by anyone, but until you have to use it against a resisting opponent, it is just a physical exercise. With strikes, the student needs to plant the blow against a moving target that is actively trying not to be hit, eight via blocks, or avoidance, and who is trying to hit back.

With grapples, it is impossible for the student to get to a point where instead of muscling through, the technique is doing the work (so to speak), without a resisting opponent.

A resisting opponent allows for refinement of technique, whether your opponent is one of the usual suspects or someone you have never met.

The student is pressure tested in that they have to not panic as someone else comes at them intent upon either striking them or taking them down in some fashion. While they many not be under threat of real bodilly harm, nobody wants to get whacked on and knocked over by some other guy at will, and nobody wants to have nothing that they do work.

In order to have randomness, students within the class rotate between other students who are of varying sizes and of differing genders. When I teach for KMA, Inc., the kwanjang has two schools plus three smaller studios that have a relationship with him (of which my own studio is one of), so students from all five studios get together on a semi regular basis to train together.

I also have a friend who owns her own school and is in a different HKD federation, and we try to get together with her and her students periodically as well.

It isn't overly formal, but it does provide a fairly diverse group.

No, my point is that stuff labeled as SD specific training that does not involve the REAL threat of physical harm (and the psychological stress that goes with it), is fluff.

Which is where we disagree, though I will say that I have seen a lot of stuff billed as "self defense" that should not be labeled as such.

I don't think that there is any way to truly replicate the psychological stress that goes with the threat of real physical harm in a school, or even a competitive, setting. You can only go but so far in replicating the threat of real physical harm without setting up an environment where people will be permanently injured or worse on a consistent basis.

In a school or competitive environment, there is always someone there to keep things from going too far. Even in the ring, you go in knowing that your opponent is matched in age, weight, gender, and belt level, and that even if you get KO'ed, you really are not under threat of real physical harm.

My goal as an instructor is to make sure that the techniques and responses are ingrained into the student so that they can use them without thought should the need arise. Hard sparring helps to eliminate the freezing that can happen, and prepares the student to be able to take a hit.

Our students can learn Hapkido, Taekwondo, Karate, etc, but we should not lead them to believe they are now qualified in SD.

I agree with you here, but I don't look at it as 'my students are now qualified in SD' so much as they now have tools that they can use should the need to defend themselves arise, and they train regularly in the use of those tools.

As to what gets labeled "SD," it is, at least the way that I and many others here look at it, a question of application. Doesn't mean that the technique set is entriely or at all different from what might be used in a competitive setting.

For self defense, I am a fan of a smaller number of individual techniques practiced consistently. WTF sport TKD certainly meets that standard. So too does boxing.

Also, I am of the opinion that competitive athletes can adapt to their environment. Some people disagree with me, and will throw out the story of some poor sap who is undone "on the street" because of some habit picked up in competition, but personally, I think that these are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Daniel

 

[puunui]

No you assume a lot, I know all about real life violence and I have scene all the latest and greatest scenarios models and gimmicks for SD. They are great tools for the MA business owner and if you play it right you can make some extra cash. But my point is, if it is marketed as SD, it's fluff. You can not teach SD, you acquire it from your environment.

In other words, how do you teach street smarts?

 

[dancingalone]

No you assume a lot, I know all about real life violence and I have scene all the latest and greatest scenarios models and gimmicks for SD. They are great tools for the MA business owner and if you play it right you can make some extra cash. But my point is, if it is marketed as SD, it's fluff. You can not teach SD, you acquire it from your environment.

Environment is intertwined with training. That is why we try to SIMULATE conditions as realistically as possible. That is why it's worthwhile to research common violent scenarios so we can try to replicate and train against them. We will NEVER be again to duplicate actual real violence completely - I think everyone would acknowledge that.

But you seem to be saying if you're not receiving knocks on the street and giving them out in return, your time has been misspent. I can not disagree any more strongly with that.

You assume I never used it. Did I say that?

Do you deny at all that you seem to be repudiating self-defense training? Sure sounds like you are saying SD training is a waste of time, if MA instructors can't teach it by your own words.

What version was that?

Does it matter? Jhoon Rhee Texkwondo if you must know. You might like the hard-sparring aspect of it. We pounded each other pretty good back then.

Actually the argument stands, thanks to you! If that non-athlete recreational weekend warrior enthusiast decided to kick their training up a hundred notches or so, guess what they would transform into.......drum roll...... a big mean fighting machine, martial arts athlete!

How about addressing my point about the effectiveness of training for specific outcomes?

You might think so, but I don't think so and I have stated why.

Yes, you're talking in circles. "Athletes are better than enthusiasts because they are more athletic." Never mind the point that if you take the exact same person and train him in SD skills in lieu of his current tournament curriculum, he'll be good in SD skills and probably not so good in TKD match skills.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

How about the athlete or the person who takes an 8-24 hour weekend course on self defense every eighteen months or so? Who in your opinion is more prepared? That is the real discussion and the position of Kong Soo Do, that he says the 8-24 hour person is better prepared than an athlete.

If taking the course every eighteen months or so is all that they are doing to keep their skills sharp, then they are not only less prepared than the athlete, but they are less prepared than the part time recreational MA enthusiast who goes to class once or twice a week. They may be even less prepared than the person who simply does nothing because they will have the illusion that they are more prepared than they actually are.

A competitive athlete who takes the same course with the same frequency will, all things being equal, be better prepared than the competitive athlete who does not.

Just to clarify, I do not consider simply training in WTF sparring a couple of times a week as part of a TKD class to qualify one as an athlete, competitive or otherwise: that person is enjoying the lifestyle benefits of the class and is simply training to that end. An athlete is training towards a specific goal of competitive sport, such as how ATC or Terry describe the competition teams at their schools.

Now, in fairness to KSD's position, I think that he is referring to LEO (not even sure it was in the US) who take the innitial class and then an annual or every 18 month refresher course. Not being LEO, I don't know what kind of regular training they do, so whether or not such a class is simply supplementing their existing training or comprising the entirety of it I don't know. Presumably, there is a degree to which the nature of the job will keep one's skills sharp as well.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

In other words, how do you teach street smarts?

Drilling specific technical skills such as how to handle a grab followed by a right haymaker is part of it. The movement becomes engrained and second nature to the student. An important part of that process is pattern recognition and spatial understanding. Those ultimately become key components to what we call street smarts.