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

[Tgace]

"Stay in your lane!!!"

 

[rframe]

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?

I'd say the most glaring cases are those who claim to be an expert but cannot demonstrate clear understanding and application, so the observer chooses not to recognize them as an "expert". Since we're talking about things with no objective standards, it truly is a subjective matter and they eye of the beholder means quite a bit... which comes back to Flying Crane talking about trust and individual verification.

 

[Flying Crane]

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

I think it is not so easy. Lots of people seem to have plenty of students and even a good reputation, but I look at what they are doing and I see real problems. Some people think the guy is an expert. I, or someone else, might disagree. So even identifying who is not the expert isn't obvious, nor standard.

 

[Steve]

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.

Ding, ding, ding. Yes! It's too vague to be useful, and yet it's use is pervasive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Steve]

I think it is not so easy. Lots of people seem to have plenty of students and even a good reputation, but I look at what they are doing and I see real problems. Some people think the guy is an expert. I, or someone else, might disagree. So even identifying who is not the expert isn't obvious, nor standard.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that I am in fact an expert if I can convince people that it is true? That's kind of a cynical perspective, if I'm understanding it right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Steve]

"Stay in your lane!!!"

This is it. I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion.

But, If I'm advocating for anything, it is that we be more specific when articulating our areas of expertise. That we stay in our lanes and encourage others to do the same.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Flying Crane]

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that I am in fact an expert if I can convince people that it is true? That's kind of a cynical perspective, if I'm understanding it right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

HA!!

that's not what I intended to say, but at the same time it's not entirely inaccurate either.

I can only say that people have their own standards, based on their perceptions and experiences and their "knack" for this stuff. Some people might be seen as an expert by one audience, and seen as pretty mediocre, even poor, by another audience. It depends on the audience's experience and knowledge and whatnot.

I'm not trying to be cynical and say that people are deliberately duping an uneducated audience. Sure, that happens and there are downright frauds out there but I am not specifically talking about them here. I am talking about the people who do believe that they really know their stuff, that they are at the top of what they do, and they've got plenty of students who believe in them. But those same people are seen as not very good, by other people, for their own reasons. Everyone honestly believes in their own position on this, yet their positions can be directly opposed to each other. Case in point, I mentioned earlier that I was looking at Youtube videos of people doing my system, including a "grandmaster". What I saw was, in my opinion, pretty bad stuff. But I don't believe the guy is being deliberately deceitful. I believe that he believes in his knowledge and ability and methods, and his students do too. But I would never study under him, not for anything because my experience tells me what he's doing is pretty messed up. He might look at what I am doing and what my Sifu is teaching me, and feel the same way.

So is the guy an expert, or not? Ask him or ask his students, and they say "yes he is!!!!" But ask someone else and they say "oh gawd no!!"

I'll give an example from my own experience. Ed Parker is recognized as a pivotal figure in Kenpo here in the US, he passed away unexpectedly over 20 years ago. Much, maybe even most, of the kenpo in the US is linked to him in some way and lots and lots of people believe he was exceptional, gifted, even genius level in the martial arts. Lots and lots of students and schools are connected to his teaching and his methods.

But I spoke with an old guy who knew him back in the day. this guy is not a kenpo guy, he comes from an Okinawan background. When I heard that he knew Ed Parker, I asked him what he thought of him as a martial artist, and what he said was not very flattering. He just wasn't impressed with what Mr. Parker was doing and teaching.

So we've got a very famous individual with a very high reputation and a huge number of downstream students who believe Mr. Parker was great, and we've got some people who say, naw not so much.

Who's opinion carries more weight? I dunno. I didn't know the man so I can't really make that judgement.

How do we spot who the expert is not? Sometimes it's pretty clear to most people, but not always.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is it. I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion.

But, If I'm advocating for anything, it is that we be more specific when articulating our areas of expertise. That we stay in our lanes and encourage others to do the same.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Good point, but I think the problem is that people tend to automatically associate the one with the other. Oh, you train in martial arts? Well then you MUST be able to fight with it, or you MUST be a wizard at self defense... That's an assumption that people make, for right or for wrong. I think those of us who have put in some significant time and effort into our training can recognize the distinction that you are making here, but others may not. It might not be all that easy to explain to people either. Imagine telling someone who lacks the experience, "oh yeah, I've been training in this stuff for about 30 years, I think I'm maybe getting to be pretty good now with it. Can I defend myself with it? Oh, I think probably, but I don't really know, to be honest..."

WHAT??? You DON'T KNOW??? Isn't that what all that training is all about? Now ya gotta explain all that to him.

 

[rframe]

How do we spot who the expert is not?

Oh we could have fun with this, but I'd probably violate the forum policy on debunking rather quickly, LOL

 

[Steve]

I'll give an example from my own experience. Ed Parker is recognized as a pivotal figure in Kenpo here in the US, he passed away unexpectedly over 20 years ago. Much, maybe even most, of the kenpo in the US is linked to him in some way and lots and lots of people believe he was exceptional, gifted, even genius level in the martial arts. Lots and lots of students and schools are connected to his teaching and his methods.

