Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?

[Steve]

How long would someone have to train with me, once a week for 90 minutes, to get as good as someone who trains 10-20 hours a week for a couple of years? Probably many years.

That's not the question, and it's not the topic of the thread. You're once again personalizing this and missing the point as a result. You spoke about intensity.

Let's say you have some folks who train in a BJJ school with intensity 10 hours per week, every week, in a school that does not compete at all. After a year, do you think that person could defend him/herself from someone who trains half the time (about 5 hours every week) but in a competitive environment, where competition is encouraged? I don't think this person would have a chance.

What about after 2 years? After two years, the non-competitive person would have 1040 hours of training. After 1040 hours, one would expect some degree of competence. Do you think that person could competently defend him/herself from someone with literally 50% of the hours of training, but in a competitive environment? I don't think this person would have a chance. It is an open question whether this person would be able to defend him or herself competently from someone who is untrained but at a similar fitness level.

What if the non-competitive person has 5 years of training, and the competitive person has 2 years of training? After five years, the non-competitive person would have logged about 2,600 hours of training. Do you think that person could competently defend him/herself from someone who has trained for 2 years, about 5 to 6 hours per week in a competitive environment? I still don't think this person would have a chance. And again, I think it's an open question whether this person would have any applicable skill against a motivated but untrained assailant.

What about after 10 years? At this point, this person has logged 5,200 hours of training... 10 hours every week. If a person trained in, let's say MMA for a fraction of the time (2 years at about 5 hours per week = 520 hours) at a competitive school... this person would literally have 1/10th of the training hours as the non-competitive person. Do you think the non-competitor would prevail if attacked by someone training in MMA for only 2 years at 5 hours per week? I really don't believe so. I think maybe, at about 10 years, you might start to see some difference in performance between this person and someone who is untrained.

Point is, in a thread about whether competitive sport martial artists are superior, the answer is just not debatable. Of course they are. All day long, they are. The only way they wouldn't be is to start getting creative and bringing in things like Chris Parker's "what if's". What if he broke his ankle stepping on a pebble? What if he has a bone spur that acts up? What if he has a soft spot for puppies and sees my screen background of my Corgi? But, while good for a laugh, doesn't at all address the topic at hand.

 

[Steve]

My assertion wasn't what you are suggesting it was. Get over it.

It wasn't about effort and intensity? What was it about, then?

Once again, the question is very simple. Are competitive sport martial artists superior? The answer is obvious, regardless of effort and intensity. Point is, you're muddling a simple truth with chaff. Preference, priorities, intensity, and effort are all things you've mentioned in this thread. None of those things matters, if the topic at hand is results. A person may prefer to lose weight without changing eating habits or exercising. But the results don't care about your preferences. One might prioritize comfort over discomfort, but the results don't care about your priorities, either. You may train with a high level of intensity or frequency, but if your training is inefficient and lacks any application, your results will speak for themselves.

 

[Steve]

I agree.

What's the functional difference between a school that assures you will become an "ultimate fighter without the requisite blood, sweat, and tears," and a school that assures you will become an expert in self defense without the "requisite blood, sweat, and tears?" I honestly don't see any difference between one and the other.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's not the question, and it's not the topic of the thread. You're once again personalizing this and missing the point as a result. You spoke about intensity.

Didn't you just ask that question a few posts ago? That's the one Hanzou was referring to. Not sure how answering a question becomes wrong.

Let's say you have some folks who train in a BJJ school with intensity 10 hours per week, every week, in a school that does not compete at all. After a year, do you think that person could defend him/herself from someone who trains half the time (about 5 hours every week) but in a competitive environment, where competition is encouraged? I don't think this person would have a chance.

Depends how they train. All else being equal (what drills they use, intensity of training, instructor knowledge and skill, variety of training partners, etc.), yes, I think they'd have a decent chance. Especially if they worked in a context of rules different from what the competitor is specifically trained for (so Judo rules, or something).

The real issue, IMO, is lost in your strident assertions. I think the competitive school has a distinct advantage because some of those "all else" things I listed above aren't likely to be equal.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It wasn't about effort and intensity? What was it about, then?

It wasn't that a competitve school and non-competitive school are equal except for intensity, and that nothing else matters.

