Fixing the training model

[Brian R. VanCise]

What is important in all training is that there be stress during training that causes growth. How you get that stress can be done in different ways such as Sparring, Grappling, Scenario Based Training and of course more. Not everyone is going to be a UFC fighter, A Violence Professional such as Law Enforcement, Corrections, Bouncing, etc or just a plain bad ***. However, if there is sufficient stress in their training then they should advance and improve. Personally, I have always believed in pressure testing what you do. That is how I was brought up in the Martial Sciences even though I have trained in systems that do not pressure test in a competitive manner. Yet, I also have witnessed people who do not do as much pressure testing in their training perform amazingly well in real violent situations through work and also as a civilian. What I do see is people getting caught up in what I do works and what you do does not. The reality is that there is not a one size fits all methodology of training. This is very evident in Law Enforcement, Military, etc. They typically all use a combination of stress induced training that includes typically some competition, Scenario Based Training, Technique Training, etc. However, some do not. Our Army has included BJJ as a competitive core for moral but not really for the battlefield. The Philippines Force Recon Marines has a form of FMA that they utilize as their core of training for hand to hand and bladed weapons which they have actually used in combative situations. The Korean ROK utilize a hybrid from Korean martial arts with hat we would call a fairly heavy TMA approach to it. Bottom line is I personally have met people who work in a violence based profession from many different systems some heavily in TMA, some in competitive sport martial arts and frankly they all seem to be functioning well in their profession and swear by their martial system.

 

[drop bear]

You consistently downplay what I do without really understanding what I do. You seem to think it’s all soft and lovey. Soft or hard isn’t a binary thing.

When your commentry is committed to what people can't do and won't do. You downplay what you do.

Every time people defend a system that has to cater for mediocraty.

This is the impression you give. Sorry.

And the point is nobody can exel in that environment.

 

[drop bear]

You consistently downplay what I do without really understanding what I do. You seem to think it’s all soft and lovey. Soft or hard isn’t a binary thing.

This is the other guy from my skydive photo.

What people can't do, won't do?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When your commentry is committed to what people can't do and won't do. You downplay what you do.

Every time people defend a system that has to cater for mediocraty.

This is the impression you give. Sorry.

And the point is nobody can exel in that environment.

The only time I talk about what people can’t do is actual physical limits. I can’t shoot in because of my knees. Some people don’t have (and can’t build within their priorities) my muscular strength.

Mostly, what you hear from me - and misinterpret - is an acknowledgement that some people won’t put in the time or effort, because they have other priorities. It’s not my job (nor anyone else’s) to change those. I help people accomplish what they can within their priorities and physical limits. If I had someone who could do more, and had the time to commit, I’d suggest they cross-train or join someplace where they can put more time in (I don’t offer enough classes to serve their full need). You just interpret that as me short-changing what they could do. That’s a primary difference between your view and mine. I know some people only want to commit so much to getting better at combat, and I consider that okay so long as they understand the choice they are making.

If I had a full-time program, I’d offer a track suitable to those folks who want to train at the level I used to (2-3 classes a day, 4-6 days a week plus fitness). For now (and probably forever) I offer a range of intensities in a limited number of classes, to match what people can manage, physically.

If they prefer to keep it at “Sweating to the Oldies” intensity to keep from making injuries worse, I’m okay with that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

View attachment 21816

This is the other guy from my skydive photo.

What people can't do, won't do?

I’m not sure what the point is in this post, DB.

 

[drop bear]

The only time I talk about what people can’t do is actual physical limits. I can’t shoot in because of my knees. Some people don’t have (and can’t build within their priorities) my muscular strength.

Mostly, what you hear from me - and misinterpret - is an acknowledgement that some people won’t put in the time or effort, because they have other priorities. It’s not my job (nor anyone else’s) to change those. I help people accomplish what they can within their priorities and physical limits. If I had someone who could do more, and had the time to commit, I’d suggest they cross-train or join someplace where they can put more time in (I don’t offer enough classes to serve their full need). You just interpret that as me short-changing what they could do. That’s a primary difference between your view and mine. I know some people only want to commit so much to getting better at combat, and I consider that okay so long as they understand the choice they are making.

If I had a full-time program, I’d offer a track suitable to those folks who want to train at the level I used to (2-3 classes a day, 4-6 days a week plus fitness). For now (and probably forever) I offer a range of intensities in a limited number of classes, to match what people can manage, physically.

