Style bashing

[ballen0351]

 

[jobo]

Well, if you read the thread I've laid it out in a pretty straight forward fashion several times.

But once more; if you are being sold on the idea that what you are learning will prepare you for a fight or to defend yourself, yet your training involves no actual combat or sparring, you are being scammed.

It is with this brand of charlatan I take issue. The ones selling bs.

If no such claim is made, no such false promises made, no problem. This transcends styles into the realm of shady business practices.

your talking in absolutes again, and that automatically makes it untrue.

any physical improvement will make you more able to defend yourself, if this is coupled with sound techniques of how to apply your new physical improvement, then you are undoubtedly more able to defend yourself than you were previously,

there is a fair point that this will be limited by a lack of live action, but its not true to say that the whole thing is a,scam if it doesn't involve life action

 

[Martial D]

your talking in absolutes again, and that automatically makes it untrue.

any physical improvement will make you more able to defend yourself, if this is coupled with sound techniques of how to apply your new physical improvement, then you are undoubtedly more able to defend yourself than you were previously,

there is a fair point that this will be limited by a lack of live action, but its not true to say that the whole thing is a,scam if it doesn't involve life action

I see your point and I agree to an extent, but only to the point that it might improve your fitness or flexibility.(which definitely falls more to the boon side of things)

I'd also say my wording may have been a bit harsh, I don't think every person teaching combat without combat is intentionally deceiving people as per what they are selling, Many if not most probably believe it themselves too.

I can say with earnest that I've yet to meet anyone that has been trained this way that has been able to use it when it counts, in a way that works.

 

[jobo]

I see your point and I agree to an extent, but only to the point that it might improve your fitness or flexibility.(which definitely falls more to the boon side of things)

I'd also say my wording may have been a bit harsh, I don't think every person teaching combat without combat is intentionally deceiving people as per what they are selling, Many if not most probably believe it themselves too.

I can say with earnest that I've yet to meet anyone that has been trained this way that has been able to use it when it counts, in a way that works.

but again with the,absolutes, untrained people successfully defend themselves against attack every where everyday of the week. So the above would only be true if studying tma had,actually remove some of their,self defence capability so they always loose

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I see your point and I agree to an extent, but only to the point that it might improve your fitness or flexibility.(which definitely falls more to the boon side of things)

I'd also say my wording may have been a bit harsh, I don't think every person teaching combat without combat is intentionally deceiving people as per what they are selling, Many if not most probably believe it themselves too.

I can say with earnest that I've yet to meet anyone that has been trained this way that has been able to use it when it counts, in a way that works.

I'll add this to Jobo's point. While - clearly - training without some sparring at intensity (which could include competition) is not optimal, I've run into some folks who developed some fighting competence without it. In some cases, they were getting that intensity elsewhere (working the door, etc.), but it wasn't really training intensity, nor the kind of regularity we'd expect to be optimal for developing that competence. A few even seemed to have not gotten any sort of regular intense live, resisted training. And yet, when I sparred with them, they were competent. It seems logical (though not testable) that they'd be significantly more competent with the addition of that resisted training (very sporadic sparring with friends every year or so). It's also possible (again, not testable) that either they or their instructors were exceptional people. All I know is that they managed to develop some competency without it. When I speak of competency in this case, I'm simply evaluating them against what an untrained person would normally bring. An untrained person (except for exceptional people) doesn't usually cause me any problems in sparring, and these folks were able to present some problems of various levels, in spite of their lack of resisted training.

Again, perhaps exceptions/exceptional. I don't know how to figure that out.

 

[Steve]

I'll add this to Jobo's point. While - clearly - training without some sparring at intensity (which could include competition) is not optimal, I've run into some folks who developed some fighting competence without it. In some cases, they were getting that intensity elsewhere (working the door, etc.), but it wasn't really training intensity, nor the kind of regularity we'd expect to be optimal for developing that competence. A few even seemed to have not gotten any sort of regular intense live, resisted training. And yet, when I sparred with them, they were competent. It seems logical (though not testable) that they'd be significantly more competent with the addition of that resisted training (very sporadic sparring with friends every year or so). It's also possible (again, not testable) that either they or their instructors were exceptional people. All I know is that they managed to develop some competency without it. When I speak of competency in this case, I'm simply evaluating them against what an untrained person would normally bring. An untrained person (except for exceptional people) doesn't usually cause me any problems in sparring, and these folks were able to present some problems of various levels, in spite of their lack of resisted training.

Again, perhaps exceptions/exceptional. I don't know how to figure that out.

I have a problem with how you're using the term "competence." I would say there is a spectrum of skill development between a lay/untrained person and a competent person, where someone is neither one nor the other (or more accurately, somewhere in between). Some professions call this person an apprentice.