Though it does seem that your assertion is mostly that nothing but competition matters. Which is bananas.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What's the functional difference between a school that assures you will become an "ultimate fighter without the requisite blood, sweat, and tears," and a school that assures you will become an expert in self defense without the "requisite blood, sweat, and tears?" I honestly don't see any difference between one and the other.

I've never heard a school assert that latter. You keep trying to make (to me and some others) the point that we and/or others are making such claims. Sorry, you're wrong a lot.

 

[drop bear]

You're blatantly abusing the term. If eveyone in a population chooses something, there's no bias inside that population. So, no, the folks choosing to participate doesn't create a variable between the groups. But I'm done explainign to you. I'm pretty sure you actually get the idea already, and are just purposely acting stupid with it.

And you've gone far afield from where selection bias came into this, where you were making assertions about people's motivations and what they are willing to do and trying to compare a competitive MMA or BJJ program to the students I teach. Folks interested in competition aren't looking for a once-a-week maximum number of classes. They self-select out. It wouldn't matter how good my class was, that's not enough time to prep someone for serious competition. Your club's 12-week program (as you explained it to me) includes enough hours to cover a few years of my classes. That's a much better approach for someone who wants to ramp up quickly for competition.

That is the opposite of selection bias. Where a person will do better if he trains more effectively.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That is the opposite of selection bias. Where a person will do better if he trains more effectively.

You're confounding the issues. Selection bias exists. That doesn't invalidate the idea that a person who trains more effectively gets better. They are not conflicting principles.

 

[dvcochran]

That's not the question, and it's not the topic of the thread. You're once again personalizing this and missing the point as a result. You spoke about intensity.

Let's say you have some folks who train in a BJJ school with intensity 10 hours per week, every week, in a school that does not compete at all. After a year, do you think that person could defend him/herself from someone who trains half the time (about 5 hours every week) but in a competitive environment, where competition is encouraged? I don't think this person would have a chance.

What about after 2 years? After two years, the non-competitive person would have 1040 hours of training. After 1040 hours, one would expect some degree of competence. Do you think that person could competently defend him/herself from someone with literally 50% of the hours of training, but in a competitive environment? I don't think this person would have a chance. It is an open question whether this person would be able to defend him or herself competently from someone who is untrained but at a similar fitness level.

What if the non-competitive person has 5 years of training, and the competitive person has 2 years of training? After five years, the non-competitive person would have logged about 2,600 hours of training. Do you think that person could competently defend him/herself from someone who has trained for 2 years, about 5 to 6 hours per week in a competitive environment? I still don't think this person would have a chance. And again, I think it's an open question whether this person would have any applicable skill against a motivated but untrained assailant.

What about after 10 years? At this point, this person has logged 5,200 hours of training... 10 hours every week. If a person trained in, let's say MMA for a fraction of the time (2 years at about 5 hours per week = 520 hours) at a competitive school... this person would literally have 1/10th of the training hours as the non-competitive person. Do you think the non-competitor would prevail if attacked by someone training in MMA for only 2 years at 5 hours per week? I really don't believe so. I think maybe, at about 10 years, you might start to see some difference in performance between this person and someone who is untrained.

Point is, in a thread about whether competitive sport martial artists are superior, the answer is just not debatable. Of course they are. All day long, they are. The only way they wouldn't be is to start getting creative and bringing in things like Chris Parker's "what if's". What if he broke his ankle stepping on a pebble? What if he has a bone spur that acts up? What if he has a soft spot for puppies and sees my screen background of my Corgi? But, while good for a laugh, doesn't at all address the topic at hand.

Those are lot of what-ifs that leave a ton of variables out. I have seen 'competitive' schools that were anything but and non competitive schools that rocked and really went hard. More than hard enough to make up a good bit of the gap.
Some people are not going to do well in true competition no matter what kind of pressure training they get. And some people are born with a competitive spirit and would excel in a non competitive environment AND be far ahead of the curve if/when they competed.
And while the average would have to lean to the competitive schools there are enough outliers to upset your argument.

 

[Steve]

Didn't you just ask that question a few posts ago? That's the one Hanzou was referring to. Not sure how answering a question becomes wrong.


