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

[Flying Crane]

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.

even there, I say it depends on who you trust for your information. There are a lot of people out there, in any system you care to name, who are wearing high rank and claiming mastery, and may even have a high reputation in the general martial arts world, who know nothing and are in no position to actually critique or instruct. Just the other day I was perusing Youtube and looking at videos of various people doing stuff from my system. Some of these people are teachers, one was a "grandmaster". What I saw horrified me, including what the "grandmaster" was doing. It was pure crap, based on the standards of my sifu. I wouldn't take any instruction from him, even if I was paid.

There simply are no objective standards that everyone recognizes. Everyone has their own interpretation of this stuff, some better and some worse, and some people who don't really know much can still be fairly effective simply because they are athletic and big and strong and they can take crude technique and simply overpower people with their aggression. But they are not actually all that skilled or knowledgeable about this stuff, but they believe they are and they can convince their students that they are. Make your choices wisely about who you accept instruction from because a whole lot of "masters" out there suck, plain and simple. And be careful about accepting critique from people who you don't yet know if you can trust their input or not.

 

[Flying Crane]

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.

Context and goals are important too and this is an interesting example. As a SEAL, I imagine he has a lot of experience and skill in handling firearms of all kinds, in many scenarios. If one wants some kind of self-defense training for the home, with a firearm, I imagine a SEAL could provide that. But if the SEAL's expertise is as a sniper, that particular body of experience has little real value for someone wanting to know how to use a firearm for home defense. It's all gotta be relevant to the situation.

 

[Tgace]

Context and goals are important too and this is an interesting example. As a SEAL, I imagine he has a lot of experience and skill in handling firearms of all kinds, in many scenarios. If one wants some kind of self-defense training for the home, with a firearm, I imagine a SEAL could provide that. But if the SEAL's expertise is as a sniper, that particular body of experience has little real value for someone wanting to know how to use a firearm for home defense. It's all gotta be relevant to the situation.

Ehhh...a SEAL has many skills. Just because he was a sniper doesn't mean he wasn't highly skilled in CQB or other areas.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Flying Crane]

Ehhh...a SEAL has many skills. Just because he was a sniper doesn't mean he wasn't highly skilled in CQB or other areas.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

as I said, he probably has a lot of experience handling firearms of many types, in many situations and would probably have something relevant to teach. But the sniper skills in particular would be irrelevant.

 

[Flying Crane]

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....

I'm gonna get into something that might get a bit vague and fuzzy, it's how I view my training and I'm not exactly certain how to put it into writing and I hope in the end, it will be relevant to your comments here.

I view my training as a form of physical education. The goal of the training is how to use the body efficiently and effectively. How to connect all of the body parts to work together as a connected unit and harness the potential that the entire body has under these circumstances.

The goal is not, in my opinion, how to defend myself against a punch. How to defend myself against a kick. How to defend myself against a grab. Or a knife attack. Or an attack with a pointed stick, or black cherries or a banana (extra points to anyone who gets that reference...).

The method we use in training our bodies for the goal of full-connection, happens to be techniques that can be used in fighting. We use punches of various types, and kicks, and stepping and positioning moves, and long sequences of forms, etc. that put these techniques into various combinations. These training methods help us understand how to connect the body as one unit. Oh, and happily, they can also be useful when confronted by a badguy who intends to do me harm. That's a nice extra that's part of the package, a result of undergoing this training.

Ultimately, the techniques are not what we are after. We are after that full body harness, and the techniques are a vehicle for getting us there. Once we "get there", we can harness the full body for anything that we do, not just the techniques that we practiced. Then, any movement we make can become a devastating technique. Ideally, we no longer even need those formal techniques.

Then, it becomes easy to defend against a punch, or a kick, or a grab, or a banana. We have gained a very high level of control over our bodies and we can respond and unleash devastation if needed.

However, ultimately my ability to do so depends on myself, how well I have trained and internalized the lessons and my vision of what is possible with what I've learned. My sifu guides me in that, but in the end it comes down to me.

Sifu takes movements from our forms and uses them as examples: "here, throw a punch at me...OK now I can do THIS and it it destroys your punch and hurts you, and what I did is just like THIS movement from THIS form..." These are examples of what is possible with the material, but you need to understand it on that level and you need to be able to couple that with the larger physical education, that of full-body harnessing. Because you can also just practice the techniques and the forms with no mind for how to use any of it, and you just get a good workout and exercise in. Good exercise is no guarantee of good fighting skills, tho if you train properly to understand how one might use the material to fight, then you will also, by default, be getting good exercise. You need to ask yourself: what is my interest in doing this? Do I just want exercise (that's OK if you do...) or do I want to understand what is possible in how I might use this stuff to fight or defend myself? Those are questions to answer for yourself, and then pursue the training accordingly and be honest with yourself about whether or not you are on a road to meet that goal.