And further, a journeyman is competent, but may not be an expert. Or more accurately, there are layers of journey level expertise. A journeyman electrician who just passed the tests and is certified is, by definition, competent. But there are advanced certifications and just the value of experience that distinguishes one journey level person from another.

All this to say, I'm not sure that measuring skill against what an untrained person would bring in is very helpful in this context. Competence should really be an objective standard, and I think it's reasonable to expect that everyone comes in somewhere on the spectrum. If they have some previous training, that could be good or it could be bad, depending on what they learned.

 

[Martial D]

Some people are naturally physically gifted, and/or possess a fearless attitude and/or are naturally aggressive, etc.

Some of the toughest guys I have met didn't have any actual ma training. But all of them had their share of practical experience.

But that's really beside the point.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have a problem with how you're using the term "competence." I would say there is a spectrum of skill development between a lay/untrained person and a competent person, where someone is neither one nor the other (or more accurately, somewhere in between). Some professions call this person an apprentice.

And further, a journeyman is competent, but may not be an expert. Or more accurately, there are layers of journey level expertise. A journeyman electrician who just passed the tests and is certified is, by definition, competent. But there are advanced certifications and just the value of experience that distinguishes one journey level person from another.

All this to say, I'm not sure that measuring skill against what an untrained person would bring in is very helpful in this context. Competence should really be an objective standard, and I think it's reasonable to expect that everyone comes in somewhere on the spectrum. If they have some previous training, that could be good or it could be bad, depending on what they learned.

I'm okay with that disagreement, Steve. I used "competence" because I can't think of a better term to use - I'd be open to a suggestion of a better term. They had some level of ability to apply the skills they'd trained. I'm not sure where to draw the line for either "competent" or "skilled", much less "expert" - it's a pretty subjective distinction, and we won't find a good universal, objective standard to use, I think.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Some people are naturally physically gifted, and/or possess a fearless attitude and/or are naturally aggressive, etc.

Some of the toughest guys I have met didn't have any actual ma training. But all of them had their share of practical experience.

But that's really beside the point.

I'm assuming this is in response to my post. If not, just ignore me.

What I found was some folks who could execute what they were trained in (at least some of it). So it wasn't just a matter of them being fearless enough (though that's surely part of what most of us gain in sparring) or being naturally aggressive (though that certainly also helps). They had learned the physical skill and were able to execute.

Of course, it's also possible they would have developed that balance, posture, etc. without the training they experienced, but probably only if they'd had some other experience to lead them to it. My point was simply that there's some evidence that at least some people develop usable skills from training that lacks what I think we can all (okay, almost all - someone will be able to present a contrary opinion) agree are components of an optimal training approach.

And, clearly, there are other approaches that work for folks. Especially for those with natural (or otherwise developed) toughness and aggression. That includes just getting in enough fights, though that's also not an optimal approach, as it leaves the individual to work out what does and doesn't work all on their own, rather than starting from what others have already experienced.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Sure. Everyone who trained with Frank Dux is one example that is well known. The key isn't that he is a fraud because he teaches Dux Ryu Ninjutsu,. That's his thing and it can be anything he wants. He's a fraud because he asserts that it imparts skills to students that it doesn't.

The kung fu guys who agree to test their arts (bravo to them) seem to believe they have learned skills that they have not. Whoever thought them certainly is an example. possibly, if these guys are teachers, they are also examples.

Another view is that Dux is a fraud because he claims a biography and accomplishments which are completely fictional. For all I know, some of his students might actually be able to fight. (I wouldn't bet on it, but it's possible.) Even if he was successful in teaching students to fight, that wouldn't make him honest.

Hmm ... that might be a violation of the MartialTalk fraudbusting ban. Mods, feel free to delete if so.

 

[Martial D]

I'm assuming this is in response to my post. If not, just ignore me.

What I found was some folks who could execute what they were trained in (at least some of it). So it wasn't just a matter of them being fearless enough (though that's surely part of what most of us gain in sparring) or being naturally aggressive (though that certainly also helps). They had learned the physical skill and were able to execute.

Of course, it's also possible they would have developed that balance, posture, etc. without the training they experienced, but probably only if they'd had some other experience to lead them to it. My point was simply that there's some evidence that at least some people develop usable skills from training that lacks what I think we can all (okay, almost all - someone will be able to present a contrary opinion) agree are components of an optimal training approach.

And, clearly, there are other approaches that work for folks. Especially for those with natural (or otherwise developed) toughness and aggression. That includes just getting in enough fights, though that's also not an optimal approach, as it leaves the individual to work out what does and doesn't work all on their own, rather than starting from what others have already experienced.

Well, it was to you and jobo, as you guys were pointing out the same thing, and I don't totally disagree.

As for executing things you learned in a purely cooperative manner in a non cooperative situation, I'm not saying it's totally impossible, but I would say it's highly unlikely.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well, it was to you and jobo, as you guys were pointing out the same thing, and I don't totally disagree.

As for executing things you learned in a purely cooperative manner in a non cooperative situation, I'm not saying it's totally impossible, but I would say it's highly unlikely.

At the very least, is probably takes a lot longer to reach that point than if it's trained with some resistance.

 

[Martial D]

Would it though? To know if you've had 'enough' cooperative training your would need to test it non cooperatively, right? It seems to me the summation of those non cooperative tests(fights/spars) would be the more likely cause of whatever you are doing to start working when the opponent doesn't want it to than endless cooperative drilling. Not to say such drilling has no place, but on it's own it's got no wheels.

Im not convinced that even a lifetime of doing one thing(regardless of what it is) can prepare you for a totally different thing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Would it though? To know if you've had 'enough' cooperative training your would need to test it non cooperatively, right? It seems to me the summation of those non cooperative tests(fights/spars) would be the more likely cause of whatever you are doing to start working when the opponent doesn't want it to than endless cooperative drilling. Not to say such drilling has no place, but on it's own it's got no wheels.

Im not convinced that even a lifetime of doing one thing(regardless of what it is) can prepare you for a totally different thing.

That's the real issue (IMO) with not having any non-cooperative training. You might be fabulous against a resisting partner or you might be awful, but you can't really know until you actually have a resisting partner.

 

[Martial D]

I don't know of anyone that's fabulous at something they've never actually done, but I can't say it's impossible.

 

[Steve]

Another view is that Dux is a fraud because he claims a biography and accomplishments which are completely fictional. For all I know, some of his students might actually be able to fight. (I wouldn't bet on it, but it's possible.) Even if he was successful in teaching students to fight, that wouldn't make him honest.

Hmm ... that might be a violation of the MartialTalk fraudbusting ban. Mods, feel free to delete if so.

I appreciate the comment and see your point. There may be things he's alleged that are untrue. Those are the things that are dishonest and fraudulent. My thought is that, those are not his made up style of martial arts. People invent systems all the time, and then train people in those systems. Not just martial arts. You take training and become certified to varying degrees in that system. Franklin Covey, jack Canfield and many others make gazillions of dollars doing this. The concern would be in false claims. They are very specific about what you will learn and what you will be able to do. Martial arts folks are often more cavalier.

I don't know of anyone that's fabulous at something they've never actually done, but I can't say it's impossible.

Agreed. Prodigies do exist, but by definition, their abilities are extraordinary,.

 

[Steve]

That's the real issue (IMO) with not having any non-cooperative training. You might be fabulous against a resisting partner or you might be awful, but you can't really know until you actually have a resisting partner.

Speaking for myself, I'm less concerned with students than with instructors. Being an expert in Dux Ryu might make you very qualified to teach Dux Ryu. But it doesn't necessarily make you well qualified to teach self defense or fighting skills, even if you don't completely stink at sparring with a resisting partner.

the real key is in specificity.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Speaking for myself, I'm less concerned with students than with instructors. Being an expert in Dux Ryu might make you very qualified to teach Dux Ryu. But it doesn't necessarily make you well qualified to teach self defense or fighting skills, even if you don't completely stink at sparring with a resisting partner.

the real key is in specificity.

Being an expert in any skill doesn't make you qualified to teach that skill (so being an expert in Dux-Ryu doesn't necessarily make you qualified to teach that system, as application and teaching aren't the same skill set.

Whether being qualified to teach Dux-Ryu makes you qualified to teach fighting skills depends whether Dux-Ryu is a valid toolbox for fighting (do the techniques work as taught), and whether you understand the principles and issues of the context being trained for.

 

[Steve]

Being an expert in any skill doesn't make you qualified to teach that skill (so being an expert in Dux-Ryu doesn't necessarily make you qualified to teach that system, as application and teaching aren't the same skill set.

Whether being qualified to teach Dux-Ryu makes you qualified to teach fighting skills depends whether Dux-Ryu is a valid toolbox for fighting (do the techniques work as taught), and whether you understand the principles and issues of the context being trained for.

I used the term "might" on purpose. Being an expert in dux ryu might make you very qualified to teach dux ryu. Not being an expert in Dux ryu should certainly disqualify you. Right?

Edit: I ragree with the second part, but I suspect that when you say it you mean something slightly less specific than I.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I used the term "might" on purpose. Being an expert in dux ryu might make you very qualified to teach dux ryu. Not being an expert in Dux ryu should certainly disqualify you. Right?

As long as we leave room in "expert" for someone who is okay, but not great. I'd take BJJ classes from a blue belt in a second, if they are good at teaching. I might not even need them to be a blue belt - just need them to be able to improve on my ability.

Edit: I ragree with the second part, but I suspect that when you say it you mean something slightly less specific than I.

Probably. I think we share a concept, though we have a standing disagreement within it.