But I spoke with an old guy who knew him back in the day. this guy is not a kenpo guy, he comes from an Okinawan background. When I heard that he knew Ed Parker, I asked him what he thought of him as a martial artist, and what he said was not very flattering. He just wasn't impressed with what Mr. Parker was doing and teaching.

Was Ed Parker an expert in Kenpo? I think that, considering all of the absolute, concrete evidence you posted, no one would argue otherwise. Not even the Okinawan martial artist, regardless of his opinion of Ed Parker. He may question Ed Parker's ability. He might question Ed Parker's expertise in some things. But would he suggest to Ed Parker he was not an expert in the style of martial arts he developed?

Let's try reversing this. Let's say that I'm an 18 year old Ninja Grandmaster who invented a style of martial arts called SteveJitsu-Ryu. I've been working on it all my life, putting together the whole thing, but have no formal martial arts training, have never been in a fight, and quite honestly, I don't even know what Ryu means, other than I think it's a character in a video game. Now, let's say that it's complete crap.

So, where is my expertise? Am I an expert in self defense? Probably not. Am I an expert in martial arts? No. I've never taken a class in any style of martial art.

Am I an expert in anything? I would say that I am. I am an expert in Stevejitsu-Ryu, for what that's worth. My expertise is not subjective. What IS subjective is the value of my expertise.

I see a clear distinction between a subjective statement of opinion and an objective statement that is measurable.

How do we spot who the expert is not? Sometimes it's pretty clear to most people, but not always.

This is a different question. Harlan was touching on this in her posts.

 

[Steve]

Good point, but I think the problem is that people tend to automatically associate the one with the other. Oh, you train in martial arts? Well then you MUST be able to fight with it, or you MUST be a wizard at self defense... That's an assumption that people make, for right or for wrong. I think those of us who have put in some significant time and effort into our training can recognize the distinction that you are making here, but others may not. It might not be all that easy to explain to people either. Imagine telling someone who lacks the experience, "oh yeah, I've been training in this stuff for about 30 years, I think I'm maybe getting to be pretty good now with it. Can I defend myself with it? Oh, I think probably, but I don't really know, to be honest..."

WHAT??? You DON'T KNOW??? Isn't that what all that training is all about? Now ya gotta explain all that to him.

Personally, this is exactly what I think should happen. I mean, if people ask me what I'm training, I say Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. I don't say "Self Defense." And if asked, I have said, 'I don't really know. At least I'll be in good shape if I have to run away." Can I choke you with your jacket? Yeah. Pretty confident I can do that. Would it be a good idea to do that in a self defense situation? I can guess, but I really don't know for sure. Because I'm not an expert in self defense and wouldn't want to claim to be one.

 

[Tgace]

Good point, but I think the problem is that people tend to automatically associate the one with the other. Oh, you train in martial arts? Well then you MUST be able to fight with it, or you MUST be a wizard at self defense... That's an assumption that people make, for right or for wrong.

I don't think thats the real problem..the real problem is when the instructor doesn't know the difference.

 

[Flying Crane]

I don't think thats the real problem..the real problem is when the instructor doesn't know the difference.

aye, true.

 

[Flying Crane]

Personally, this is exactly what I think should happen. I mean, if people ask me what I'm training, I say Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. I don't say "Self Defense." And if asked, I have said, 'I don't really know. At least I'll be in good shape if I have to run away." Can I choke you with your jacket? Yeah. Pretty confident I can do that. Would it be a good idea to do that in a self defense situation? I can guess, but I really don't know for sure. Because I'm not an expert in self defense and wouldn't want to claim to be one.

actually I do the same thing. I belong to a Crunch Gym near my office and I do my personal practice there over my lunch break. Sometimes other members will ask what I'm doing and I just tell them that I train traditional kung fu. If they ask more about specifically what, I tell them Tibetan White Crane. But I don't tell them I practice self-defense or something like that. I never really thought about it in these terms before this discussion, but I was just giving them the answer that seemed the most accurate and most honest. I believe that my methods could be very effective for self defense, but self defense is not what is formost in my mind when I practice. Yes it is there, but it's not my driving motivation for training. Improving my white crane is. If by default that improves my chances at self defense, well that's a bonus.

 

[Flying Crane]

Was Ed Parker an expert in Kenpo? I think that, considering all of the absolute, concrete evidence you posted, no one would argue otherwise. Not even the Okinawan martial artist, regardless of his opinion of Ed Parker. He may question Ed Parker's ability. He might question Ed Parker's expertise in some things. But would he suggest to Ed Parker he was not an expert in the style of martial arts he developed?

Let's try reversing this. Let's say that I'm an 18 year old Ninja Grandmaster who invented a style of martial arts called SteveJitsu-Ryu. I've been working on it all my life, putting together the whole thing, but have no formal martial arts training, have never been in a fight, and quite honestly, I don't even know what Ryu means, other than I think it's a character in a video game. Now, let's say that it's complete crap.

So, where is my expertise? Am I an expert in self defense? Probably not. Am I an expert in martial arts? No. I've never taken a class in any style of martial art.

Am I an expert in anything? I would say that I am. I am an expert in Stevejitsu-Ryu, for what that's worth. My expertise is not subjective. What IS subjective is the value of my expertise.

