Fixing the training model

[Gerry Seymour]

It is good logic IF there's a reasonable expectation that evidence would exist. If you see a ping pong style that insists playing holding the paddle upside down is better, I wouldn't refute that without evidence. If I then find out people have been doing this for years, but no one in the olympic ping pong team holds the paddle that way, it would be reasonable to assume it's not as effective. There's still no evidence, as no one's proven that holding the paddle that way can't win you gold if you get good enough, but I think there's a fairly reasonable deduction that holding the paddle upside down isn't as effective.

Now, if someone came about and started holding the paddle that way and did win gold, or a lot of high level competitors started doing it and succeeding, that new information might change my view and I might try holding the paddle the other way and giving it a go.

There you hit on what I was trying to say in another post: as effective. The ping pong analogy is good for this point. I used to play pretty well, holding the paddle in that odd manner you sometimes see. It's a less-effective manner, based on the evidence we have. But it worked quite well for me and the guy I picked it up from. So, less effective isn't the same as not effective. That's what I was getting at.

I think MMA training might be the shortest path to fight competency, except maybe compared to boxing. But that doesn't make a longer path ineffective - just makes it a poor choice for fast fight prep, and probably too inefficient for competing in that context.

 

[Steve]

Not really. It's a meaningful distinction, Steve. Saying something isn't true simply because there's not sufficient evidence it's true isn't good logic. It's a reasonable point for added skepticism and even suspicion, but isn't a valid conclusion, from a logical standpoint.

Thats actually completely, factually incorrect. I wasn't posting an opinion. It is a fact that your post is an example of an argument from ignorance. It is literally the opposite of good logic.

Edit. To be clear, your earlier post which I responded to was an argument from ignorance. The straw man you just posted is a straw man.

And there is evidence that some styles do not produce competent fighters. The evidence is dismissed by people who train in those styles for a variety of reasons.

 

[drop bear]

There's a difference between something being efficient enough for that competition and being effective at a base level. Much of what I teach, for instance, shows up in MMA on a regular basis. Some shows up rarely. Some might have shown up, but I've never seen it. That leads me to think that what I teach includes a fair amount that isn't best practice for MMA (some of it has an anti rely different purpose). So my curriculum wouldn't be a good choice for training for MMA. There are better choices for that, and better coaches. But that's about efficiency for the purpose, and I have a wider, less-focused set of purposes. On the other hand, I've taught and trained with LEO, corrections officers, bouncers, etc., who found the training effective for their needs.

Bouncers and Leo's are a low bar.

As an example. This would not be an effective example of practical use of Aiki as it has been described to me.

And until I saw them actually use that concept I am going to doubt their ability to perform it.

Now ironically people are using this method to judge proficiency in something. And I am not at all sure what and not at all sure how.

So I am going to look at that and say that doesn't work.

If at some stage you make it work. I will be swayed by evidence.

Even if the same sort of technique does work when it is done by a different guy.

This way I can learn the technique that works off the guy who can make it work.

So we have seen a double leg work against experienced guys. Doesn't mean this double leg is going to work.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Thats actually completely, factually incorrect. I wasn't posting an opinion. It is a fact that your post is an example of an argument from ignorance. It is literally the opposite of good logic.

Edit. To be clear, your earlier post which I responded to was an argument from ignorance. The straw man you just posted is a straw man.

And there is evidence that some styles do not produce competent fighters. The evidence is dismissed by people who train in those styles for a variety of reasons.

You're talking in circles, Steve. Argument from ignorance requires a claim of truth due to the absence of contrary evidence. That is not what I said, nor particularly close to what I said. You are creating a strawman of my argument, while claiming I'm creating strawmen.

What is the strawman you believe I've created?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Bouncers and Leo's are a low bar.

As an example. This would not be an effective example of practical use of Aiki as it has been described to me.

And until I saw them actually use that concept I am going to doubt their ability to perform it.

Now ironically people are using this method to judge proficiency in something. And I am not at all sure what and not at all sure how.

So I am going to look at that and say that doesn't work.

If at some stage you make it work. I will be swayed by evidence.

Even if the same sort of technique does work when it is done by a different guy.

This way I can learn the technique that works off the guy who can make it work.

So we have seen a double leg work against experienced guys. Doesn't mean this double leg is going to work.

If regular use "in the wild" is a low bar for folks who train for the purpose of that exact use, I'm not sure there's any appropriate measure for application for those folks.

 

[pdg]

I'm lost...

Again...

Has this turned into another "if I don't see it in MMA then it doesn't work in MMA, and if it doesn't work in MMA it obviously doesn't work anywhere" argument?

 

[Hanzou]

I'm lost...

Again...

Has this turned into another "if I don't see it in MMA then it doesn't work in MMA, and if it doesn't work in MMA it obviously doesn't work anywhere" argument?

Not just MMA, but challenge matches as well.

In all seriousness, why so you think it's not fair for styles to be judged in that way?

 

[pdg]

Not just MMA, but challenge matches as well.

In all seriousness, why so you think it's not fair for styles to be judged in that way?

The context of the judgement defines whether the judgement is fair or not.

There was a video of a (iirc) wing chun guy being a bit of a twat when he got rejected for an MMA fight.

But looking at it from his perspective, I fully understand where he was coming from.

He entered on the premise that he could make his art work against MMA fighters despite what people were saying.

During the selection, he was told again and again that his techniques weren't acceptable in the competition - his kicks were wrong, his punches were wrong, he should get on the ground.

Not that they wouldn't work, but that they "weren't MMA".

He was kicked out of selection before getting to actually fight.

Now that's the prerogative of the promoters, they know what they want, from feedback they know what their audience wants - it's up to them who they allow to fight.

And that is exactly where the "MMA is the benchmark for rooting out effectiveness" falls right on it's ****.

Maybe that guy would have failed, maybe he would have prevailed - we'll honestly never know because him and others like him from other arts (who want to attempt to fight pure) aren't allowed to try.

As for challenge fights, well...

The famous ones of MMA Vs TMA in China are frankly pathetic. The trad guys look out of their depth from the start. It'd be like putting me against a 6 year old and saying my art is best when I win.

Those are usually derided because y'know, why would the government allow an art that's supposed to be representative of their country get so thoroughly trounced?

They don't want their population to be effective fighters, that's why. That's why all the state sanctioned stuff is demo level wushu.

 

[pdg]

Additional:

Let's say some grinning idiot in a dress (looking at you @gpseymour ) completely eschews the philosophy of their art and manages to blag through an MMA competition selection and then uses "pure aiki" to win.

They'll never get put on another card, ever.

Stands to reason.

The promoters simply wouldn't allow it.

And why should they?

There's a huge industry built around it, if something else is shown to beat it then people go elsewhere and what have they got then to put food on their tables and fuel in their Bentleys?


Another comparison is this:

It'd be relatively easy these days to build an electrically powered, silent track laying vehicle with laser terrain mapping and active suspension that could drive over a car without leaving a scratch. You could also make it VLGP (very low ground pressure) with traction control so it can drive over mud without sinking and spraying mud everywhere from wheelspin.

Who the hell would pay to see that at a monster truck rally?

People who go to those want impact, they want noise, they want smashing, they want destruction and flames.

They want MMA.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Let's say some grinning idiot in a dress (looking at you @gpseymour ) completely eschews the philosophy of their art and manages to blag through an MMA competition

I rarely grin when blagging.

 

[Hanzou]

The context of the judgement defines whether the judgement is fair or not.

There was a video of a (iirc) wing chun guy being a bit of a twat when he got rejected for an MMA fight.

But looking at it from his perspective, I fully understand where he was coming from.

He entered on the premise that he could make his art work against MMA fighters despite what people were saying.

During the selection, he was told again and again that his techniques weren't acceptable in the competition - his kicks were wrong, his punches were wrong, he should get on the ground.

Not that they wouldn't work, but that they "weren't MMA".

He was kicked out of selection before getting to actually fight.

Now that's the prerogative of the promoters, they know what they want, from feedback they know what their audience wants - it's up to them who they allow to fight.

And that is exactly where the "MMA is the benchmark for rooting out effectiveness" falls right on it's ****.

Maybe that guy would have failed, maybe he would have prevailed - we'll honestly never know because him and others like him from other arts (who want to attempt to fight pure) aren't allowed to try.

As for challenge fights, well...

The famous ones of MMA Vs TMA in China are frankly pathetic. The trad guys look out of their depth from the start. It'd be like putting me against a 6 year old and saying my art is best when I win.

Those are usually derided because y'know, why would the government allow an art that's supposed to be representative of their country get so thoroughly trounced?

They don't want their population to be effective fighters, that's why. That's why all the state sanctioned stuff is demo level wushu.

You're talking about Shawn Obasi, and he got his chance to use WC in MMA, and he got smashed for his efforts. So he should have listened to the coaches. He now spends his time teaching WC with broken MMA concepts. He's largely considered a joke by the MMA community because he embarrassed himself, and by the WC community because he embarrassed WC.

As for what the audience wants, there is some truth to that, however it isn't a completely true statement. Ryan Hall for example is utilizing a Bjj style in the UFC that some people hate, but is winning him fights. Hall's general goal is to prove that sport Bjj can work in MMA and self defense, and so far he's proving it. If an Aikidoka or WC practicioner came into the UFC or other major MMA promotion doing those techniques (and won) it would go a long way towards changing the general perception of those styles. The best way to prove those coaches wrong is to actually win fights.

 

[punisher73]

I agree with Steve's basic premise. If you look at "adult learning", most adults to not learn anything. They are informed of things and gather information about it, but don't practice it to the point that they "know it". Too many schools just do kata or fixed drills without resistance, so the person has been "informed" of what they should do, but they haven't truly "learned" what they should be doing with ingrained body knowledge of the technique.

For example, when learning to ride a bike you fall over an over while your brain is making the necessary neural pathways to ride a bike successfully. Riding is MUCH more than the mechanics of pedaling and requires LOTS of biomechanical FEEL for balance shifts etc. When you are learning to ride the bike, you don't keep the training wheels on after you have learned how to somewhat pedal and turn etc. (the basics). You HAVE to take the wheels off in a live environment to truly learn how to ride a bike.

Same thing with MA. Too many people are content with "riding with their training wheels on" and don't take the wheels off and apply it in a live environment. You can KNOW the defenses and shifts and footwork that you learned in a kata, but until you apply them in an increasing more realistic manner, you are never going to learn and know the timing, distancing etc. that make the technique truly work.

In combat sports, you DO get results faster (in general) because of the constant feedback of the technique working or not working. You know when you fall off the bike and what you need to do to correct it. Any art that uses drills to work these details and works them into a progressively more "free form" environment will be better prepared and quicker than a school that doesn't.

 

[punisher73]

I agree with Steve's basic premise. If you look at "adult learning", most adults to not learn anything. They are informed of things and gather information about it, but don't practice it to the point that they "know it". Too many schools just do kata or fixed drills without resistance, so the person has been "informed" of what they should do, but they haven't truly "learned" what they should be doing with ingrained body knowledge of the technique.

For example, when learning to ride a bike you fall over an over while your brain is making the necessary neural pathways to ride a bike successfully. Riding is MUCH more than the mechanics of pedaling and requires LOTS of biomechanical FEEL for balance shifts etc. When you are learning to ride the bike, you don't keep the training wheels on after you have learned how to somewhat pedal and turn etc. (the basics). You HAVE to take the wheels off in a live environment to truly learn how to ride a bike.

Same thing with MA. Too many people are content with "riding with their training wheels on" and don't take the wheels off and apply it in a live environment. You can KNOW the defenses and shifts and footwork that you learned in a kata, but until you apply them in an increasing more realistic manner, you are never going to learn and know the timing, distancing etc. that make the technique truly work.

In combat sports, you DO get results faster (in general) because of the constant feedback of the technique working or not working. You know when you fall off the bike and what you need to do to correct it. Any art that uses drills to work these details and works them into a progressively more "free form" environment will be better prepared and quicker than a school that doesn't.

sorry, tried to edit my post.

 

[Steve]

It is good logic IF there's a reasonable expectation that evidence would exist. If you see a ping pong style that insists playing holding the paddle upside down is better, I wouldn't refute that without evidence. If I then find out people have been doing this for years, but no one in the olympic ping pong team holds the paddle that way, it would be reasonable to assume it's not as effective. There's still no evidence, as no one's proven that holding the paddle that way can't win you gold if you get good enough, but I think there's a fairly reasonable deduction that holding the paddle upside down isn't as effective.

Now, if someone came about and started holding the paddle that way and did win gold, or a lot of high level competitors started doing it and succeeding, that new information might change my view and I might try holding the paddle the other way and giving it a go.

but what would you conclude if someone holds the paddle in a way that looks very ineffective, provides no evidence to the contrary, insists that it could be effective, but also insists that they don't train for table tennis, they train for pickleball? That is the argument we are presented with.

And the new wrinkle is to suggest that because we can't prove it doesnt work for anyone anywhere, we must accept that it might work for someone somewhere. As I said earlier, this is the same argument that leads to teaching creationism in schools alongside evolution.

As a quick aside, table tennis and pickleball are both competitive and therefore provide real feedback in context. You can know that the paddle technique works or doesn't based on real feedback. Even when a technique feels wrong at first, like a golf swing, if you continue to play golf and refine the swing, you will see measurable, clear results. To be a good golfer, you need the driving range, the coach, and to play golf in the wild.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And the new wrinkle is to suggest that because we can't prove it doesnt work for anyone anywhere, we must accept that it might work for someone somewhere.

If this is a reference to my earlier post, you're misunderstanding my point.

 

[Steve]

If this is a reference to my earlier post, you're misunderstanding my point.

could be. We have no evidence to the contrary.

 

[Steve]

There you hit on what I was trying to say in another post: as effective. The ping pong analogy is good for this point. I used to play pretty well, holding the paddle in that odd manner you sometimes see. It's a less-effective manner, based on the evidence we have. But it worked quite well for me and the guy I picked it up from. So, less effective isn't the same as not effective. That's what I was getting at.

I think MMA training might be the shortest path to fight competency, except maybe compared to boxing. But that doesn't make a longer path ineffective - just makes it a poor choice for fast fight prep, and probably too inefficient for competing in that context.

@gpseymour, when you say, "less effective," you imply that there is some evidence that this method of holding a paddle is on the spectrum of effective. It is not "ineffective." Just not AS effective.

But for "fight competency" there are some styles that have no evidence. And for many other styles, there is evidence to that the style may be effective by modifying the training model (e.g., Machida/Shotokan Karate).

I don't think one could seriously argue that Aikido, as commonly trained, produces competent fighters. I also think it's fair to suggest that Aikido *might* produce competent fighters if trained differently. Specifically, if you align the purpose of the training with the application of the training.

 

[pdg]

You're talking about Shawn Obasi, and he got his chance to use WC in MMA, and he got smashed for his efforts. So he should have listened to the coaches

I'm not so sure I count one single official fight 7 years ago as "getting his chance".

If he quit trying after one loss, that's on him.

If he wasn't allowed to try again after one loss (maybe he wasn't entertaining enough), that's on the organisation.

If the organisation officially claims that it's the single best style and sells on that then they should truly open it up and let anyone fight in whatever manner they choose and not screen out people who don't fit the MMA model.

Take boxing. Boxing organisations don't claim to be the best fighting model that can beat every other fighting method.

If I enter a boxing match (which in itself would mean I'd have to cheat the screening) and kick someone in the head, I get disqualified. It doesn't mean using my feet is a better or worse method, it means it's not allowed.

I support boxing orgs screening out people who can't box.

I also support MMA orgs screening out people who can't MMA.

Just don't try to claim that screening process is because it's superior.

 

[pdg]

As for what the audience wants, there is some truth to that, however it isn't a completely true statement. Ryan Hall for example is utilizing a Bjj style in the UFC that some people hate, but is winning him fights. Hall's general goal is to prove that sport Bjj can work in MMA and self defense, and so far he's proving it. If an Aikidoka or WC practicioner came into the UFC or other major MMA promotion doing those techniques (and won) it would go a long way towards changing the general perception of those styles. The best way to prove those coaches wrong is to actually win fights.

I really have to say that's an invalid argument.

BJJ by definition meshes more with the MMA model.

A "pure" practitioner of an art that doesn't mesh so well simply isn't going to get the chance to prove those coaches wrong because they won't get on card.

And anyway, why would it be proving them wrong? They've been coaching MMA fighters to win MMA fights, and doing so correctly.

If I wanted to MMA, I'd get under an MMA coach, not a table tennis coach.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

@gpseymour, when you say, "less effective," you imply that there is some evidence that this method of holding a paddle is on the spectrum of effective. It is not "ineffective." Just not AS effective.

Not necessarily. "Ineffective" would be the far end of that spectrum, so something being "less effective" doesn't necessarily mean it's effective. But you make a good point - just because we can't say for sure something isn't ineffective. that doesn't mean it isn't. My point was sort of the other side of that: just because we can't say something is maximally effective, that doesn't mean it's functionally ineffective.

But for "fight competency" there are some styles that have no evidence. And for many other styles, there is evidence to that the style may be effective by modifying the training model (e.g., Machida/Shotokan Karate).

I don't think one could seriously argue that Aikido, as commonly trained, produces competent fighters. I also think it's fair to suggest that Aikido *might* produce competent fighters if trained differently. Specifically, if you align the purpose of the training with the application of the training.

Agreed. My point earlier wasn't meant to say that we have to accept that something is likely effective simply because we can't prove the opposite (which is probably a logical impossibility). I was more saying that we have to be careful drawing too strong a conclusion from whether we see something represented in competitions at a visible level.