Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[dvcochran]

with no training whatsoever.

I feel you need to qualify this statement. No formal, professional OTJ defensive training? Lived in a void with zero human exposure? There is a very, very wide spectrum in 'no training'.

but what is their opponents calibre?

This is a very valid point. I wonder if DB's video showed the whole story but the job site thief did not appear to put up any resistance at all.

I agree, you can have all the skill in the world in the gym, but if your head goes to mush, because of nerves or fear in a real situation, no skill (apart from running very fast) is going to help

Another valid point. It speaks to the wide spectrum of the phrase no training. Experiential 'training' is the most valuable of all. IMHO

 

[dvcochran]

I validate elements of it to get a general picture of the whole.

So say I get good at punching, kicking and grappling for example. I will have an advantage in a situation that involves punching, kicking and grappling.

Now I can verify my punching, kicking and grappling skill. So I can have a fairly accurate assessment of where I stand with that.

And so on. Same as the fridge.

I can look at similar fridges and by determining their performance I can make an assessment on if my fridge will be cold tomorrow.

But by in large that is not what you are doing is it? It appears you are gathering somewhat biased data and using it to support the conclusion you have already decided is correct. Which is apparently inherent to the MMA society. Youtube videos and regional experience just does not paint the whole picture.
It is also clear semantics are at play; or at least the way the term 'self defense' is perceived. In a comprehensive program it is a part of the whole in regards to training.
Again, this is a big reason I emphasize the limited learning in a short SD class for laypeople. You can think of it as an introductory demo if that makes it easier. I am still not certain why @Steve took this so strongly. It is simply being transparent and honest. Gaining any level of competency (at anything) requires practice and commitment. Selling it any other way is where things go off the rails.

 

[drop bear]

But by in large that is not what you are doing is it? It appears you are gathering somewhat biased data and using it to support the conclusion you have already decided is correct. Which is apparently inherent to the MMA society. Youtube videos and regional experience just does not paint the whole picture.
It is also clear semantics are at play; or at least the way the term 'self defense' is perceived. In a comprehensive program it is a part of the whole in regards to training.
Again, this is a big reason I emphasize the limited learning in a short SD class for laypeople. You can think of it as an introductory demo if that makes it easier. I am still not certain why @Steve took this so strongly. It is simply being transparent and honest. Gaining any level of competency (at anything) requires practice and commitment. Selling it any other way is where things go off the rails.

So have you provided data to balance the scales?

 

[drop bear]

Thatsceasy in oz though, you just dangle a few tinnies, game over, on a serious note, an untrained fighter may win fights, but what is their opponents calibre?
I agree, you can have all the skill in the world in the gym, but if your head goes to mush, because of nerves or fear in a real situation, no skill (apart from running very fast) is going to help, perhaps the police are trained differently where you come from, but you are still dodging jobo's question

I am not dodging his question. Not being able to determine what self defense is while using it for your own marketing purposes is quite simply using self defense as a weasel word.

Not defining self defense and then claiming to do self defense is a cop out and to provide ethical training you need to specify what you are actually training and what sort of progress you can expect from training it.

That is the answer to Jojos question. That is why I do a martial with a defined purpose and a verifiable progression from people who can do the things they say they can do.

Now if you were to ethically break down self defense in to a defined purpose you would be able to see and gauge what you are learning and whether or not it is having any effect.

But self defense instructors and the bulk of the industry choose to keep this vague.

Like police do training. Police arrest people the training must work.

This keeps police trainers in buisness without ever having to develop a system that would stand up to scrutiny based on its own merits.

And this is how healing crystals work. I got sick. I used healing crystals I got better so therefore healing crystals work.

 

[Gweilo]

Not defining self defense and then claiming to do self defense is a cop out and to provide ethical training you need to specify what you are actually training and what sort of progress you can expect from training it.