But, getting back to what I was saying earlier...our approach to training is not openly or specifically centered around the notion of "How do I defend myself against X or Y or Z attack? How do I defend myself?"

the answer to those questions become obvious after you have gained to larger physical education that our training offers, but it requires a different mindset than expecting specific answers to "how do I defend against...?"

Hope this makes some kind of sense, I've done my best to describe it.

 

[Rich Parsons]

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.

Put an unarmed bouncer or guard into a violent city with gangs, and that person does what it takes to go home at night. Is that lack of awareness?

Why are they in that job? (* Assume it paid the most, even more than a line cook or computer programming at the time *)

 

[Steve]

Flying Crane and Harlan, you've both brought up terrific points on this particular subject, and I don't disagree with you. Trust certainly plays a role, Flying Crane. Building trust is actually it's own skill set. Harlan, I also agree with you that a person's own expertise will be a factor in how well that person can judge someone else's expertise.

I want to shift the perspective here. I'm trying to look at this through an outside lens. In other words, whether you can accurately gauge a person's expertise, that person either is or isn't an expert in a particular field. A martial arts instructor is either a bone fide expert in that style of MA, or he/she is not. A surgeon either is or is not an expert in that field.

A complete novice might not be able to tell which is which, but that does not affect the instructor's credentials.

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that I see your points, and they're good ones. But I'm still wondering what you think about the actual development of expertise as an individual. You are trying to become an expert in something. What are the ingredients? What are you actually learning? What does an expert of something look like to you? What are the characteristics of an expert?

 

[Flying Crane]

gonna have to think about how to answer this...

 

[rframe]

What does an expert of something look like to you? What are the characteristics of an expert?

An expert is one who has knowledge and the ability to apply and correlate material.

In the field of self defense, let me provide a case, that I think proves one can practice for something without ever using it in a live situation and still be an expert.

Rener and Ryron Gracie (sons of Rorion Gracie, founder of the UFC, and grandsons of grand master Helio Gracie), are two very well-known BJJ experts and teachers.

What is somewhat interesting in Rener and Ryron's approach is that while they are not anti-sport (they appreciate the enjoyment and unique challenges of sporting jiu-jitsu), they believe the that essence of BJJ is in combatives and self-defense and they continue to emphasize this heavily, clearly noting when certain moves and positions are not appropriate for the street.

They are actively and repeatedly engaged in the training of law enforcement officers and the military in grappling and weapons retention.

I believe that I've heard both Rener and Ryron state that they have never been in an actual street fight.

 

[Steve]

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.

Interesting points. I agree that the quality of experience will certainly be important. But the conclusion, that it's almost like having experience doesn't matter... not sure I agree with that. The way I see it, "expert" is the sum of several different, distinct pieces.

A person with experience may or may not be an expert. However, a person without experience is never an expert.

Now, a person without experience could have a lot of potential. He or she could also have several of the other ingredients of expertise.

I sort of asked this in my last post. What do you guys think are the key traits of an expert?

 

[Flying Crane]

Flying Crane and Harlan, you've both brought up terrific points on this particular subject, and I don't disagree with you. Trust certainly plays a role, Flying Crane. Building trust is actually it's own skill set. Harlan, I also agree with you that a person's own expertise will be a factor in how well that person can judge someone else's expertise.

I want to shift the perspective here. I'm trying to look at this through an outside lens. In other words, whether you can accurately gauge a person's expertise, that person either is or isn't an expert in a particular field. A martial arts instructor is either a bone fide expert in that style of MA, or he/she is not. A surgeon either is or is not an expert in that field.

A complete novice might not be able to tell which is which, but that does not affect the instructor's credentials.

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that I see your points, and they're good ones. But I'm still wondering what you think about the actual development of expertise as an individual. You are trying to become an expert in something. What are the ingredients? What are you actually learning? What does an expert of something look like to you? What are the characteristics of an expert?

as I think about this, I'm not certain that there is a single, solid answer to this. It might not be something that can be clearly and objectively measured up to "thus"...

As Rframe states, an expert is one who has knowledge and the ability to apply and correlate the material. But how is that measured, and at what level of this ability is enough to be an expert, or a master, or whatever you want to call it? Development of skill is a progression and it's difficult to measure and difficult to assign a solid value to. It's very nebulous. that's why I keep coming back to, everyone needs to decide who they trust to give them the info and the training. 'Cause I'm not sure how else to say it, I can't give definite parameters. As soon as I try to nail it down, I suspect someone will point out an example that doesn't fit my definition.