If they prefer to keep it at “Sweating to the Oldies” intensity to keep from making injuries worse, I’m okay with that.

Having the ability to let people excel doesn't prevent people from training part time or with part intensity. It doesn't prevent old people or injured people from training. It doesn't even take away the benefits of part time training or being old or injured and training.

Striving to be mediocre does prevent the opportunity for people to excel.

Your system is no more inclusive because you put a cap on ability. That is a different set of dynamics. And is more aligned towards gym culture or training methodology.

Your rationalization isn't valid.

 

[drop bear]

I’m not sure what the point is in this post, DB.

You don't judge people ability on your own preconceptions.

Your training model is designed to make people comfortable rather than better.

And I don't think that is what attracts people to martial arts.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Having the ability to let people excel doesn't prevent people from training part time or with part intensity. It doesn't prevent old people or injured people from training. It doesn't even take away the benefits of part time training or being old or injured and training.

Striving to be mediocre does prevent the opportunity for people to excel.

Your system is no more inclusive because you put a cap on ability. That is a different set of dynamics. And is more aligned towards gym culture or training methodology.

Your rationalization isn't valid.

I’m not seeing where you’re getting that I don’t allow people to excel - or that I don’t have the ability to do so. Where are you getting that?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You don't judge people ability on your own preconceptions.

Your training model is designed to make people comfortable rather than better.

And I don't think that is what attracts people to martial arts.

And where are you getting all of that from?

 

[drop bear]

I’m not seeing where you’re getting that I don’t allow people to excel - or that I don’t have the ability to do so. Where are you getting that?

From this constant argument that people won't be attracted to a system that produces quality martial artists.

I don’t see it so much about “can’t”, but about what attracts them. Doesn’t matter what I can encourage them to do until I get them started.

And it isn't true. Hard martial are expanding.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

From this constant argument that people won't be attracted to a system that produces quality martial artists.

I don’t see it so much about “can’t”, but about what attracts them. Doesn’t matter what I can encourage them to do until I get them started.

And it isn't true. Hard martial are expanding.

I’m not sure where you get from that statement that I don’t think anyone wants hard training. Some people do not. While I can help someone who wants hard training (assuming I have a partner for them), that’s not who normally shows up at my door. I suspect they do what I’d do if I were looking for hard training, which is go to an MMA gym first.

My comment you quoted was about the other folks. Those who don’t want to go hard, for whatever reason (sometimes fear, sometimes just priorities, sometimes physical limits).

 

[pdg]

From this constant argument that people won't be attracted to a system that produces quality martial artists.

I don’t see it so much about “can’t”, but about what attracts them. Doesn’t matter what I can encourage them to do until I get them started.

And it isn't true. Hard martial are expanding.

So, here's my take on this - and I'll throw in an analogy too

So yes, the "hard" stuff is increasing, more places are offering it and the people who want that are finding it.

It's taking a few away from the "softer" stuff (the ones who wanted harder but couldn't get it are moving), but it's not causing a significant decline.

The ones who deemed the softer stuff not worthwhile so did nothing are also going in.

There's also a few that thought they wanted harder, but after doing it decided they made the wrong choice for them, so migrate the other way.

Not everyone wants the same thing.

Personally, I choose to train harder in what some would deem a softer style, and I enjoy the technical parts. If I only had the choice of "do MMA" it's unlikely I would've started at all. I'm not there to "just fight", that sparks no interest for me.


So the promised analogy: tools.

You can buy cheap crappy tools, you can buy inexpensive functional tools and you can buy high quality expensive tools.

For the person who wants to pop up a shelf or fix a fence a couple of times a year, the cheap crap will probably get the job done and last a couple of years.

The inexpensive functional stuff would make those jobs a bit easier, but cost a bit more. Someone doing the same jobs but on a monthly basis, maybe as a bit of a sideline, these are fine. They'll probably last a couple of years, but the cheap crap won't survive a month.

A tradesman whose tools are used to make a living, they need quality that lasts and is reliable. It's worth paying more, sometimes much more. It needs to work every single time you pick it up because stopping a job can lose the job, and destroy a reputation.

A person who has never experienced needing to absolutely rely on their tools might have difficulty understanding why people pay more for something that does effectively the same job - a neighbour of mine was shocked at my mower costing over £2k new, when his (that had just died) cost him £100 and lasted 2 1/2 years - but his was an hour a fortnight for 2 1/2 years, mine is up to 25 hours a week...

So, different needs = different solutions.