What's the purpose of training.

[Black6x]

I'm still new to the forums, and I figured that I should participate more, especially since I've gotten back into training, and it's always good to share ideas. This is more of a post on something that I'd like others' perspective on.

Standing around thinking to myself about some idea on martial arts, I've came up with the hypothesis that the goal of training is to be able to consistently mitigate and/or reproduce the effects of luck in a confrontation. Those two terms seem contradictory, but let me explain, since it's really a matter of perspective.

Put two untrained individuals in a fight and let them slug it out. Most likely, you will see wild swings, some weak kicks, probably some biting, and most likely it will end with one person too tired/hurt to continue, or a luck hit that ends the fight. Targeting will probably be terrible: punches that hit the chest, hooking punches that go to far and make the forearm hit, etc. In this case, the luck is your opponent not being able to continue or you landing the strike that ends the fight.

Let's focus on the strike. Wild swings can be very ineffective. Punch someone in the pectoral and you're not going to get much of a reaction out of them, unless you know koshijutsu and understand where to hit (this is one of my favorite ways of screwing with my friends). Similar for strikes to the skull, especially if you hit with the wrong part of your hand. However, a properly aligned strike to a proper part of the jaw can cause a knockout, and one to the nose can incapicitate.

So you take the wild swinger and train them in some form of punching, like boxing. By teaching them how to strike and where to hit, you increase their chances of reproducing that hit that will damage their opponent. They train to the point where they can reproduce the technique on command. Now, as MMA has shown us, there's no guarantee to the hit knocking the person out every time. However, if when the person started, it was a 1 in 50 chance, training has reduced that to maybe a 1 in 5 chance. So, that's the reproduction of luck.

From a defender standpoint, you are attempting to mitigate their luck. If someone is punching you, you are attempting to lower their chance of hurting you.

However, this is really just a reproduction of luck all over again. Assume the attacker has some level of skill, and throws a punch. If our untrained defender happens to get out of the way, that was luck. If the attacker knows what they are doing, the defender will eventually be beaten up, yet somewhere in there, the defender will be lucky enough to avoid some punches, and maybe get a lucky, fight-ending punch in there.

Training is to reproduce this. Instead of getting hit 50 times in a fight, training to reproduce a valid defense may reduce this to 5, with the hopes of it being zero (although that may just be another level of luck). In fact, good training should give the defender the ability to have some control over the fight such that they do not find themselves in range of so many punches to begin with.

 

[Cyriacus]

At first, i misunderstood your intentions.

The only thing you really left out, is how Training reduces the likelyhood of Failure. Luck is only one small aspect, compared with Reflex Actions, and Speed Of Thought. That, coupled with the Physical Conditioning, Cardiovascular Improvement, Overall Speed and Power, and Confidence; All contribute to making a Practitioner much, much more capable of incapacitating an opponent in a timely manner.
To put that another way, yoiu talk about getting a lucky punch to end a fight - What about a Punch to a broad area which is more susceptible to injury? For example, instead of striking the Solar Plexus, striking the True Ribs; Not only harming the Ribs, but the Lungs. And if you seriously miss someones Ribs, you must be partially blind.
In addition, if you are struck, since in practice you have been struck, you will not react nearly as much as an untrained individual.
And why limit yourself to a "Lucky Punch"?
Kicking someones Knee, Performing a harsh Takedown as a result of deflecting a blow, Using a hard Block (For example, giving someones bare knuckles a nice Elbow to crash in to), and much else will all prove quite efficient.
Speed is also a big factor. Find any untrained individual who can Punch as fast as a Boxer with any remote amount of Power, and without just tensing their muscles so their arms twitch forward and back.

In short, you dont need to Knock Someone Out.
Or be Lucky.
You just need to Incapacitate them. And there are many, many means to that end.
I believe you are certainly on the right track with that particular aspect of things, albeit their are many more aspects than the ones mentioned.

 

[Jenna]

I'm still new to the forums, and I figured that I should participate more, especially since I've gotten back into training, and it's always good to share ideas. This is more of a post on something that I'd like others' perspective on.

Standing around thinking to myself about some idea on martial arts, I've came up with the hypothesis that the goal of training is to be able to consistently mitigate and/or reproduce the effects of luck in a confrontation. Those two terms seem contradictory, but let me explain, since it's really a matter of perspective.