Although, this is your thought pattern, it also contradicts what you have written, yes you can defend yourself without training, and yes you can arrest someone with little training, but without training, your chances of defending yourself diminish, this is why the majority of people take up martial arts. As reqards to effective self defense, your going around in circles, any training is better than none, pressure testing through sport or contact sparring is the best way to test ourselves other than going out fighting week in week out, just because we do not record this by way of 17 and 0, with 15 knockouts or submission, or have the stats of, in 200 fights, there was 95 knockouts, 48 submission, so lets all train powershots, and submissions, because our stats say thats what works this week, so if you dont train it, your wasting your time.
I am sorry, I never recorded my total amounts of wins etc, and how the fight was won, but I was busy fighting.

But self defense instructors and the bulk of the industry choose to keep this vague.

This though, I do agree with, there are far too many in my opinion, and a lot of 25 year olds opening self defense schools, and claiming to have 10 first dans in 10 arts, this is worrying as there will be a massive drop in quality of techniques taught, butbthen this is my opinion, I have no evidence to back this up.

Now if you were to ethically break down self defense in to a defined purpose you would be able to see and gauge what you are learning and whether or not it is having any effect.

You mean something like, person gets fit, person improves core strength, person learns to move in a self defense minded way, person learns techniques to help in self defense, person spars, person learns what things work for them, and what dosnt, person continues regular sparring, learns how to adapt techniques, and combine techniques, person improves distance and timing, person becomes better at adapting to different size people, with different strength, speed, ability, persons confidence grows, person looks for new skills to add to their repitiore, person continues to grow, I could have rambled on a lot longer.

 

[drop bear]

Although, this is your thought pattern, it also contradicts what you have written, yes you can defend yourself without training, and yes you can arrest someone with little training, but without training, your chances of defending yourself diminish, this is why the majority of people take up martial arts. As reqards to effective self defense, your going around in circles, any training is better than none, pressure testing through sport or contact sparring is the best way to test ourselves other than going out fighting week in week out, just because we do not record this by way of 17 and 0, with 15 knockouts or submission, or have the stats of, in 200 fights, there was 95 knockouts, 48 submission, so lets all train powershots, and submissions, because our stats say thats what works this week, so if you dont train it, your wasting your time.
I am sorry, I never recorded my total amounts of wins etc, and how the fight was won, but I was busy fighting.

Why is any training better than none?

I mean it sounds good but without a real link from training to application I think this is a dangerous and very common assumption.

Imagine if police training was all different. If different departments just did whatever they felt was neccessary at the time. Now imagine with even that massive discrepancy in training nobody could tell you what training works to what extent.

It would be impossible to tell if any of the training worked.

 

[drop bear]

You mean something like, person gets fit, person improves core strength, person learns to move in a self defense minded way, person learns techniques to help in self defense, person spars, person learns what things work for them, and what dosnt, person continues regular sparring, learns how to adapt techniques, and combine techniques, person improves distance and timing, person becomes better at adapting to different size people, with different strength, speed, ability, persons confidence grows, person looks for new skills to add to their repitiore, person continues to grow, I could have rambled on a lot longer.

Maybe I am not sure.

I learn to grapple. And I can grapple to a fairly known quantity because I do it to a lot of different people in and out of competition.

Any situation that involves grappling is a known quantity to me.

If I was engaged in self defence and that involved grappling I would have a quantifiable skill that I can use at that time.


I can use enough of these things I know to solve situations I don't know. The unquantifiable becomes quantifiable in smaller bites.

And quantifiable is important. If I am not a good grappler I know that as well. I can make a real assessment of my development. And so can develop better.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That is not inconsistent with what I am saying. Do you have a practical example of this club you are describing?

I don't follow the question, DB. I don't think I described any specific club in that post.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have no doubt it would work. But because police can successfully subdue criminals isn't really evidence that the training works.

It's also not evidence the training doesn't. That was my point. The training is too short - I think most cops agree with that, but understand the reality behind it. That we see a lot of common approaches among cops suggests the training leaves an imprint, though the development of appliable skills happens over time as they get a chance to practice them in the field.

 

[drop bear]

I don't follow the question, DB. I don't think I described any specific club in that post.

You didn't and I was asking if you could.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think it was if something works for "self defense"

Okay. That's pretty much what I've said in the past, then.