Depends how they train. All else being equal (what drills they use, intensity of training, instructor knowledge and skill, variety of training partners, etc.), yes, I think they'd have a decent chance. Especially if they worked in a context of rules different from what the competitor is specifically trained for (so Judo rules, or something).

The real issue, IMO, is lost in your strident assertions. I think the competitive school has a distinct advantage because some of those "all else" things I listed above aren't likely to be equal.

Okay. I will take you at your word.

I've never heard a school assert that latter. You keep trying to make (to me and some others) the point that we and/or others are making such claims. Sorry, you're wrong a lot.

Lol. You're kidding.

 

[drop bear]

You're confounding the issues. Selection bias exists. That doesn't invalidate the idea that a person who trains more effectively gets better. They are not conflicting principles.

Isn't this selection bias idea designed specifically to invalidate the idea that a person who trains more effectively gets better?

Because you can say they got better Because they were a special kind of person. Not due to the method they used.

 

[Steve]

I'm still curious how some folks can accept that you can't become an ultimate fighter without blood, sweat, and tears, but somehow can become a self defense expert without the same. I mean, in most things, effort seems essential.

Though to be clear, effort doesn't guarantee results, if the training is disconnected from the results. As I said earlier, the only selection bias going on is among people who are looking for results or people who are looking for an easy fix.

But the issue at hand isn't those things. It's whether competitive martial artists are superior. I interpret the root question to be whether competitive training models are superior. I find it telling that in several pages of posts, no one has really suggested otherwise. The thread has become derailed by red herrings about preference, priorities, and the voodoo of self defense.

Earlier in this thread, I described a situation where average folks are separated into four groups randomly, eliminating any potential selection bias. I shared my expected outcomes with you all. And several pages later, here we are, reading @gpseymour 's attempts to make it all about himself.

In a healthy school that encourages competition and trains students with a competitive mindset, an average person, with average motivation, can learn to be a competent mixed martial artist by training 5 or 6 hours every week and competing once or twice per year. It's predictable and reliable. If you put this into the process, you get that out of the process. Every time. And it's independent of style. Ninjutsu would be improved by a robust competitive model. Wing Chun would be improved by a robust competitive model. And any competition based art will rapidly devolve without it.

 

[Steve]

To be clear about this selection bias thing, what bothers me about the logic of it is that it disregards results. If comfort, preference, and priorities other than results supplant results as a goal, then I think you will find an art that suits you. You will be comfortable. Your preferences will be respected, and your priorities will be addressed. You should expect these things to reflect in the outcome.

If you're a person who is unwilling to fight, but wants to learn how to fight... you have a dilemma. There is an internal conflict with your stated goals. @gpseymour would say, no problem. There are schools out there that aren't competitive which cater to people who don't want all of that discomfort or fighting stuff. He would say, these people will gravitate to these schools. And they may or may not. But no one really likes to be uncomfortable and a lot of people don't enjoy fighting. These aren't really different pools of people. It's just people who prioritize results over other things, whether that other thing is discomfort, fear, ego, or something else.

 

[Buka]

This is one strange fricken' thread.

Considering what I think it was initially created to cause, it did so nicely. Quite functional, well done. Pip pip!

 

[Steve]

This is one strange fricken' thread.

Considering what I think it was initially created to cause, it did so nicely. Quite functional, well done. Pip pip!

Strange how? Do you mean strange as in unsettling or alien? Or strange as in unfamilar or exotic? Or strange as in distant or estranged?

"Strange" is a strange choice of words.

 

[Acronym]

This was a question asked in my other thread and I thought it warranted its own thread. There is a slight disdain for sports and competition among traditionalists within the martial arts. It even pops up in my style Brazilian Jiujitsu, despite the fact that what brought Bjj to prominence was sport and competition. There is a group of people within Bjj who dislike what competition has done to the art, and like to hammer in the idea that sport dilutes the self defense aspect of the art.