Put two untrained individuals in a fight and let them slug it out. Most likely, you will see wild swings, some weak kicks, probably some biting, and most likely it will end with one person too tired/hurt to continue, or a luck hit that ends the fight. Targeting will probably be terrible: punches that hit the chest, hooking punches that go to far and make the forearm hit, etc. In this case, the luck is your opponent not being able to continue or you landing the strike that ends the fight.

Let's focus on the strike. Wild swings can be very ineffective. Punch someone in the pectoral and you're not going to get much of a reaction out of them, unless you know koshijutsu and understand where to hit (this is one of my favorite ways of screwing with my friends). Similar for strikes to the skull, especially if you hit with the wrong part of your hand. However, a properly aligned strike to a proper part of the jaw can cause a knockout, and one to the nose can incapicitate.

So you take the wild swinger and train them in some form of punching, like boxing. By teaching them how to strike and where to hit, you increase their chances of reproducing that hit that will damage their opponent. They train to the point where they can reproduce the technique on command. Now, as MMA has shown us, there's no guarantee to the hit knocking the person out every time. However, if when the person started, it was a 1 in 50 chance, training has reduced that to maybe a 1 in 5 chance. So, that's the reproduction of luck.

From a defender standpoint, you are attempting to mitigate their luck. If someone is punching you, you are attempting to lower their chance of hurting you.

However, this is really just a reproduction of luck all over again. Assume the attacker has some level of skill, and throws a punch. If our untrained defender happens to get out of the way, that was luck. If the attacker knows what they are doing, the defender will eventually be beaten up, yet somewhere in there, the defender will be lucky enough to avoid some punches, and maybe get a lucky, fight-ending punch in there.

Training is to reproduce this. Instead of getting hit 50 times in a fight, training to reproduce a valid defense may reduce this to 5, with the hopes of it being zero (although that may just be another level of luck). In fact, good training should give the defender the ability to have some control over the fight such that they do not find themselves in range of so many punches to begin with.

I think your hypothesis that we train to reproduce the effects of luck is a little strange. Perhaps it would be more pertinent to hypothesise not about luck and but about skill, no?

It is not your opponent's *luck* that sees him land a kick / strike / slash etc. in low tolerance area on your body, it is an imbalance in levels of *skill* between yours and his (even if you both happen to be untrained). In that instance, your skill is lower and his is higher. You were not unlucky in avoiding or not blocking his kick, nor was he lucky in landing the kick. Rather, your level of skill was insufficient to cope with his kick: either you were not rapid enough or fit enough to react to it, or your inexperience has not allowed you to anticipate his kick by watching his weight shifts. In either case, he was not necessarily luckier and but rather his skill level outperformed yours in that hypothetical instance.

I agree with the above post insofar as luck is only a small aspect of training. I think by training to increase SKILL we are setting about increasing our fighting advantage and but only as a secondary benefit are we reducing our exposure to the effects of (bad) luck.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Truthfully, I don't understand your concept.

Untrained individuals can be good or bad fighters. Some untrained people are quite dangerous, due to natural ability, aggressiveness, experience, and yes, luck. But luck is indeterminate; it can play a large or a minor role in any conflict between individuals; by nature it cannot be predicted.

Effective training has many positive effects. It reduces fear through conditioning to violence in a controlled setting. It creates conditioned responses to attacks of various sorts. It teaches confidence and reduces the impact of received pain stimulus. Some types of training teaches use of weapons of opportunity, which an untrained individual would not normally have and which do more than reduce the effects of luck.

 

[Black6x]

Cool, I'm liking how this is going.

Cyraicus, I didn't want to limit the idea of the strike to the head. Let's just say that for the sake of maintaining some type of brevity, I simplified some ideas (like the use of percentage, which is kind of crap), and didn't talk about everywhere that could be hit. So, for your point on being able to take the damage and continue, it's somewhat like mitigation of the attack, but in a different way than simply dodging, since it's unrealistic to train and assume that you will never get hit in a fight.

Jenna, I would say that we could call it a transition of luck to skill. So, having the luck to knock someone out, with training, becomes the skill to deliver such a punch on purpose. That being said, there is still a small amount of luck involved. None of us would say that the top UFC fighters aren't skilled. Yet punches fly and don't all knock out the opponent. Heck, some connect in what appears to be the perfect spot, and do not always produce the desired effect.