 

[drop bear]

It's also not evidence the training doesn't. That was my point. The training is too short - I think most cops agree with that, but understand the reality behind it. That we see a lot of common approaches among cops suggests the training leaves an imprint, though the development of appliable skills happens over time as they get a chance to practice them in the field.

It is a dumb way to assess or validate a training program. But it seems to be the most common way.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am not dodging his question. Not being able to determine what self defense is while using it for your own marketing purposes is quite simply using self defense as a weasel word.

Not defining self defense and then claiming to do self defense is a cop out and to provide ethical training you need to specify what you are actually training and what sort of progress you can expect from training it.

That is the answer to Jojos question. That is why I do a martial with a defined purpose and a verifiable progression from people who can do the things they say they can do.

Now if you were to ethically break down self defense in to a defined purpose you would be able to see and gauge what you are learning and whether or not it is having any effect.

But self defense instructors and the bulk of the industry choose to keep this vague.

Like police do training. Police arrest people the training must work.

This keeps police trainers in buisness without ever having to develop a system that would stand up to scrutiny based on its own merits.

And this is how healing crystals work. I got sick. I used healing crystals I got better so therefore healing crystals work.

I've provided my working definition many times. As have others who appear to have a self-defense orientation. That the definition isn't consistent between people isn't a flaw or unethical, it's just how language works. There are plenty of other words in common usage that people understand each other quite well, but the words aren't hard-edged (here are a few: religion, politics, leadership, ethics). Ask folks to define those words, and they'll have some difficulty finding the borders, but for general discussion we mostly manage to understand each other. Sometimes, we have to discuss the term, itself, to clarify what each person is talking about, so we can stay on concepts rather than being distracted by different semantics.

Or, you could just say people are being dishonest and using "weasel words" when they refer to any concept that doesn't have hard edges. Which is really just derailing the discussion, rather than having it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You didn't and I was asking if you could.

With which part? My point was that the post doesn't describe a club. It covers some different points, but there's nothing there that could be a description of a club or group of clubs, that I see. If you point the the part you're thinking of, I'll try to answer the question.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is a dumb way to assess or validate a training program. But it seems to be the most common way.

And maybe the only way available. With only short training periods being used (and that's unlikely to change, given reality), how else could they assess results?

 

[drop bear]

And maybe the only way available. With only short training periods being used (and that's unlikely to change, given reality), how else could they assess results?

Test them. Have them fight each other. Invent a competition that involves the skills they were taught, review the trained person in 6 months, 12months 2years.

I used to make noobs drag out drunk people to see if they could. And then I would assess that.

I mean if the only way to assess a course that is too short is with an unworkable validation method then maybe they are just doing everything wrong.

 

[drop bear]

With which part? My point was that the post doesn't describe a club. It covers some different points, but there's nothing there that could be a description of a club or group of clubs, that I see. If you point the the part you're thinking of, I'll try to answer the question.

Cool. Can you describe a club that does this?

 

[dvcochran]

So have you provided data to balance the scales?

How do you accurately balance the scales when it is the input that is unbalanced? Trash in/trash out would be the result. So nothing would really change.

 

[Gweilo]

Why is any training better than none?

Climb mount everest without training, drive a car without training, go walkabout in the great sandy dessert without training, theoretically you have a very slim chance of success on any of these, training gives you a better chance of overcoming obstacles or challenges, because you draw on experience of others that have experienced what you have been through, yes that can be quality training, it could be ineffective training, thats where pressure testing comes in, and the individuals responsibility to overcome

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Climb mount everest without training, drive a car without training, go walkabout in the great sandy dessert without training, theoretically you have a very slim chance of success on any of these, training gives you a better chance of overcoming obstacles or challenges, because you draw on experience of others that have experienced what you have been through, yes that can be quality training, it could be ineffective training, thats where pressure testing comes in, and the individuals responsibility to overcome

This opens up something else. People do those without FORMAL training. If you grow up in a desert, its part of your life living in it, same with if you are ina mountanious area etc. If anything people living there would think its a little funny if you seek out formal training for it. and that is where doing and learning by doing comes into the equation. As well as learning by exposure.