While there is some merit to that point, there is another inescapable fact; Competition and sport (particularly MMA) have kept Bjj "honest" in that it forces the style to never drift too far into having its own head up its ****. For example, after Bjj exploded on the scene via the early UFCs, numerous other grappling systems emerged to try to supplant it as the main grappling art of the emerging sport. At first, Bjj exponents (mainly the Gracies) pushed a sort of purity message and refused to embrace other grappling styles, saying that their system of grappling was superior to all others. However, after the Gracies got beat by grapplers who had cross-trained in Bjj, other Bjj schools embraced other grappling forms. Over two decades later, it would be hard to argue that Bjj isn't an overall better martial art than it was when it first exploded on the scene in the 1990s.

Beyond general MA improvement, it would be a bit silly to believe that your average MA hobbyist is a better martial artist than a professional fighter. Again, when I look into my own martial art, I look at guys like Ryan Gordon, Keenan Cornelius, JT Torres, Marcelo Garcia, Ryan Hall, etc. and recognize that they would absolutely destroy me. There are videos of competitive Bjj players who roll against entire schools and submit students in that school within a matter of minutes if not seconds. Even the black belt instructors are easily dealt with, and considering that I would struggle with the average Bjj black belt, the fact that these people are several magnitudes better than them is something to think about.

Which brings us back to the general question; Are competitive sport martial artists superior to non competitive martial artists? I simply can't see how they aren't. Beyond grappling, look at the various showcases of traditional Chinese martial artists going up against MMA and sport fighters. Universally, the traditional martial artists lose, and many of the people they lose to aren't even professional fighters. Pushing this up a notch, if Jon Jones or Khabib walked into your dojo, could your instructor beat them in a fight? Bringing this down a notch would your traditional karate instructor be able to stand toe to toe against an amateur boxer? These are questions to consider because we continue to run across people who say that since their style includes wrist locks, throws, kicks, and kata, they have an advantage over a boxer because "the boxer only has punches".

I would argue that the boxer has more than punches. They have conditioning, durability, endurance, and fighting experience.

Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts.

I would say quite the contrary that sport martial arts has erroded BJJ but not the striking arts.

There are too many strategies in sport BJJ that do no work in MMA and self defense, that have become a mainstay

 

[Steve]

I would say quite the contrary that sport martial arts has erroded BJJ but not the striking arts.

There are too many strategies in sport BJJ that do no work in MMA and self defense, that have become a mainstay

Competition has been a part of BJJ since its creation in the early 20th century. There has literally never been a version of BJJ that is not competitive. It is intrinsic to the style.

I think you might have in mind restrictive rule sets, like the IBJJF format. I can agree somewhat that a single, restrictive ruleset might be a problem. But it's not reasonable to conclude that competition is bad based on that (or conversely, to imply that lack of competition is good).

 

[Acronym]

Competition has been a part of BJJ since its creation in the early 20th century. There has literally never been a version of BJJ that is not competitive. It is intrinsic to the style.

Gracie Jiujitsu was not a sport martial art, unless you consider street fighting a sport. Gracie Jiujitsu encompasses defense to strikes in a guard which a sport school will not teach you, since striking is forbidden

 

[Steve]

Gracie Jiujitsu was not a sport martial art, unless you consider street fighting a sport. Gracie Jiujitsu encompasses defense to strikes in a guard which a sport school will not teach you, since striking is forbidden

The Gracies have always competed, whether through single challenge matches, the Gracie Challenge, the UFC, Vale Tudo, and the literal involvement in the creation of the CBJJ and the IBJJF. I mean, come on. Competition is intrinsic to the style.

As I said above in an edit, I think you might have in mind restrictive rule sets, like the IBJJF format. I can agree somewhat that a single, restrictive ruleset might be a problem. But it's not reasonable to conclude that competition is bad based on that (or conversely, to imply that lack of competition is good).

 

[Acronym]

The Gracies have always competed, whether through single challenge matches, the Gracie Challenge, the UFC, Vale Tudo, and the literal involvement in the creation of the CBJJ and the IBJJF. I mean, come on. Competition is intrinsic to the style.

As I said above in an edit, I think you might have in mind restrictive rule sets, like the IBJJF format. I can agree somewhat that a single, restrictive ruleset might be a problem. But it's not reasonable to conclude that competition is bad based on that (or conversely, to imply that lack of competition is good).

No hold barred challenge matches is not sport martial arts. There were originally two branches of the Gracies that went into different directions, one sport, the other self defense and challenge matches only.