Bill, I guess that I don't want to limit the idea of training to a dojo or formalized setting. I think it's quite rare that someone on their first fight (maybe this is the thought that I should have used) comes out with a solid ability for to throw a jab-cross combination. However, an individual with street fighting capability would develop a certain skillset over time. The other thing you mentioned is fear, or stress. So training could lessen the effect of stress on the individual, or reduce the stress caused on the individual during a confrontation. So, now we have an increased clarity within the fight. The fighter then becomes more ably to deliver effective hits on a regular basis. With this clarity, then, comes the conditioned responses that you mentioned, meaning that training reduces the amount of thought that has to go into an action, leaving more available brain power to fight effectively without fear overtaking them.

 

[Josh Oakley]

The purpose of training: to slay my enemies, see them broken before me, and hear the lamentations of their women. ( sorry, had to do it).The real reason I train is to gain more understanding of my self, at this point. But the more you understand how to fight, the less you have to rely on luck. And good training enables you to not feel any NEED to fight, and includes techniques for diffusing a fight before it happens. These techniques are AT LEAST as valuable as the ability to fight.But the reason I say I train to understand myself better is that being able to fight is actually not that hard. Martial arts becomes about understanding one's weaknesses and overcoming them, as well as understanding how people work best with one another. Being able to fight well is still a top priority for me, but it is no longer THE top priority.

 

[Cyriacus]

Cool, I'm liking how this is going.

Cyraicus, I didn't want to limit the idea of the strike to the head. Let's just say that for the sake of maintaining some type of brevity, I simplified some ideas (like the use of percentage, which is kind of crap), and didn't talk about everywhere that could be hit. So, for your point on being able to take the damage and continue, it's somewhat like mitigation of the attack, but in a different way than simply dodging, since it's unrealistic to train and assume that you will never get hit in a fight.

Who needs brevity - We all have ample time to overextradite this discussion!
The main thing i initially intended was that knocking someone out, isnt the only means. But sure, ill let you say you were compacting statements.
And yes, it is unrealistic to assume youll get out of the situation uninjured.
After all, if you do pull it off, then you can be all pleased with yourself for not expecting it

 

[Buka]

Sparring, rolling and banging away at each other is a fun part of training. (hopefully, anyway) But at the risk of sounding like an *** - the purpose of training is the development of character. Everything else is just gravy.

As for the fight part of training, I feel it's about three things. It's all about distance. It's all about timing. It's all about being able to take a beating longer than the other guy can give one.

 

[Cyriacus]

Sparring, rolling and banging away at each other is a fun part of training. (hopefully, anyway) But at the risk of sounding like an *** - the purpose of training is the development of character. Everything else is just gravy.

As for the fight part of training, I feel it's about three things. It's all about distance. It's all about timing. It's all about being able to take a beating longer than the other guy can give one.

Id call that Subjective - I for one would consider Development of Character to be Gravy, and that i mainly gain Overall Fitness, both Combatative and Physical, with Psychological as a nice Biproduct.

 

[chinto]

we train to develop and maintain the skills in combat that will hopefully allow us to survive an altercation, preferably with out injury.

 

[oftheherd1]

I think your premise is off. Luck by definition isn't something you can train for. Skill enhancement you can. And superior skill should overcome most if not all luck.

 

[Jenna]

Jenna, I would say that we could call it a transition of luck to skill. So, having the luck to knock someone out, with training, becomes the skill to deliver such a punch on purpose. That being said, there is still a small amount of luck involved. None of us would say that the top UFC fighters aren't skilled. Yet punches fly and don't all knock out the opponent. Heck, some connect in what appears to be the perfect spot, and do not always produce the desired effect.

You could call it a "transition of luck to skill", yes. And but you could also call it the transition from unskilled fighting to skilled fighting.

Luck is still an extracurricular factor I think, no? The examples you cite, cannot generally be accounted for in training I think.

As an untrained practitioner in weapons arts, I may throw a shuriken at you and land it in your eye from 50 yards in the gloaming light of dusk. That is pure luck on my part, yes. That you were hit in the eye with it though (assuming you have some training), is a reflection NOT of your bad luck and but rather your lack of skill. DO you not agree?