I see a clear distinction between a subjective statement of opinion and an objective statement that is measurable.
This is a different question. Harlan was touching on this in her posts.

well OK, someone by default is the expert at whatever it is that he/she founded. However, what they founded could be utter nonsense and so that person is the expert on one form of nonsense.

I'm not trying to say that is what Mr. Parker was. Rather, it's more appropriate to your example of Stevejitsu-Ryu.

Being the expert on something, and being the expert on something of value are not the same thing. But then again, the measure of value is subjective and subject to all kinds of personal biases, experiences, blinders, and delusions.

once again, make your own decisions about who you trust to give you training and information.

 

[rframe]

Let's say that I'm an 18 year old Ninja Grandmaster who invented a style of martial arts called SteveJitsu-Ryu. I've been working on it all my life, putting together the whole thing, but have no formal martial arts training, have never been in a fight, and quite honestly, I don't even know what Ryu means, other than I think it's a character in a video game. Now, let's say that it's complete crap. So, where is my expertise? Am I an expert in self defense? Probably not. Am I an expert in martial arts? Am I an expert in anything?

Not enough information provided in your original post... please answer the following so we have more complete information on SteveJitsu-Ryu:
1. Do you have a youtube channel?
2. Do you have a tattoo of some poorly translated kanji anywhere on your body?
3. Is your dojo in either your mother's basement or a self storage unit?
4. Did your katana cost less than a good steak dinner?
5. Do any of your ninja clothes or tools contain velcro, in any form?

 

[MJS]

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.

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.

Sorry for the delayed reply. Yes, you're right...the sniper skills most likely wouldn't apply to the average Joe. We are in agreement on the other aspect though...the fact that he has exp. with numerous guns, so yes, some skills would most likely apply.

 

[MJS]

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.

Hey Mike

Yes, what you said makes perfect sense. Since you and I have both come from Kenpo backgrounds, and have had many discussions on the forum, I think it's safe to say that we've pretty much experienced the same or similar things with Kenpo training and we share alot of the same ideas.

When I was coming up thru the ranks in Kenpo, to me, it seemed like it was merely a time to collect various techniques. Rarely, at least for me, were things explained then, as I understand them now. This is probably one of the main reasons why I hate the idea of hundreds of techs. People think that if they don't have a set tech for every possible attack, then they dont know a defense, when in reality, if they just looked at things like you said above, well....

A few weeks ago, in my Kyokushin class, we were working techs from one of our katas. My teacher did just what you said...showed something and then made the ref. to the kata. Yet on the flip side, I could count, literally, on 1 hand, the number of times that this was done in any of the Kenpo schools I was a part of. And then people wonder why they were clueless when it came to really understanding the kata, other than just going thru the motions.

IMHO, I think that the main reason theres so much focus on the number of techs per belt, is because people like to see that. instead of really understanding things, getting the true meaning behind things, they're more concerned with just getting another new tech. Promotion time....first thing on their mind is what new techs am I gonna learn? For the hobbyist or casual person, thats all that matters...for the more serious student, they're more concerned with what you describe above. At least in my opinion anyways. People get bored fast. The average student will be happier if they're seeing the potential to learn 20 new techs, rather than looking at the kata, seeing 1 move in a kata, and wondering how the hell they're going to get multiple techs from 1 move.

 

[MJS]

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 *)

IMO, willingly putting yourself in a situation vs. unknowingly are 2 different things. In your other post, it seemed as if you were saying that because the person was in a situation, was because they did something wrong to end up there in the first place. For ex: a LEO patrolling a high crime area. His job is that of a cop. He took that job knowing (at least I'd like to think he/she knew) that putting themselves in danger was part of the job. Someone walking from the shopping mall, to their car in the parking garage, at 11pm, too busy to take time to check their surroundings, because they're too preoccupied with their cell phone chat, to pay attention and notice a suspicious person in the garage, something not quite right, etc.

A bouncer IMO, needs to be aware. A handful of them, in a setting with many more people...they need to be aware of potential bad situations. So yes, I'd say if they applied those same skills they use in the bar/club, to the outside world, yes, chances are good that they'd go home safe.

 

[MJS]

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?

Points taken Steve. I'll use my wife as an example. At her last job, as well as her current one, she works in the accounting dept. She has exp. with accts payable and receiveable. No college training. She pretty much got all of her training on the job, being trained by the other people in the dept. IMO, she has a good grasp on what shes doing. Would she benefit from college experience? Most likely. Yes, even w/o that exp, she still does very well at her job. Room to advance or get another job in the same field? Probably not, w/o that extra training. For now, she's content with the skills that she has.

So, I think it'd be safe to say that it'll probably depend on the person.

As for the last question, of what are key traits: I'd say that the main thing, at least IMO, would be the depth of understanding. Chances are, the BJJ brown belt would have a better understanding of a tech, than a white or blue belt would, yet someone such as Rickson would have even a better, deeper understanding. I doubt I'd learn a new Kenpo tech from Larry Tatum, however, I'm sure that Larry Tatum could improve the way I perform and understand a given tech.