Can You Be An Expert?

[Steve]

Well. I'm not saying its "necessary" ...as long as the student can pass to standard at the end of instruction than mission accomplished. But then instructors like Kyle Lamb who will demonstrate and even compete with students on courses of fire are a whole other level of instruction.

The effect of a competent and experienced instructor who can show what skills he/she is trying to impart is something spectacular but rare in a lot of modern training IMO. Of course training new shooters is different from training SWAT coppers....or at least it should be IMO. New shooters tend to be easier to train through "tell me" methods. Advanced students tend to respond better to "show me"...at least I do.

I'm no DELTA trooper, but even as the team commander (who never does entry anymore) I still get on the range and in the shoot house for a stage or two simply to show that I can walk the talk.

Not that I'm arguing with ya... ...just rambling through a train of thought.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Just a question to throw out to the group. In the scenario above, you are talking about something pretty specific. What would you think about a guy who had nailed every single officer and SWAT training course, top of the class, but had never worked as a cop? This guy could recite every rule and regulation, and holds the course records for every training exercise at every level, including advanced training courses. What if that guy was your new commander.

Would you consider him to be an expert? I wouldn't, although he would probably be a very well trained, highly capable rookie.

 

[DennisBreene]

Just a question to throw out to the group. In the scenario above, you are talking about something pretty specific. What would you think about a guy who had nailed every single officer and SWAT training course, top of the class, but had never worked as a cop? This guy could recite every rule and regulation, and holds the course records for every training exercise at every level, including advanced training courses. What if that guy was your new commander.

Would you consider him to be an expert? I wouldn't, although he would probably be a very well trained, highly capable rookie.

I think the answer lies somewhere in that persistent problem of defining expertise. Clearly this individual is expert in the training concepts and has not been field tested. So, I think it would be fair to say he is not expert in field application. It's splitting hairs admittedly and it's those fine distinctions in the attempt to arrive at an acceptable working definition for expertise in self defense that seem to hang up the discussion. Is it reasonable to say that someone can be recognized as an expert in aspects of self defense for the purpose of general discussion, and that their contribution has merit, and also recognize that there are experts who's particular expertise includes experience with field application? Both experts can have something to contribute to the discussion. The expert with field experience may have more specific insight when the discussion turns to issues related to field application if his experience includes the techniques under discussion. If his experience does not include a specific situation, his insight may be of less value, but still have some merit in both theory and in experience with applications that are similar enough to be relevant. I doubt you will find a single "expert" who can speak with authority and from personal experience about every potential type of situation. I would think that a panel of experts, all contributing their insights, would be more likely to give a balanced presentation of relevant aspects of self defense issues for different categories of self defense. So in practice; you might need the input from several experts to cover personal street defense and another group of experts covering defense with certain weapon types and so forth.

In my experience, in medical conferences, I rarely saw a topic covered by one individual. A panel discussion simply brought more collective wisdom to the issues under review. The audience member then has the opportunity and responsibility to take those insights and apply them in whatever way seems appropriate to that audience members personal situation.

 

[ballen0351]

Just a question to throw out to the group. In the scenario above, you are talking about something pretty specific. What would you think about a guy who had nailed every single officer and SWAT training course, top of the class, but had never worked as a cop? This guy could recite every rule and regulation, and holds the course records for every training exercise at every level, including advanced training courses. What if that guy was your new commander.

Would you consider him to be an expert? I wouldn't, although he would probably be a very well trained, highly capable rookie.

Its an impossible question since I don't know of any scenario where someone would a a police swat commander and have never been a cop. However I'd consider him a expert in tactics but not a leader

 

[ballen0351]

I think there's another good question here that you're raising, Ballen. Do you have to be an expert in order to be an effective instructor?

I'd say that it depends upon the level of the instruction. Several years ago, I took a jiu jitsu seminar as a white belt from a 3rd degree BJJ black belt. Honestly, while a great experience, the only thing I took away from that experience were awesome memories. The actual instruction was so far above my skill level that I lacked the context to even remember it. The purple belts, however, gained a TON, because they could appreciate and benefit from the depth of the instructor's expertise.

But that's a different question than whether or not the person is an expert or the degree of expertise the person has.

I don't think you need to be an expert to teach. I teach a lot of things but I'm not an expert at anything

 

[Hyoho]

My menkyo maiden certificate translated into English sums it up. It says I still have a lot to learn.

 

[wingchun100]

Tough call, and an interesting thread. I didn't have time to read all the other posts, nor did I want to because I wanted to share my own opinion with no influence from the others.

I train in wing chun. In advertisement Sifu calls it "an intelligent system of self-defense." Or at least, he did back in the day. He used to even have different class times: 6-7 was wing chun, 7-8 was self-defense. Now he has dropped that. I am not sure how many street fights or self-defense situations he may have been in, but I think he dropped it because he knows teaching a style and teaching a self-defense class are two different things.

If I were to open a school, I would definitely stress the difference. Yes, wing chun is a martial art...yes, martial arts can be applied to self-defense situations...but I am NOT teaching a self-defense course. From the ones I have attended, self-defense courses teach some techniques to diffuse situations that could lead to a fistfight, or worse. They include some physical activity, but not much. There is no principle or theory taught. In wing chun, you have nothing BUT theory. You aren't just learning moves, but you are also learning why you are doing them, what makes them effective.

And not for nothing, but if I have never been in a street fight where my wing chun skills were proven to be great, why would I say I am teaching self-defense?

 

[ballen0351]

Tough call, and an interesting thread. I didn't have time to read all the other posts, nor did I want to because I wanted to share my own opinion with no influence from the others.

I train in wing chun. In advertisement Sifu calls it "an intelligent system of self-defense." Or at least, he did back in the day. He used to even have different class times: 6-7 was wing chun, 7-8 was self-defense. Now he has dropped that. I am not sure how many street fights or self-defense situations he may have been in, but I think he dropped it because he knows teaching a style and teaching a self-defense class are two different things.

If I were to open a school, I would definitely stress the difference. Yes, wing chun is a martial art...yes, martial arts can be applied to self-defense situations...but I am NOT teaching a self-defense course. From the ones I have attended, self-defense courses teach some techniques to diffuse situations that could lead to a fistfight, or worse. They include some physical activity, but not much. There is no principle or theory taught. In wing chun, you have nothing BUT theory. You aren't just learning moves, but you are also learning why you are doing them, what makes them effective.

And not for nothing, but if I have never been in a street fight where my wing chun skills were proven to be great, why would I say I am teaching self-defense?

Teaching slef defense and being an expert at self defense are two different things. Unless you believe that you much be an expert before you can teach something.

 

[K-man]

I train in wing chun. In advertisement Sifu calls it "an intelligent system of self-defense." Or at least, he did back in the day. He used to even have different class times: 6-7 was wing chun, 7-8 was self-defense. Now he has dropped that. I am not sure how many street fights or self-defense situations he may have been in, but I think he dropped it because he knows teaching a style and teaching a self-defense class are two different things.

If I were to open a school, I would definitely stress the difference. Yes, wing chun is a martial art...yes, martial arts can be applied to self-defense situations...but I am NOT teaching a self-defense course. From the ones I have attended, self-defense courses teach some techniques to diffuse situations that could lead to a fistfight, or worse. They include some physical activity, but not much. There is no principle or theory taught. In wing chun, you have nothing BUT theory. You aren't just learning moves, but you are also learning why you are doing them, what makes them effective.

And not for nothing, but if I have never been in a street fight where my wing chun skills were proven to be great, why would I say I am teaching self-defense?

I think this is totally irrelevant to the OP but interesting never the less. Could I ask, why do you train Wing Chun? If you train it because it is an interesting thing to do, a bit like the way most people train Tai Chi then fine, it has nothing to do with self defence. If you are training it as a fighting art then inherently it is for self defence or why else does it exist? If you were teaching a really short course of self defence you wouldn't teach Wing Chun, Karate, Aikido, BJJ etc because that takes too long, but if you are saying that within Wing Chun you haven't got the techniques to conduct a pretty comprehensive self defence course, I would question your Wing Chun training. I would suggest that a competent instructor in WC should be teaching SD at the same time. Whether or not he claims to be an expert in either is up to him.
:asian:

 

[Steve]

I think it makes perfect sense for him to distinguish between the two.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[K-man]

I think it makes perfect sense for him to distinguish between the two.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Steve]

Care to elaborate?

No keyboard, but if you go back and read the thread, I'm pretty sure you'll get the gist of it.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[RTKDCMB]

The best way that I have heard of the word expert being defined is;

An Ex is a has-been and a Spurt is a drip under pressure.

 

[K-man]

I think it makes perfect sense for him to distinguish between the two.

OK.

Originally Posted by wingchun100 ..I train in wing chun. In advertisement Sifu calls it "an intelligent system of self-defense." Or at least, he did back in the day. He used to even have different class times: 6-7 was wing chun, 7-8 was self-defense. Now he has dropped that. I am not sure how many street fights or self-defense situations he may have been in, but I think he dropped it because he knows teaching a style and teaching a self-defense class are two different things.


If I were to open a school, I would definitely stress the difference. Yes, wing chun is a martial art...yes, martial arts can be applied to self-defense situations...but I am NOT teaching a self-defense course. From the ones I have attended, self-defense courses teach some techniques to diffuse situations that could lead to a fistfight, or worse. They include some physical activity, but not much. There is no principle or theory taught. In wing chun, you have nothing BUT theory. You aren't just learning moves, but you are also learning why you are doing them, what makes them effective.

So are you saying that learning Wing Chun is not learning self defence? It makes sense to you that a Sifu teaching a martial art has to teach teach self defence as well as his martial art? You are agreeing that even though you agree that WC can be applied to self defence situations teaching WC is not teaching a self defence course?

For comparison. Goju is also a martial art. It also has principles and theory. We also aren't just learning moves, but are also learning why you are doing them, what makes them effective. So why is it that in Goju every single thing I teach is targeted at self defence but WC is not doing the same thing?

I was just asking why you would find perfect sense in something that I find totally at odds with the reason most people learn a martial art and your response is to tell me to reread the thread!
:idunno:

 

[MJS]

Your a recruit it doesn't matter who you want to be trainedby you don't get a choice. Its also an impossible scenario since to be a MD law enforcement certified fire arms instructor you have to shoot a gun and qualify as part of the class. When I went they only kept you in the class if you scored above a 96%. Every time we shot. You dropped below you were removed from the instructors class.

Ok, poor use of an example. You're the person in charge of the academy. Wouldn't you want the best possible instruction? Would there be any scenario in which you'd want someone with more skill and knowledge?

 

[Steve]

OK.

So are you saying that learning Wing Chun is not learning self defence? It makes sense to you that a Sifu teaching a martial art has to teach teach self defence as well as his martial art? You are agreeing that even though you agree that WC can be applied to self defence situations teaching WC is not teaching a self defence course?

For comparison. Goju is also a martial art. It also has principles and theory. We also aren't just learning moves, but are also learning why you are doing them, what makes them effective. So why is it that in Goju every single thing I teach is targeted at self defence but WC is not doing the same thing?

I was just asking why you would find perfect sense in something that I find totally at odds with the reason most people learn a martial art and your response is to tell me to reread the thread!
:idunno:

My opinion is that learning wing chun is just that: learning wing chun. And really, to be more specific, you're learning a specific flavor of WC.

As with all martial arts styles, there are going to be some self defense applications, but my personal belief is that there is no style that teaches comprehensive self defense. Everyone teaches a piece of the puzzle, some pieces are larger than others.