And keep in mind, the "best" in the world (if that could even be measured) is still vulnerable to a suckerpunch or being blindsided, or bad luck, or a bad day where nothing goes right, and could still lose to a Nobody on the street. It can happen at any time. So what does it really mean to be an expert? It does not mean invincibility. The Best who loses to Nobody is still worth training under, because he's got something worth learning. But the fact that he lost to Nobody, well now his reputation is tarnished and people suddenly doubt his ability, maybe he's really just a charlatan.

I'm kinda thinking out loud here, just rambling in my thoughts I guess.

I made the example earlier of someone with crude technique who can still be very effective with it because he's big and strong and athletic and aggressive. OK, does that make him an expert, does it make him knowledgeable? He's certainly effective, but can he actually teach what he does to someone else, and will that person be as effective as him if he lacks the same size, strength, athleticism and aggressiveness? What does he really have to teach, in this example? He may have found something that works for him, is good enough for him, but that he cannot pass along to anyone else if he were to try. At least not to anyone who does not match his natural attributes. This is someone who is not worth studying under because he has very little to actually teach, even tho he has the ability to clean out an alley full of ruffians.

What is perceived as important to gain a level of expertise is something that I think changes with one's experience. A novice sees only the color of a belt, and thinks that is a measurement he can count on. The higher the rank, the better the instructor. We all know that's not a trustworthy measurement.

I've spent years training in several different martial systems, all with a very different approach to how the curriculum is organized and trained. What I thought was a good system when I was younger and less experienced, is stuff that I now feel is not such a good system, or at least not a good match for me personally.

I guess for me, it comes down to a couple of things. First, you need to study and train a system that makes sense to you and is a good match for your personality and how you mentally order things in your cognition. You need to train your techniques to be strong, you need to work them in a way that helps you be able to use them on an opponent, but how you go about doing that is subject to much debate. Is competition necessary, or not? What KIND of competition? Are interactive drills enough? How about drills that are scripted, vs. drills that are more spontaneous? Perhaps they are all a part of the big picture, they all have a place in the progression of training and none of them alone are THE answer.

I know my sifu's training history, I know who his teachers were, I know that when he was young in Hong Kong in the 1950s that he got in fights and used his stuff for real. I understand our system enough to know that it's a good match for me mentally and the system makes sense to me. When my sifu teaches, what he says, what he shows us, makes sense to me. And I've got enough years in (close to 30 now), with experience in enough variety, that in my opinion, I can distinguish nonsense from quality. What I see in my sifu is quality. not because he gets up and dazzles me with his mad skillz. But rather because he can explain in a way that makes clear sense to me. And when he demonstrates his point or examples he wants us to see, he gets huge results from very simple things.

But again, it's just my judgement, I've made a decision that I can trust his teaching.

So I dunno how else to answer your question. It's a good question but perhaps not one with a clear answer.

 

[rframe]

As Rframe states, an expert is one who has knowledge and the ability to apply and correlate the material. But how is that measured, and at what level of this ability is enough to be an expert, or a master, or whatever you want to call it?

This brings up another important point. We often think the term "expert" is an absolute measure of ability, but it's not.
As a computer security guy, I'm an expert, but there are people who I get into a room with in my field who make me feel like a 2nd grader.
As a flight instructor, I'm an expert pilot, but there are a lot of people who are much better than I.
I've seen 2nd-3rd degree black belts (real black belts, not McDojo black belts) who get taught by someone with decades of experience and say they feel like they were learning things for the first time.

 

[Flying Crane]

I sort of asked this in my last post. What do you guys think are the key traits of an expert?

Deep knowledge and understanding of the method, and the ability to use it to great effect.

How that is measured, and how one reaches that ability, is very difficult to define.

 

[Steve]

An expert is one who has knowledge and the ability to apply and correlate material.

In the field of self defense, let me provide a case, that I think proves one can practice for something without ever using it in a live situation and still be an expert.

Rener and Ryron Gracie (sons of Rorion Gracie, founder of the UFC, and grandsons of grand master Helio Gracie), are two very well-known BJJ experts and teachers.

What is somewhat interesting in Rener and Ryron's approach is that while they are not anti-sport (they appreciate the enjoyment and unique challenges of sporting jiu-jitsu), they believe the that essence of BJJ is in combatives and self-defense and they continue to emphasize this heavily, clearly noting when certain moves and positions are not appropriate for the street.

They are actively and repeatedly engaged in the training of law enforcement officers and the military in grappling and weapons retention.

I believe that I've heard both Rener and Ryron state that they have never been in an actual street fight.

I'm very familiar with Rener and Ryron. I think Rener's youtube videos are terrific, in particular.

So, here's my question to you. What are Rener and Ryron experts at? Where is there expertise? I'd say, based upon your post (and my own independent knowledge of them), they're experts in Gracie Combatives and Gracie Jiu Jitsu.

I'll try to work this through, and I welcome your feedback. They're experts in these fields because they learned them from Rorion Gracie, who had lots of experience fighting with these techniques, both in rings and outside of them, in bad neighborhoods all over the world, including his home of Brazil and in the USA. Rorion, based upon his knowledge of Gracie Jiu Jitsu and his experience, created Gracie Combatives. He invented it, and he new it was effective because he had used the techniques himself.

He taught them to his sons, Rener and Ryron. Rener and Ryron are experts in this style, and they learned it from their dad. While they don't have practical experience, they learned these techniques from their dad, who was both an expert in Gracie Jiu Jitsu AND an expert in self defense. Rorion knew that the techniques work because he had used them and they work. Rener and Ryron don't KNOW that the technques work. They believe that they do because Rorion told them so, and he's credible because he's an expert.

So, in the end, what am I getting at? Simply this. The techniques are likely sound, because they have been tested and they're being taught close to the source. Is Ryron Gracie a Self Defense expert? I'd argue not. He is, however, clearly, an expert in Gracie Combatives, because he has studied under his father, the founder of this program. He is also obviously an expert in Gracie Jiu Jitsu because he learned from his father, who learned from Helio, the co-founder of the art.

Rener teaches someone Gracie Combatives, who then teaches someone else Gracie Combatives and so on. These people may be experts in Gracie Combatives, but can they be considered experts in self defense?

 

[Flying Crane]

Is Ryron Gracie a Self Defense expert? I'd argue not.

perhaps there is simply no such thing as a Self Defense expert. Perhaps there are only experts in various methods, and those methods MAY be useful in self defense. That might be as close as one can get.

 

[rframe]

They're experts in these fields because they learned them...while they don't have practical experience...but can they be considered experts in self defense?

I think so, but that's the essence of the discussion really...how do we define expert, which is semantics.

The US military has a whole bunch of fighter pilots, I'd argue they are all experts if they're qualified operators. How many have actively engaged an enemy aircraft in live fire? Few. I dont think that makes them non-experts, nor would I change the label I give them from "expert fighter pilot" to "expert fighter maneuvering pilot"...I'm sure some would.

 

[Steve]

This brings up another important point. We often think the term "expert" is an absolute measure of ability, but it's not.
As a computer security guy, I'm an expert, but there are people who I get into a room with in my field who make me feel like a 2nd grader.
As a flight instructor, I'm an expert pilot, but there are a lot of people who are much better than I.
I've seen 2nd-3rd degree black belts (real black belts, not McDojo black belts) who get taught by someone with decades of experience and say they feel like they were learning things for the first time.

Sure. I see your point. So, let's try it from the other side. Would it be safe to say that a person who has never cooked is not an expert at cooking? Is a person who has never flown a plane an expert pilot?

In both cases, it's obviously possible for a novice to successfully fly a plane or cook a dish. At some point, every expert pilot flew for the first time. Every expert chef cooked their first dish. But I don't think anyone would suggest that they are experts, regardless of how well trained they are.

 

[Steve]

I think so, but that's the essence of the discussion really...how do we define expert, which is semantics.

The US military has a whole bunch of fighter pilots, I'd argue they are all experts if they're qualified operators. How many have actively engaged an enemy aircraft in live fire? Few. I dont think that makes them non-experts, nor would I change the label I give them from "expert fighter pilot" to "expert fighter maneuvering pilot"...I'm sure some would.

So, you see no distinction between the fighter pilots who have engaged an enemy aircraft in live fire and ones who have not? Wouldn't the fighter pilots who have those experiences have something of value to share with those who have not because they can speak from that experience?

 

[rframe]

So, you see no distinction between the fighter pilots who have engaged an enemy aircraft in live fire and ones who have not? Wouldn't the fighter pilots who have those experiences have something of value to share with those who have not because they can speak from that experience?

Sure there's a distinction, that's why I mention above that I think it's wrong to even think of the term "expert" as an absolute... else the only expert would be the person with the most combined knowledge, skill, and experience and it would be a title we'd have to revoke and transfer around constantly.

Those who've been mugged, raped, or punched out in a street fight have real life street exposure but that doesn't make them an expert either.

 

[Steve]

Sure there's a distinction, that's why I mention above that I think it's wrong to even think of the term "expert" as an absolute... else the only expert would be the person with the most combined knowledge, skill, and experience and it would be a title we'd have to revoke and transfer around constantly.

Those who've been mugged, raped, or punched out in a street fight have real life street exposure but that doesn't make them an expert either.

I appreciate this, but it sounds like you believe I'm thinking of the term expert as an absolute. I'm not, and have said so several times. I also, in the previous post, suggested that while nailing down who is an expert can be difficult, it's pretty easy to point to who isn't an expert. Do you agree?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD