Is it possible to "train" for something that you never actually do?

[Rich Parsons]

Great question. My initial thought is that it really depends upon what is being taught. What do you think?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Steve,


My question was loaded.

I have been told that my experience does not count because I have not served in the military nor as a LEO. (* Or a a LEO in the Military or as ex-military and now a LEO - You get the point though - Right? *)



So in essence, I have been told that one must listen to the those who know, like police officers and Military. Yet many of these who make these claims and statements to me and others have not seen any action. They use their training to exclude others and make themselves better. Then someone says Listen to them because they are ________. And then I ask for experience and it all of a sudden does not matter or is limited to generic job terms.

In my opinion, if you find someone who has the experience listen to them. They will tell you not only what worked for them, but where they made mistakes. The mistakes are VERY important. This is how you learn. If they survived but were injured then you can learn from that. If they survived and admit it was luck or lack of experience on the bad guys side, or .... , .


Now, I am not saying go listen to every crazed old man telling stories because there are lots of them out there. I am saying if you find one, and you realize they have some experience do not ignore it. Listen and if it helps great. If it does not then now you know. And yes I am going to say it. "Knowing is half the battle".


Now can a LEO or Spec OP or Grunt who has seen action offer up their training and comments as well? Yes definitely. If they have no action and want to share the training then listen as well. One never knows.


The point as made by the previous post, if it is a requirement many people will not teach. And I also agree with not going and looking for the experience. I tell people all the time, they are lucky to have never seen any such violence in their life.

 

[Tgace]

There's also the issue that many people who have "done" rarely speak about it. Not so much those who like to inflate a scuffle over a parking spot into multiple attackers with machine guns.

Again...the advantage the shooting "arts" have is that if the instructor was a verified member of a top tier special operations unit the odds that he has "seen the ****" are in the high 90% in these modern times. This injects some "real world" into the tactical firearms arts.

That's not to say that the students of these Top Tier instructors are lacking because THEY don't have combat experience. The whole question here (in my understanding) is what...besides possibly sport application...do trad martial arts use to inject "modern reality" into what they teach?

Maybe it's not possible...it's a theoretical question.

 

[Tgace]

This next question is for Steve and TGace, if he's still floating around this thread. During a discussion with Chris, I had mentioned that I'd prefer to train with people with RW experience. Chris and I agreed that in many cases, we're teaching things that we haven't done in the RW. So the question is: Since its probably not possible to have experienced every single little thing, as long as you're training with someone with some RW experience, someone who's seen a lot and does have a lot of experience, would you still get something out of the training, even if the teacher himself, hasn't experienced certain things?

My .02....the actual physical techniques of a Martial Art are not going to be taught any "better" by the RW user. Will a punch or kick be any different from one vs the other? It's the perspective the real world application brings them that's the benefit.

Of course (as I see it) there are always shades of grey. A new student who uses his/her art in RW will bring a different level of understanding than a high level practicioner who gets into a RW confrontation. Each can bring important data to the table but in terms of the "Art" it would depend on the instructor taking his/her RW experience and determining if his/her Art needs adaptation in light of it.

 

[Steve]

Great posts. I just want to point out that teaching BJJ, Goju Ryu Karate or TKD are things that one can very easily practice and accumulate experience with. Self defense, however, is a very slippery term to define, yet its use in selling martial arts is pervasive.

One can be an expert in karate and be a complete novice in self defense. Yet many, I'd say even most, martial arts schools allege to teach self defense.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Flying Crane]

Great posts. I just want to point out that teaching BJJ, Goju Ryu Karate or TKD are things that one can very easily practice and accumulate experience with. Self defense, however, is a very slippery term to define, yet its use in selling martial arts is pervasive.

One can be an expert in karate and be a complete novice in self defense. Yet many, I'd say even most, martial arts schools allege to teach self defense.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

maybe there's the distinction in marketing.

I think it's unrealistic to claim to teach self defense. that implies that it's a guaranteed outcome. It's a distinction in language, but maybe a more honest presentation is, that one teaches skills that can be useful in self defense.

The understanding must be: nothing of this sort is guaranteed, it's up to the individual as to how well he can actually use those skills.

 

[Steve]

maybe there's the distinction in marketing.

I think it's unrealistic to claim to teach self defense. that implies that it's a guaranteed outcome. It's a distinction in language, but maybe a more honest presentation is, that one teaches skills that can be useful in self defense.

The understanding must be: nothing of this sort is guaranteed, it's up to the individual as to how well he can actually use those skills.

I agree that this seems safer. But how does one know if skills could be useful in a self defense situation if the instructor, who learned from a series of experienced martial artists who all had no experience applying the skills in actual defense situations, aldo has no practical experience? What makes him or her competent to declare a technique useful or not?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Flying Crane]

I agree that this seems safer. But how does one know if skills could be useful in a self defense situation if the instructor, who learned from a series of experienced martial artists who all had no experience applying the skills in actual defense situations, aldo has no practical experience? What makes him or her competent to declare a technique useful or not?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

caveate emptor.

everyone needs to decide for themselves who they trust.

 

[Steve]

caveate emptor.

everyone needs to decide for themselves who they trust.

Trust is about a relationship between two people. Expertise and credentials should be a bit less subjective. Don't you think?

If you needed heart surgery, the expert is easy to spot. It's the surgeon who is well trained, experienced and well respected. The novice may be well trained, and may be more knowledgeable than you or me. He or she might also be perfectly capable of performing the surgery. But an expert?

Who would you trust?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Tgace]

Which begs the question...where can a MA instructor gain this real world experience? How would you verify it?

 

[MJS]

Well, I don't know about discrediting anyone, but that's a big part of what I wanted to talk about. If people who have no experience in real world self defense are considered experts, what makes this one area different from all others? Or is there any other complex, physical skillset where the expertise is considered credible even though it remains theoretical?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Hmm...ok, perhaps 'discredit' was a poor choice of wording. Maybe the practicality of what the inst is teaching, would come into question. OTOH, let's look at this once again, from a non martial arts POV. Pick up the paper and look at the job section. How many times do we see ads for a LEO and it states "Certified Officers Only". I've seen it many times. I've seen other jobs where they require the perspective candidate to have at least 3yrs (just tossing out a number) of prior Accounting exp, for jobs that deal with numbers. Restaurant is looking for a new chef...gotta have prior exp.

Now, does this prior exp. mean that this person will be any good? On the surface, yes, it would seem that hiring someone who graduated from culinary school and worked for 10yrs at a 5star restaurant, would be a good chef, perhaps better than the recent culinary school graduate. Yet at my job, I've seen people with past exp. walk in, and I see how they work, and I think to myself, "Holy cow! This person dispatched at such and such PD for the past 10yrs?? Wow, they're horrible!" LOL!

Saying what I just did, almost makes it sound like having exp. doesnt matter. I've seen people with no exp. perform a job pretty damn good. IMO, I still stand by the prior exp., but I suppose there can be some cases in which exp doesnt matter.

 

[MJS]

And what about those who do have experience with multiple attackers and in various situations? Do their opinion weigh more for their experience? or Less as they "obviously" have done something wrong to have been in those situations?

I'd say that the past exp. would probably play a part as far as what they did working, but as for ending up in that situation in the first place...I'd say that would be more about a lack of awareness.

 

[MJS]

late to the discussion here, and maybe this has already been touched upon but I haven't gone back to read all 12 pages of the discussion.

Welcome aboard Mike! Looking forward to your input!

In my experience, it's very easy for most people to get thru life without ever having to fight or defend themselves for real, or at least very seldom and probably not at all as an adult. Most of us put the schoolyard scraps behind us when we get out of gradeschool. It's been easy for me at least, and I spent a number of years living in a neighborhood that has it's own level of grit to it. I just don't find it difficult to not get into fights or altercations. But maybe that's just me.

Yup, thats me as well. As I've said, I've probably talked my way out of more things than I've actually physically been involved in. What sparked further debate in this thread, is the question I asked a page or so back: does training with someone with the RW exp, still provide a better education, vs. training with someone who has no RW exp. in the first place.

So it's very possible that one might be teaching martial arts, and yet have no "real world" experience using it. That's me, in fact. I certainly don't encourage anyone to go out and deliberately seek out "real world" experience. Certainly not for the purpose of simply adding credibility to themselves as a teacher. It's dangerous for one thing and in my opinion, downright immoral to seek out and perhaps provoke a violent encounter.

Yup, that's me in the same boat with you again. While I haven't had someone pull a knife on me, yes, I still teach knife defense. I also do my best to make it a point (no pun intended ) to train with those who either have or who train much more realistic than others.

If real world experience is seen as a mandate for teaching martial arts, then I suspect there would be far far fewer teachers out there. That might not necessarily be a bad thing, I personally believe most of the "teachers" out there should not be teaching. But I'm not sure real world experience in using it must be a qualification. I think it's possible to have a reasonable and realistic approach to training, as well as a realistic recognition of one's skill and experience. As long as that is honestly presented to the students, so the students know the honest experience and training level of the teacher, then it's possible to still train and teach quality martial arts without real world experience using it.

If real world experience were a mandate to teach, then I think a lot of the systems will simply go extinct, or become very rare, at least.

Yes, you're most likely spot on with this!

 

[MJS]

There's also the issue that many people who have "done" rarely speak about it. Not so much those who like to inflate a scuffle over a parking spot into multiple attackers with machine guns.

Exactly! The 'quiet professionals' as they're called. Many times, when I've spoken to people, some of whom I currently train with, or have trained with, the real world topic comes up, and the majority of the time, I have to drag things out of them...lol. Nothing wrong with that, don't get me wrong, I'm just adding onto what you said. Personally, I have more respect for those that have done but are quiet about it, compared to those that hype things up and brag about whooping the *** of 5 guys on the corner.

Again...the advantage the shooting "arts" have is that if the instructor was a verified member of a top tier special operations unit the odds that he has "seen the ****" are in the high 90% in these modern times. This injects some "real world" into the tactical firearms arts.

That's not to say that the students of these Top Tier instructors are lacking because THEY don't have combat experience. The whole question here (in my understanding) is what...besides possibly sport application...do trad martial arts use to inject "modern reality" into what they teach?

Maybe it's not possible...it's a theoretical question.

Chris Kyle (RIP) was a SEAL Sniper and highly regarded for what he's done. He's been there, done that, many times. In your honest opinion, would a civilian who wanted to learn some practical shooting, how to handle a gun, etc, etc, benefit from training with someone like Chris? Keep in mind, this civilian has never been in the military, and probably never will be. IMO, I'd say yes, he's benefit quite a bit.

 

[MJS]

My .02....the actual physical techniques of a Martial Art are not going to be taught any "better" by the RW user. Will a punch or kick be any different from one vs the other? It's the perspective the real world application brings them that's the benefit.

Of course (as I see it) there are always shades of grey. A new student who uses his/her art in RW will bring a different level of understanding than a high level practicioner who gets into a RW confrontation. Each can bring important data to the table but in terms of the "Art" it would depend on the instructor taking his/her RW experience and determining if his/her Art needs adaptation in light of it.

Thanks for your reply. I guess you can disregard the question I asked you down-thread, as I saw that post before this one.

 

[harlan]

Actually, it's not. Not easy to spot, that is. 'Respected'...by who? 'Experienced and well-trained'...you spot that how? Paper on the wall? With the plethora of bad docs out there, 'credentials' for an excellent doctor are uncertain. Most folks go with a 'brand-name' hospital...assuming that the association with the institution at least 'vets' the doc.

I'm going to go back to the dojo as the lab. When it comes to TMA, pedal hits the metal there. Self-honesty, feedback from other advanced/experienced artists, and the art being worked on. One can get very close to 'real-world'...but at that point accidents happen. One must have controls...and I get the impression that it's the 'controls' in place within the dojo-specific environment that are really being questioned.

If you needed heart surgery, the expert is easy to spot. It's the surgeon who is well trained, experienced and well respected. The novice may be well trained, and may be more knowledgeable than you or me. He or she might also be perfectly capable of performing the surgery. But an expert?

Who would you trust?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[MJS]

maybe there's the distinction in marketing.

1) I think it's unrealistic to claim to teach self defense. that implies that it's a guaranteed outcome. It's a distinction in language, but maybe a more honest presentation is, that one teaches skills that can be useful in self defense.

2) The understanding must be: nothing of this sort is guaranteed, it's up to the individual as to how well he can actually use those skills.

Great post!!!! To address each point:

1) That is correct. I mean, when I was learning, I was told, "I'm going to show you a self defense technique" which does just that...implies that its something that CAN be used for SD.

2) Yet how many times do we hear the teacher say that? I mean, can you imagine the raised eyebrows of the students, or the questions that'll follow, if the teacher actually said that what he/she is showing may NOT work!! I think saying something like, "What I'm showing you is 1 possible option. It may not go as planned, and you may have to adjust/adapt as needed." would be 10 times better than flat out saying, "Here's a knife tech....but it's probably not gonna work." LOL! IMO, I think some teachers are afraid that if they say something, if they put the slightest amount of doubt in the students mind, they're going to see $$$ walking out the door. Imagine if the student, who spent months/years training, gets into a fight, and actually gets their *** kicked....badly! Now, the MA's do not turn you into Superman, and I've said that numerous times, but imagine those students who were under the impression that the SD techs would work....

 

[MJS]

Which begs the question...where can a MA instructor gain this real world experience? How would you verify it?

Some may say that a competition record would be proof, but IMO, while that does say something about the person, I dont feel it meets the requirements we're discussing here. How would you verify it? Pretty hard IMO. Unless there was a reliable witness, video of the incident....

I'd say it'd be easier for someone in a LE/Military?Corrections line of work, to verify things, rather than the average Joe.

 

[Steve]

Actually, it's not. Not easy to spot, that is. 'Respected'...by who? 'Experienced and well-trained'...you spot that how? Paper on the wall? With the plethora of bad docs out there, 'credentials' for an excellent doctor are uncertain. Most folks go with a 'brand-name' hospital...assuming that the association with the institution at least 'vets' the doc.

There are many easy ways to vet a surgeon. First, if you aren't interviewing him or her, asking how many times they've performed the surgery, etc. That's the bare minimum. Asking other doctors. Doing some research online. Find out whether the surgeon is sought after as a resource to other surgeons. It's pretty easy to vet a surgeon. I've done it.

Now, you might be right that many people don't do their homework. But the information is fairly objective and it's fairly accessible.

I'm going to go back to the dojo as the lab. When it comes to TMA, pedal hits the metal there. Self-honesty, feedback from other advanced/experienced artists, and the art being worked on. One can get very close to 'real-world'...but at that point accidents happen. One must have controls...and I get the impression that it's the 'controls' in place within the dojo-specific environment that are really being questioned.

I'm with you up to the real world part. An experienced Karateka can tell you with authority whether or not you are performing a technique correctly. He or she can also critique your performance of a kata or any other aspect of your training within the specific form of Karate you train.

However, where I think you and I diverge is that I don't believe that this specialized expertise qualifies the Expert Karateka to comment on the real world applicability of the techniques you are training. That is, UNLESS this Expert Karateka also has some kind of relevant experience in the different area of expertise that we often simply label "Self Defense." It's the very claim that training can "get very close to real world" that I am challenging. Get close? Says who?

Now, I want to be careful here. I'm not saying that the techniques aren't practical for self defense. I'm suggesting that we presume that they are because we are told they are by people who might not be qualified to know one way or the other. And they are simply telling you what they were told by someone who was told by someone who at some point had some actual expertise in the field.

 

[harlan]

You have to know the questions to ask. Using your own analogy, you are actually an expert (many times surgury). It's NOT easy to spot for the person dealing with a medical issue for the first time.

There are many easy ways to vet a surgeon. First, if you aren't interviewing him or her, asking how many times they've performed the surgery, etc. That's the bare minimum. Asking other doctors. Doing some research online. Find out whether the surgeon is sought after as a resource to other surgeons. It's pretty easy to vet a surgeon. I've done it.

Actually, I agree/dont' diverge here.

However, where I think you and I diverge is that I don't believe that this specialized expertise qualifies the Expert Karateka to comment on the real world applicability of the techniques you are training.

As Flying Crane intimated, one has to decide on who to trust. Frankly, my teacher has no 'real world' experience (by your definition), but will tell you that certain techniques are 'iffy', 'unworkable', etc. and that is from the lab.

Now, I want to be careful here. I'm not saying that the techniques aren't practical for self defense. I'm suggesting that we presume that they are because we are told they are by people who might not be qualified to know one way or the other. And they are simply telling you what they were told by someone who was told by someone who at some point had some actual expertise in the field.

 

[Flying Crane]

Trust is about a relationship between two people. Expertise and credentials should be a bit less subjective. Don't you think?

If you needed heart surgery, the expert is easy to spot. It's the surgeon who is well trained, experienced and well respected. The novice may be well trained, and may be more knowledgeable than you or me. He or she might also be perfectly capable of performing the surgery. But an expert?

Who would you trust?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

who do you trust as a source for your training and martial information? That's for you to decide.

Maybe real-world experience in using the material on genuine badguys is important to you and you will not consider training under someone who has none of that experience, or who doesn't have "enough" of that type of experience. That's your choice.

Maybe you recognize that someone has some truly valuable information and training methods that they can teach you, even tho they have little or no real world experience using the material on a genuine badguy. If you train under him, that's your choice.

There is no such thing as true credentials in the martial arts world. Belts only mean something to the guy wearing it. Nobody else in the world cares, there are no universal standards to support ranking. You cannot mandate that one is disallowed from teaching martial arts unless he has XXX number of actual, successful encounters with real badguys in the world of a certain XX magnitude of severity and potential life-threatening-ness, and those encounters need to be verified by disinterested third parties of immaculate reputation and credibility, or some government oversight agency. Better get it on video so it can be posted on Youtube, or nobody will believe it ;-)) It's impossible to establish a true credential for teaching martial arts, or to be a credible authority in martial arts.

So yes, it is about a relationship: that one between teacher and student. And the student needs to make his own decision about who he trusts for that training and that information. And the teacher needs to be honest with his students about where his own training came from, and what kinds of experiences he has had (or not had) with it.