Earlier in the thread, I compared the term "self defense" to another abstract, "love." In my opinion, you can't really teach people "self defense" because you can't teach people an abstract. In the same way, you can't teach a young couple love. You can't take two people and teach them to be in love.

But you CAN teach a young couple how to be a better couple. They can be taught how to better communicate with each other and how to avoid common pitfalls. Problem areas, traps and pitfalls in their relationships can be identified and skills can be taught to help them manage those areas. In other words, you can't teach people how to be in love, but you CAN teach them skills that could help them STAY in love. And these skills are very specific. Communications, financial management, career guidance, parenting, etc.

In the same way, you can't (IMO) teach self defense. But you can teach skills that may (or may not) have some application in self defense.

If your question to me was genuine, I believe if you read my threads you understand my perspective, even if you disagree. Without a keyboard, typing anything as lengthy as this response on a phone or tablet is tedious. So, yeah. Asking me the same question again, but with a little attitude doesn't change anything. My intent wasn't to put you off, but it's a little irritating that you can't be bothered to read (or re-read if necessary) the damned thread.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

you can't really teach people "self defense" because you can't teach people an abstract.

Agree with you 100% on this. I teach people how to land their fists on their opponent's face. Whether they want to call that "self-defense", "sport", or "combat", I can't care less.

 

[K-man]

Remembering that the post I was referring to was not about being an expert but about self defence or even more specifically that learning WC not giving you self defence skills I have trawled back through all you posts and I'm sorry, I don't think you have posted anything in this thread that is really relevant to wingchun100's post.

In the same way, we have a lot of people who teach self defense, who, like Chris, believe that studying something can lead to expertise. I disagree. You can get to the piont where you might be able to apply skills. But that does not equal expert.

Vague association but assuming WC is a legitimate martial art, when you get to the point where you can apply the skills learned you should be able to defend yourself. I'm not sure whether your comment in your last post was suggesting that WC was not effective anyway. "My opinion is that learning wing chun is just that: learning wing chun."

Most martial arts training stops somewhere between comprehension and application. The transition you guys are talking about is exactly the transition between comprehension and application. In adult learning and business training, this is the big challenge. How to get people out of training and able to apply the skills on the job in the quickest, most eficient and reliable way.

But, in business, as in ANY human endeavor, competence is the FIRST step toward expertise. In other words, a person who is an expert must be competent, but not every person who is competent is an expert.

So again ignoring the expert bit, I'm thinking that if you train in a martial art you become competent. If a martial art is actually a martial art and you are competent you should be able to defend yourself.

This is what I was referring to in the other thread. If you're training in goju ryu karate, you can certainly become an expert in that system. If Chris Parker or RTKDCMB teaches a defined curriculum with standards and measures of proficiency, then of course students could advance within the system and become experts.

If you become expert in a system that was created for self defence as the Chinese and Okinawan systems were, and you are saying here that you can become an expert in that system. So why would you even consider teaching self defence separately?

What I hear you saying is that, in addition to experience, you need to be well trained. I agree.

So assuming the Sifu is well trained in a martial art, which was designed to provide self defence why does he teach self defence as a separate thing?

I just want to point out to you guys that you're specifically talking about the act of doing what you've trained to do. In a combat unit, is the guy fresh out of training considered an expert? Nothing left for him to learn?

If you're thinking, "Yes, of course there's more for him to learn," then we are in complete agreement. I would say that a highly capable, fully trained combat soldier coming out of training and into his first unit is likely competent. But, do you guys really think he's an expert?

On the bloom's taxonomy model I mentioned earlier (Knowledge - Comprehension - Application - Analysis - Synthesis - Evalution), I'd put the new guy right on the hyphen between Comprehension and Application. Doing it is "application" level. NCOs with years in the trade are moving up beyond simple competence.

This might be more like it. So some one comes out of training in a combat unit is competent to go into combat but someone coming out of training for WC who is competent in WC is not ready to defend themselves in a fight. Mmm?

So, you're saying that the trainees aren't experts, and even some of their trainers weren't experts, either? But, I bet the trainers were well trained in the specific training model. Right? They may not have been expert paratroopers, but they were probably excellent trainers.

So, let's apply this to martial arts: Let's say there's a "self defense" boot camp. The trainer isn't a "Self Defense" expert (in the same way that some of the instructors at Jump School weren't experts). But he's an expert in the system. What is he teaching you? The system. What are you becoming competent in? The system. And when you "graduate" from the training, you may be competent in the system and may have learned some VERY solid techniques that can help you defend yourself. But, you're not a self defense expert. And neither was your instructor.

Not an expert, but surely you should have some idea of how to defend yourself?

Here's the main point. Training, no matter how good, can only prepare you for competence.

Not everyone will work in trade that will take them to a level of expertise.

Abd to be clear, for most people, this is plenty. The danger is when a competent expert creates a system and then people start misrepresenting the system. A guy creates a system and then traces another guy, abd that guy things that he's a self defense expert because he's an expert in the system. I would suggest that the two are not the same.

A bit confusing. A few posts back you could be competent but now you are only prepared for competence.

The point, though, where this experienced person puts together his/her system, the training becomes codified and specific. In other words, he's not teaching "self defense". He's teaching his system. And while this won't make any difference in the short term, I believe that down the road it does. A question I posed in the other thread was how many generations from practical expertise have to occur before the efficacy of the training will suffer? Let's say you are an experienced guy with a lot of practical, hands on knowledge of a subject. Using your expertise, you put together a training curriculum that is practical and effective and you begin teaching people. They, in turn, become experts in your system and begin teaching other people. And so on. This is how martial arts work. A guy develops his system. He teaches people, who teach people, who teach people.

The simple point I'm making is that they are specifically teaching people the system. The expertise being gained isn't "self defense." It's the system. And, at some point, I believe that without reality checks, the system will suffer from the presumption of efficacy.

This might be closer. But here we would be saying WC is a system, the guy teaching the system learned from a guy teaching the system, it was never tested so now it may not work. But what if it had been tested along the way. What if there was input from real life situations that validate the system?

Totally agree, and this was the genesis of the original thread. Self Defense is so vague that I don't think it's very useful. BJJ doesn't, IMO, teach self defense, although some of the skills are certainly useful. MMA doesn't teach self defense, either, although once again, some of the skills can be useful.

But, Krav Maga doesn't teach self defense, either. In exactly the same way BJJ/MMA/Boxing etc teach the system, Krav Maga teaches a method. Without the reality checks and practical experience, the best someone can hope for out of their training is expertise within the system, and... maybe... competent defense skills. But an expert in Krav Maga, Systema or whatever, is not necessarily an expert in self defense. Might be, but not necessarily.

Why is this? I believe it's because "self defense" is a sales pitch.

Ant thus is important. BJJ and MMA are teaching for sport. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be useful for SD but you are confusing two different things. TMAs are designed to teach self defence. Sport styles are training you for competition. Because you perceive your training to lack the SD component doesn't mean the others do.

And no, self defence is just that. Learning to defend yourself. As I tell everyone, if you think there is anything I teach that you can't use in a pub brawl, let me know and I'll chuck it out. And your comment about Krav and Systema is so far from accurate it doesn't require comment.

I would say that if you train in a specific martial art, regardless of which art, you are working on becoming an expert in that specific system. Where "expert" falls and how it's defined will be specific to that art. The fundamental point here is that, you cannot become an expert in Goju Ryu Karate by studying (no matter how diligently) BJJ. You cannot become an expert in Budo Taijutsu by studying Judo. Simply put, you cannot become an expert in one thing by studying something else. It seems obvious, I know.

Self Defense is vague. It's like saying "love." Love means something different to everyone... and so does "self defense." People don't train self defense. People train in systems.

This seems to be saying if you study one thing (WC) you can't become an expert in another (SD) but when WC=SD your comment doesn't make sense.

I believe that every martial art system, sport or non-sport, has strengths and weaknesses. There is no perfect system.

Is BJJ good for self defense or bad for self defense? The answer is it's both good and bad. There are good things and bad things taught in BJJ that might apply to self defense. Same for MMA. And, here's the key. It's the same for all arts.

Now, this isn't to say that all arts are equal. Quality training can make a big difference. I'm not suggesting that all training is equally effective. I'm simply saying that training can only take you, at best, to the cusp of competence. In order to become competent (which is the first step on the road to becoming an expert), you have to apply the skills outside of training. And for most people, this is plenty.

Ballen pointed out a guy he respects who teaches a system that he believes is VERY effective for him. How is ballen able to say this? Because ballen uses the system in real life. He's making the leap from comprehension to application and then to evaluation. While is friend is an expert in the system he teaches, I'd argue that the person who is becoming a real expert is ballen, since he's developing skills within the system AND accumulating experience applying the skills outside of training. And, the best possible instruction I could receive would be from someone who is an expert in the system AND ALSO has the tacit knowledge that can only be learned over time with experience.

Speak for BJJ but not for others. You have no idea of TMA training except in the sporting context which is why we are having this discussion. If ballen's system works my system works.

I think that there are experts, but that it's worth taking a few moments to identify the areas of expertise. Any conversation or debate on the subject of self defense suffers from a lack of specificity. As I've said many times, the term is so vague as to be worthless. The conversations inevitably deteriorate because everyone has something different in mind when they think of "self defense."

But, a 5th degree black belt in Judo is, I believe, clearly an expert Judoka and likely a very credible resource if you're looking for self defense training. A former Navy Seal would be an expert in a completely different piece of the puzzle. While you could say that they're both "self defense" experts, I think it's much better to be more specific.

The Judoka may never have been in a self defense situation in his life, so claiming to be an expert in self defense would be wrong, IMO. But, that doesn't mean he has nothing to offer. His expertise in Judo is unimpeachable and valuable.

My opinion is that learning wing chun is just that: learning wing chun. And really, to be more specific, you're learning a specific flavor of WC.

As with all martial arts styles, there are going to be some self defense applications, but my personal belief is that there is no style that teaches comprehensive self defense. Everyone teaches a piece of the puzzle, some pieces are larger than others.

Earlier in the thread, I compared the term "self defense" to another abstract, "love." In my opinion, you can't really teach people "self defense" because you can't teach people an abstract. In the same way, you can't teach a young couple love. You can't take two people and teach them to be in love.

But you CAN teach a young couple how to be a better couple. They can be taught how to better communicate with each other and how to avoid common pitfalls. Problem areas, traps and pitfalls in their relationships can be identified and skills can be taught to help them manage those areas. In other words, you can't teach people how to be in love, but you CAN teach them skills that could help them STAY in love. And these skills are very specific. Communications, financial management, career guidance, parenting, etc.

In the same way, you can't (IMO) teach self defense. But you can teach skills that may (or may not) have some application in self defense.

If your question to me was genuine, I believe if you read my threads you understand my perspective, even if you disagree. Without a keyboard, typing anything as lengthy as this response on a phone or tablet is tedious. So, yeah. Asking me the same question again, but with a little attitude doesn't change anything. My intent wasn't to put you off, but it's a little irritating that you can't be bothered to read (or re-read if necessary) the damned thread.

I had heaps more but I've run out of time. I'm sorry if I demonstrated attitude but my question related to one post, not the entire thread. But, I reread all your posts. They didn't clarify anything but they did identify that you don't think BJJ or MMA teach SD and by association nothing else does either. That is where we will have to disagree.
:asian:

 

[Steve]

Remembering that the post I was referring to was not about being an expert but about self defence or even more specifically that learning WC not giving you self defence skills I have trawled back through all you posts and I'm sorry, I don't think you have posted anything in this thread that is really relevant to wingchun100's post.



Vague association but assuming WC is a legitimate martial art, when you get to the point where you can apply the skills learned you should be able to defend yourself. I'm not sure whether your comment in your last post was suggesting that WC was not effective anyway. "My opinion is that learning wing chun is just that: learning wing chun."


So again ignoring the expert bit, I'm thinking that if you train in a martial art you become competent. If a martial art is actually a martial art and you are competent you should be able to defend yourself.



If you become expert in a system that was created for self defence as the Chinese and Okinawan systems were, and you are saying here that you can become an expert in that system. So why would you even consider teaching self defence separately?



So assuming the Sifu is well trained in a martial art, which was designed to provide self defence why does he teach self defence as a separate thing?



This might be more like it. So some one comes out of training in a combat unit is competent to go into combat but someone coming out of training for WC who is competent in WC is not ready to defend themselves in a fight. Mmm?



Not an expert, but surely you should have some idea of how to defend yourself?



A bit confusing. A few posts back you could be competent but now you are only prepared for competence.


This might be closer. But here we would be saying WC is a system, the guy teaching the system learned from a guy teaching the system, it was never tested so now it may not work. But what if it had been tested along the way. What if there was input from real life situations that validate the system?



Ant thus is important. BJJ and MMA are teaching for sport. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be useful for SD but you are confusing two different things. TMAs are designed to teach self defence. Sport styles are training you for competition. Because you perceive your training to lack the SD component doesn't mean the others do.

And no, self defence is just that. Learning to defend yourself. As I tell everyone, if you think there is anything I teach that you can't use in a pub brawl, let me know and I'll chuck it out. And your comment about Krav and Systema is so far from accurate it doesn't require comment.



This seems to be saying if you study one thing (WC) you can't become an expert in another (SD) but when WC=SD your comment doesn't make sense.



Speak for BJJ but not for others. You have no idea of TMA training except in the sporting context which is why we are having this discussion. If ballen's system works my system works.





I had heaps more but I've run out of time. I'm sorry if I demonstrated attitude but my question related to one post, not the entire thread. But, I reread all your posts. They didn't clarify anything but they did identify that you don't think BJJ or MMA teach SD and by association nothing else does either. That is where we will have to disagree.
:asian:

Kman, you seem to be a little defensive. I see plenty of relevance, but if you're determined not to see it, nothing I say will change your mind.

I'm pretty sure I'm not bashing you or your school, or your system for that matter. Many agree that you fight how you train. I agree. You will do what you are training to do. Every style, however, trains you to do different things.

Just think about this. Defending yourself is only one small part of self defense, just as financial management is only one small part of a successful marriage.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ballen0351]

Just for clarification I wasn't learning a system from a friend in my example. Unless I'm lost here. My post was about a class I went to taught by an analyst from the FBI that was an expert on officer safety issues. It wasn't a self defense class in the way of if bad guy does this you do that. It was if you see this that and then this get ready your about to be attacked or bad guys are more inclined to attack cops that do XYZ. And will usually not attackbcops that do ABC. He's still an expert and has zero street exp. And has never been a cop

 

[Steve]

Just for clarification I wasn't learning a system from a friend in my example. Unless I'm lost here. My post was about a class I went to taught by an analyst from the FBI that was an expert on officer safety issues. It wasn't a self defense class in the way of if bad guy does this you do that. It was if you see this that and then this get ready your about to be attacked or bad guys are more inclined to attack cops that do XYZ. And will usually not attackbcops that do ABC. He's still an expert and has zero street exp. And has never been a cop

He still sounds like an academic to me. Expert, sure, but in the same way a historian might be an expert on medieval warfare strategy. A historian might know everything there is to know about a trebuchet, but that doesn't mean he could build or operate one.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD