It seems to be a numbers game to you. That is not what being a champion beyond the ring is about at all. Everybody loses in competition at some point. What you do with the defeat is what defines you. It is a petty person who stops competing completely when they are on "top".
Stop when you’re becoming a shell of your former self. Stopping when you’re still the champ tells me you know there’s someone out there better than you, and all you care about is protecting some record or title rather than fighting. Keep defending that title until it’s taken away or you’re too old or injured to defend it any more.
I worked at Fordham University as an athletic trainer for several years. Vince Lombardi is an alumni. And his speech was absolutely no where to be found. I thought it should’ve been in every single team’s locker room, but most people looked at me like I had 3 heads every time I brought that up. Wouldn’t Lombardi’s speech in the football locker room at the university he played for be a no brainer? People think it’s politically incorrect. IMO those are the same people who didn’t bother reading past the first paragraph. Morons.
If you have won the national champion in your field for the past 3 years. Do you want to compete the 4th year? the 5th year? Until one day you may lose?
You have it exactly right. I don’t disagree at all. The point is not that every sport makes one a fighter. The point is that competition is application of technique which builds actual skill. So,, a guy who competes in point fighting will be able to do what they train under pressure, It might not be fighting, but it will be real skill. People who don’t compete, or otherwise using the skills in context, are not ever moving out of training, And so, we get people who are experts in martial arts styles who cannot fight. Further, we get entire styles where this is a problem. And it’srelevsnt that these same styles argue that this is because they are somehow harder or take longer by design.
The MMA approach is different from the TMA approach. In the
If the latter, I think my view of the answer to that question is somewhat answered in Josh Waitzkin's book "The Art of Learning" in his discussions of how he learned Tai Chi from William C.C. Chen. When he first started he was just learning his instructor's Tai Chi form but as he added push hands practice to his training his understanding of the form he was practicing increased and that understanding improved his push hands technique. My own personal experiences learning Wing Chun are consistent with this as well. I picked up the techniques much more quickly because my instructor was constantly 'freestyling" the double sticky hands drill and I had to adapt quickly because I don't like getting hit in the face
I am sure there are some out there but you don't see BJJ very much east of the Mississippi.
Maybe my sense of direction is confused but I'm in Massachusetts and BJJ and it's corresponding competition is all around.
Same in NY.
specifically im not saying either of those. skills are learned at a fixed pace that are determined by the individual. i do not think that any style or MMA is any quicker than any other style BUT some styles, including MMA are more effective at creating good fighters. i do have a problem with using anecdotal evidence like most MMA guys do, saying MMA has good fighters ....therefore MMA is superior to other styles in creating good fighters because of competition.
If my "door guarding" moves don't work on you, I will retire myself right at that moment. During the old China time, if I announce to the public that I start to smoke opium, nobody will be allowed to challenge me any more (It won't prove you anything if you defeat me, an opium smoker).
If I can't win, I may have chance to lose. If I don't want to lose, I'll need to start to smoke opium and retire.