I think we are too quick to blame bad luck for all our misfortunes now when more often than not, it is simply our lack of skill at what we are doing. I work in a garage. I have been nurse to plenty of minor and a few major injuries. It is not for me to say at the time and but in quite a few of these cases, while the accidents were caused by what was deemed bad luck, the truth was that had certain people adhered more closely to their training on use of lifts, jacks and equipment and had they not been so complacent then they would not have got theirselves injured. This reflects a lack of skill in what people are trained to do.

Skill. Not luck

 

[billc]

To get women?..err...I mean...self-development....

 

[Cyriacus]

To get women?..err...I mean...self-development....

Are you implying that through sufficient training, you could become a women?

 

[WC_lun]

The point of training depends entirely on the focus of the student and the school they attend. For example, if a school focuses on things such as wu shu competition forms, the results are not going to be a person well versed in MMA. There is nothing inferior about one focus over another, the trick is being honest and aware of where the focus lies.

 

[ATC]

The OP really makes no sense at all. Luck is random, and cannot be predicted nor trained for. For example; If you are on your way to a fight that you know you are going to get your *** handed to you but the person you were to fight got hit by a car on the way to the fight, then you might be able to say you got lucky. A random happening that was out of your control.

But if in a fight and you swing wildly and connect and KO the person that you were fighting, would not be luck. You intended to swing and hit the hit the person and you did. No luck involved, regardless if the person was bigger, stronger, faster, or more skilled or better trained. Even if your eyes were closed when you did it, it’s still not luck.

Now if you did that same thing and hit the wrong person but that wrong person was going to shoot you but you did not know it, then again, you might be able to call it luck. But not two people with intent towards one another.

To call something luck or lucky would mean that you accomplished something that you did not intend to do. Find $20 just because you slipped and fell and saw the 20 while you were lying down is luck.

Punch someone in the face that slipped on some sand is not luck. That is simply preparation meeting opportunity, not luck.

You definition of luck is flawed based on your post.

 

[billc]

Murphy's Law: "The race does not always go to the swift nor the battle to the strong...but that's the way to bet."

 

[Aiki Lee]

Luck as, I understand it is being fortunate through chance and no amount of meddling should therefore affect a person's luck (unless you happen to be susperstitous i guess).

Training improves skill, which is the opposite of luck. As luck would have it that something benefits you through no intended action of your own, skill has you benefit through an intended action that was practiced.

To put it in a simpler way. You could roll a dice or flip a coin a thousand times and not concievably get "better" at it in terms of getting the results you want, but you can practice a punch or throw or whatever and should get closer to what you want. Hence the difference between luck and skill.

 

[Black6x]

ATC,

If you throw punches without knowledge of where they will land, and happen to knock someone out, that would be luck. If I throw a basketball at a hoop, having no experience in doing so (but still understanding that the best result is that the ball goes in), and it goes in, is that not luck? Sure you may have wanted to knock him out, but a random punch. For example, isn't "swinging wildly" the same as swinging randomly (granted, not calculated random, but without purpose true random). You didn't intend to swing and knock the person out. You hoped that it would happen.

Strangely, you're not the first person to become wrapped around the axle about the word, while not focusing on the concept of the training. Here's my response from a discussion with someone else:

If you want, you can change luck to "increase the frequency of an outcome that was initially unintended because of lack of knowledge of technique." Why belittle the entire idea because you focus on one singe word, even though it may not be the best word in your opinion.

Knockout from a punch is caused by movement of the brain into the cranial wall. It's basically a type of concussion. However, such an outcome is not guaranteed in the hit. Boxing and UFC have shown this (maybe more so with UFC, since the gloves aren't as padded). We've probably seen a punch land that has crumpled one guy, and yet that same punch, on another guy had less or no effect. But that punch is still a skilled punch.

However in a fight, the outcome isn't only up to the individual delivering the technique, but the recipient, also. Larger head means more cranial fluid, which means harder to concuss. These guys have taken hits to the head (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/767199-dan-henderson-and-the-30-hardest-heads-in-mma-history). Why no knockout? Are their opponents unskilled? Or is it that even with a perfectly landed punch, you have to be lucky enough to have someone that's susceptible to the strike. Although "luck" in drawing an opponent is different form.

So training aims to increase the ability to throw that particular punch, accurately and powerfully, regardless of the recipient's reaction to it. That is, if I hit every individual with that punch they will not all go down. The trick is that training makes that punch reproducible at will. That is, rather than throwing a number of wild punches and happening to throw that punch, I now just throw that punch. I now have a higher chance of producing that concussion.

So after years of training, no, it's not a lucky shot. However, my statement brought up the person that did not have years of training. In the end, we're all trying to mimic the first guy that figured out that if you punch another guy in a certain spot, he stops moving.

 

[Cyriacus]

ATC,

I feel the need to comment on some of this - Before you consider saying anything about who you were addressing

If you throw punches without knowledge of where they will land, and happen to knock someone out, that would be luck. If I throw a basketball at a hoop, having no experience in doing so (but still understanding that the best result is that the ball goes in), and it goes in, is that not luck? Sure you may have wanted to knock him out, but a random punch. For example, isn't "swinging wildly" the same as swinging randomly (granted, not calculated random, but without purpose true random). You didn't intend to swing and knock the person out. You hoped that it would happen.

Of course, if you have no skill whatsoever, that would be the case GENERALLY. But at the same time, plenty of people will walk in to a Dojo/jang for the first time and do better than most newbies. Is that Luck, that they were born with those Instincts? Heh.

Strangely, you're not the first person to become wrapped around the axle about the word, while not focusing on the concept of the training. Here's my response from a discussion with someone else:

Id be careful with saying "Proper Concept of Training". That is highly subjective, and relevant only to the Individual.

If you want, you can change luck to "increase the frequency of an outcome that was initially unintended because of lack of knowledge of technique." Why belittle the entire idea because you focus on one singe word, even though it may not be the best word in your opinion.

Because Increasing the Frequency of an Outcome through Deliberation is Skill. To refer to the Unintended, says simply: Why were you Punching the guy in the head? If you werent trying to take him out, WHY would you be Punching him in the head? Thats where your Logic is also contradictory, since Technique is only one aspect of this conversation. I cant help but think that the more i read this, the more i think i was right on the money in my response, in which i said that Luck was an aspect, but not the whole Picture.

Knockout from a punch is caused by movement of the brain into the cranial wall. It's basically a type of concussion. However, such an outcome is not guaranteed in the hit. Boxing and UFC have shown this (maybe more so with UFC, since the gloves aren't as padded). We've probably seen a punch land that has crumpled one guy, and yet that same punch, on another guy had less or no effect. But that punch is still a skilled punch.

Many Factors come in to that. More than just being Lucky. But i can name numerous strikes which WILL work if they connect. Im sure most of the MAists here can also.

However in a fight, the outcome isn't only up to the individual delivering the technique, but the recipient, also. Larger head means more cranial fluid, which means harder to concuss. These guys have taken hits to the head (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/767199-dan-henderson-and-the-30-hardest-heads-in-mma-history). Why no knockout? Are their opponents unskilled? Or is it that even with a perfectly landed punch, you have to be lucky enough to have someone that's susceptible to the strike. Although "luck" in drawing an opponent is different form.

Their Opponents are somewhat Unskilled, for not altering their Shots to hitting the Body. Optionally, you dont need to rock someones brain to knock them out. You can have an Iron Jaw, Iron Chin; But you cannot have an Iron Nose. Or an Iron Eye. Or an Iron Floating Rib. You can have an Iron Ribcage, but not Iron Lungs. See where im going with this?

So training aims to increase the ability to throw that particular punch, accurately and powerfully, regardless of the recipient's reaction to it. That is, if I hit every individual with that punch they will not all go down. The trick is that training makes that punch reproducible at will. That is, rather than throwing a number of wild punches and happening to throw that punch, I now just throw that punch. I now have a higher chance of producing that concussion.

Your phrasing of this is weird. But your conclusion is correct. Much like the OP. But even an unskilled individual isnt completely wild in their techniques.

So after years of training, no, it's not a lucky shot. However, my statement brought up the person that did not have years of training. In the end, we're all trying to mimic the first guy that figured out that if you punch another guy in a certain spot, he stops moving.

Id ammend Years to Months. You dont need to train for Years to be able to properly perform a Technique. Nor do you perhaps need or want all of your shots to Knock the other Guy out; But thats another Topic.

Despite everything, im still barely following the idealogy of this entire Thread