RIght.
And if I have? Or, more accurately, if one of our senior teachers used to be employed precisely in that field, and brought that knowledge and understanding into our schools and teaching, influencing and helping inform how I teach to today, what then? Do you fall back to another strawman? Or are you saying that every single person has to have done studies in "movement science"? Like everyone has to have done a PhD in English literature to write an email?
I'd love to read your instructor's study. Can you post a link? Or is this an appeal to authority?
He didn't present any methods. He critiqued a standard, proven, and strong training method by insisting it was for something it's not.
Standard, sure. But proven and strong is precisely the question on the table right now. You were the one who steered the discussion in this direction.
The completely broken syntax and bizarrely segmented sentences aside (do you ever proof-read anything?), you said that we couldn't say that something deliberately, specifically, and consistently included in these systems was done so because worth was found there... I mean... that really is the complete opposite of any form of logic, reasoning, or basic understanding, so... huh? I'd also point out that you made no mention of "function", nor defined anything in such manner... of course, it's painfully obvious from dealing with you over the years that you have little appreciation of anything beyond the limited "functionality" you think is found in your methods, so sure, I got your implication. I just wanted to point out (again) how little you grasp beyond your small-minded and limited understanding by pointing out that your own argument isn't borne out in reality.
You're being really rude and resorting to ad hominem attacks at this point. The key difference is personal accountability within the training. If I've never done so, it's not the technique that is flawed. It's the training model. And if I'm learning from someone who has never done so... well, that's just a recipe for disaster.
You have to remember that the misfiring synapses in your head when you're typing doesn't come out in the broken sentences that you post, so please forgive us for not being psychic about what the hell you think you're saying, 'kay?
This is another ad hominem attack.
It may be, if you understood it. Of course, the complete discounting of other forms of evidence counts against you.
This is another ad hominem attack.
But you missed the entire part of how the science was done. It's not just a matter of keeping throwing things in the air, and seeing if they stay up when you shape them differently... it was a lot of understanding of aerodynamics, air movement, maths, lift and updraft, observation of nature, maths, experimentation of designs, maths, trial and error, and so on. The thing is, we built the plane. We have the plane. It's in the kata. It is, in a real way, the kata. But the kata aren't the flight, it's how to design the plane, and how to make sure it can fly. Of course, you still need a pilot... but, do you know how pilots learn to fly? They learn sequences... they do drills... they use kata.
But can you fly the plane? Would you want to fly to Europe on a plane that is being piloted by someone who has only ever learned sequences and done drills? I wouldn't. I'd want that person to have logged hours actually flying a dang plane.
To reiterate, it's not the techniques that are in question. Those are the plane and often, those techniques are perfectly sound. It's the training method. At some point, I'm going to need to pilot the plane. I can trust that the plane WILL fly, because I can see others piloting the same planes. But can I pilot it? Well, that's the important question.
I really don't think you have any idea what your argument actually is.
That's another ad hominem attack.
Huh? Basically yes, you think no-one before you had ever pressure tested an arm-bar? And you didn't know, therefore,if an arm-bar worked???? Are you going to hold to that?
They aren't the ones who need to make the armbar work. They've clearly already done it.
Well, no, that's a different thing again. Let's see if we can get through this...
"Pressure testing" can be done in a number of different ways for a number of different purposes. Pressure testing a technique can be done to see if a technique works, as intended, or can be done to see if you can effectively apply it. Those are two different things... one tests the principles of a technique, the other tests the person applying it... and your entire argument has been that the techniques themselves haven't been "pressure tested" in kata, which is the first type. You're now talking about a personal application testing... so, which is it?
I'm very interested in
@drop bear's response to this. I would think we can all agree that in a modern style like Judo, we can all see that the techniques themselves are sound. My impression is that you're throwing this into the mix to muddle the discussion even further. Or maybe one of us misunderstands
@drop bear's basic argument.
If you're testing your ability to apply a technique, that's not pressure testing a technique, it's pressure testing your ability to apply a known, tried and tested technique... we know a rear naked choke works, because, you know, science... stop blood flow, person goes all sleepy... you don't need to test if that works. But your ability to do it? Now that can take some work to be able to do effectively and consistently... and this is the argument for "pressure testing" that Matt Thornton has termed "aliveness", and that you think is your "scientific approach" (it's not, for the record).
Can you apply a rear naked choke against someone who doesn't want you to do so?
Well, that's a very binary (and inaccurate) way of looking at things. If you can do it consistently in a roll, then that means you can do it consistently in a roll... that's really all. Can that transfer across to other contexts? Yep, absolutely. But here's the thing... if you do apply it in a different context, against a different type of threat, in a different situation, is that only because you did it in a roll? Or would you perhaps have been able to do it even if you hadn't achieved it in a roll? Perhaps... we can't definitely know... but the point is that you reinforce your understanding of the technique by doing it in a roll (as well as in more static drills... you know... kata), which is one way of doing it. We do it a different way. You don't know how our way works... that doesn't mean it doesn't, just that you don't know it or understand it. And, bluntly, you seem determined not to.
Skill transfer is a complex process that depends on many different factors. But logging hoursālike a pilot in the cockpitāand executing techniques under as many varied conditions as possible can make a significant difference. Training each technique this way not only improves performance, but also develops mental flexibility and adaptability under pressure or unpredictable circumstances.
You don't know what "good" is in our arts. You've got some incredibly good examples of some of the things I do in this thread, but you don't know how to recognise it, so there's little point trying to show you what it is, or explain to you what you refuse to understand or hear.
What is "good" in your art? I'm American, so small words, precise language, and short sentences would be appreciated.
And, frankly, I don't need to validate my training methodology. All of human history has already done that. You're only here because of it. We can only have this conversation because of it. And I really doubt you'll understand what I mean by that.
I don't know how you train, but martial arts are unique with regard to their training methodology.
Honestly, I have no idea who she is, or what the "methods" you're referencing are... which, in a way, is kinda the point. You have no idea what we do, or what our methods are. The difference is, I'm not about to comment on "Carolyn wrestling"...
The salient point, I believe, is that her method works because her students can be seen succeeding.
You know, I think a better way of distinguishing between traditional/classical styles and modern styles is where they tend to focus their gaze. Traditional styles, as can be seen in many of your posts, look back. Modern styles measure quality in the performance of the students. Traditional styles measure quality in the skill and accolade of the instructors. One looks forward; the other looks back.
Let's lay off the brew and stick with tea.
