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

[Dirty Dog]

Make up your mind, dude. You keep saying you can duplicate the effects of a real life or death attack and, in the same post, that it's not the same. All I have said is that it is NOT the same and that it cannot be the same. Better than nothing, sure, but it's not the same.

No, you can't fully replicate it. Heck, would you really want to put yourself in that much danger?
But my point was that if your brain is tricked into THINKING you're about to face a life or death situation then you can get the adrenaline dump because your brain reacts as though it is real. It gets as close as possible without actually risking death.

Just like sparring, even full contact, can't fully replicate an actual fight. But it does help you prepare. It's a very valuable tool. But nothing can fully prepare you for the emotional toll for having to defend your life or hurt someone else.

I have. And I disagree lol

There is a huge difference between training for adrenaline and "fight or flight" and dealing with the emotional issues that come from having to hurt someone.
It isn't very difficult to be put in a simulated situation that tricks your brain. In such a situation you have little time to logically remember that you're in no danger.

It isn't 100% the same. But it gets as close as one can be safely. Such training is meant to force adrenaline into your system. It helps to train yourself to react in a life or death situation rather than panic. There ARE differences. I don't deny that. But even a full contact sparring match is no actual fight either. Heck, getting in the octagon isn't either for that matter, but those going through simulated training are often better off than those with absolutely no training.


And before you ask, I'm not claiming to be some big action hero tough guy. I have been attacked on the street twice. Once against two men, one with a knife. The second occurrence was a guy attacking me with a bat. It was a case of road rage.

My father also went crazy under the influence of Meth and attacked me with a knife. I still have a scar to remind me. He then later got a gun because I managed to get the knife away from him. He went for the gun as I was patching up my cut hand. My mom warned me of what he was doing, and I grabbed my own gun. He was later picked up and arrested.

A combo of training and luck got me out of these situations alive. I can tell you, that had I never trained to deal with massive adrenaline and keeping a level head I would likely not be here debating with you. The emotional issues that come from harming someone? Can't prepare for it. But arenaline dump? You can get really friggin close.

So what part of "you cannot duplicate the real deal" do you disagree with?

 

[Drasken]

The whole point I was arguing is that there are techniques that prepare you. And will replicate the adrenaline dump accompanying a life or death situation. The adrenal dump CAN be fully replicated without any actual danger being present. Your brain just to PERCEIVE danger.
However the emotional effects are never able to be TRUELY replicated. People don't realize the emotional toll it takes on a person to have to harm someone. The first time I had to hurt someone was my father at the age of 13. I was slightly hesitant, though he was methed out of his mind and really trying to kill me. My hesitation got me hurt, though I was able to react and do what was necissary. The emotional aspect was the hardest to overcome. Even though I was confident that I would be able to do it without hesitation. That opened my eyes.

But the adrenaline was what I was referring to. And that can be replicated. Your first post seemed like you were contradicting that point, which I adamantly disagree with as I have unfortunately had experience in this.
So I suppose this whole thing may have just been mixed up communication?

 

[Steve]

Are you suggesting that the training method does not matter?


Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

I'm saying that there is no secret to how people learn. Some training methods recognize this better than others. But training, regardless of how good, will only get you so far. To develop expertise in something, you must do that thing.

Lets say you have a drivers license but have only ever driven an automatic. I can explain how to drive a stick shift. I can do it poorly or I can do it well. But no matter how convincingly you can describe it, you still can't do it.

Next step. I can show you how to drive a stick shift. While you might be able to mimic the motion of shifting gears and pushing the clutch, you still can't do it.

Next step. I let you start and stop and shift gears in a wide open, empty parking lot. You are getting there, but you still can't drive. This step is where I see most martial arts training stopping. But it's not good enough... You need to drive a stick.

So what's missing? In order to marry your previously acquired expertise in the rules of the road to your newly acquired skills shifting a manual transmission, you have to take the car out into traffic. And only by shifting in traffic hundreds... Thousands of times, will it become second nature.

Now, at each step, how I train you matters. It can be fast or slow, effective or ineffective. But that is irrelevant to the steps it takes to become more than a novice.

And to extend some other points brought up, how effective of an instructor would I be if I am teaching you to drive a stick, but I've only ever driven in a parking lot?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Dirty Dog]

The whole point I was arguing is that there are techniques that prepare you. And will replicate the adrenaline dump accompanying a life or death situation. The adrenal dump CAN be fully replicated without any actual danger being present. Your brain just to PERCEIVE danger.

It cannot be replicated. A similar, but significantly less extreme, reaction may be induced, but this is not, and cannot be, a duplicate for the response to a real situation. In all simulations, you KNOW you're not really going to die or be seriously hurt. If you didn't, then you'd really try to seriously hurt or kill the person(s) simulating the attack. That is my point. You can TRY, and that's better than nothing, but you cannot duplicate the response.

Maybe when we achieve a true virtual reality it will be possible. But at this point? No. It's not possible.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Steve, you asked about how many "generations" away from real practical testing we can get without the teachings losing effectiveness.
Excellent question. I don't know that we can really answer it though. The suggestion that the more generations removed we are from actual testing, the more likely we are to have allowed "drift" to creep in and alter the technique (and it's effectiveness) is sound. But the only way I can think of to test the hypothesis is to use them "for real" and compare the results from various generational distances.
If we could do that, the question would never arise.
I think the only thing we can do is consider our techniques and consider not only how we use them in sparring, but how they might be used in a life or death situation. Training with a BOB or somesuch might help somewhat in that you can alter target areas to more lethal ones, but it's certainly not a replacement for real application. Same thing applies to limited contact sparring using the more lethal targets.

 

[Drasken]

It cannot be replicated. A similar, but significantly less extreme, reaction may be induced, but this is not, and cannot be, a duplicate for the response to a real situation. In all simulations, you KNOW you're not really going to die or be seriously hurt. If you didn't, then you'd really try to seriously hurt or kill the person(s) simulating the attack. That is my point. You can TRY, and that's better than nothing, but you cannot duplicate the response.

Maybe when we achieve a true virtual reality it will be possible. But at this point? No. It's not possible.

Well, rather than argue with you on something you have obviously never been put through I will allow you to have your opinion. Even though I believe, from my own experience and understanding of the psychology of this training, that you are wrong.

As to seriously trying to harm someone during this training, it happens. Thus people are closely watched and all attempts are made to preserve safety of all involved. Including safety equipment in many cases.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Well, rather than argue with you on something you have obviously never been put through

Actually, you are incorrect. I have been through it, and am regularly exposed to confrontations with people who would have no qualms at all about harming me.

I will allow you to have your opinion.

Well gosh, that's mighty nice of you. In that case, you have my permission to have an opinion as well.

Even though I believe, from my own experience and understanding of the psychology of this training, that you are wrong.

As to seriously trying to harm someone during this training, it happens. Thus people are closely watched and all attempts are made to preserve safety of all involved. Including safety equipment in many cases.

And the very fact that this equipment and supervision is in use and possible confirms what I said - you KNOW it's a simulation and your responses are not the same. You will get SOME adrenalin. But you will NOT get the same level of response as from a real live or death situation.

 

[James Kovacich]

I'm saying that there is no secret to how people learn. Some training methods recognize this better than others. But training, regardless of how good, will only get you so far. To develop expertise in something, you must do that thing.

Lets say you have a drivers license but have only ever driven an automatic. I can explain how to drive a stick shift. I can do it poorly or I can do it well. But no matter how convincingly you can describe it, you still can't do it.

Next step. I can show you how to drive a stick shift. While you might be able to mimic the motion of shifting gears and pushing the clutch, you still can't do it.

Next step. I let you start and stop and shift gears in a wide open, empty parking lot. You are getting there, but you still can't drive. This step is where I see most martial arts training stopping. But it's not good enough... You need to drive a stick.

So what's missing? In order to marry your previously acquired expertise in the rules of the road to your newly acquired skills shifting a manual transmission, you have to take the car out into traffic. And only by shifting in traffic hundreds... Thousands of times, will it become second nature.

Now, at each step, how I train you matters. It can be fast or slow, effective or ineffective. But that is irrelevant to the steps it takes to become more than a novice.

And to extend some other points brought up, how effective of an instructor would I be if I am teaching you to drive a stick, but I've only ever driven in a parking lot?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

So we agree that the training that is most realistic is key. Techniques can be accumulated, practiced and ingrained in any training method but somethings missing if we fail to try it out in the lab.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Steve]

Steve, you asked about how many "generations" away from real practical testing we can get without the teachings losing effectiveness.
Excellent question. I don't know that we can really answer it though. The suggestion that the more generations removed we are from actual testing, the more likely we are to have allowed "drift" to creep in and alter the technique (and it's effectiveness) is sound. But the only way I can think of to test the hypothesis is to use them "for real" and compare the results from various generational distances.
If we could do that, the question would never arise.
I think the only thing we can do is consider our techniques and consider not only how we use them in sparring, but how they might be used in a life or death situation. Training with a BOB or somesuch might help somewhat in that you can alter target areas to more lethal ones, but it's certainly not a replacement for real application. Same thing applies to limited contact sparring using the more lethal targets.

There's another possibility. We can be more specific about what we are teaching and what we are learning. This is where I see sport arts as having a head start. They teach to the test, so to speak.

In BJJ, lineage speaks to the quality of instruction, something that James Kovacich brought up. But, if I train under a BJJ legend, am I then a legend by proxy? Of course not. In fact, my BJJ legend instructor might be a terrible coach. So, it's important in BJJ to test yourself from time to time and see what's what. And, fortunately, the tests are easy to come by. We spar. We compete. We train for the test, and we routinely apply our skills in context.

Other sports do the same. But, how do you test your self defense skills without ever defending yourself? How do you test your sword fighting skills without dueling with swords?

And, the same could be said with marksman skills. While a police office might never draw his sidearm, a soldier might see combat routinely in a time of war. Wouldn't the soldier be more expert in the area of marksmanship while under fire than the average, domestic LEO?

I want to be clear, I'm asking. While I might be posting assertions without a question mark at the end, I'm not fixed on anything and am really interested in hearing alternatives.

 

[Steve]

So we agree that the training that is most realistic is key. Techniques can be accumulated, practiced and ingrained in any training method but somethings missing if we fail to try it out in the lab.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

To be more specific, I'd say that there are many ways to go about training effectively. But the important point I'm driving at is that training can only get you to a certain point.


Knowing --> Understanding --> Doing --> Mastering --> Evaluating --> Innovating

This is how I see the learning process. You can't understand something you don't know. You can't do something you don't understand. You can't master something you've never done. And nevermind the evaluation and innovation stages, which can't happen if you haven't internalized the skills to the point that you can improve on them.

 

[Drasken]

Well gosh, that's mighty nice of you. In that case, you have my permission to have an opinion as well.



And the very fact that this equipment and supervision is in use and possible confirms what I said - you KNOW it's a simulation and your responses are not the same. You will get SOME adrenalin. But you will NOT get the same level of response as from a real live or death situation.

I can see your logic. However I will also say to look up these methods. There have been threads about it. You will find most of them in the discussions about knife defense if I remember correctly. You'd be surprised how easily the brain can be tricked into forgetting the safe setting a person is in, and how easily fight or flight mode can be activated.
People overestimate the brain's capability to default to logic in a stressful situation. I can tell you from personal experience that the adrenaline dump from this training is indeed on par witha real confrontation in most cases. I have felt the adrenaline from both training and real life.

Your opinion is your own, however I would also say that until you go through both situations as I, and MANY other people have, that your opinion is based mainly on a logical idea but not true understanding. I don't fault you for this as I felt very much the same way until I had experienced it myself.

It is what it is, and I feel nothing else can come from this debate other than repeating ourselves and progressing from debate into a pointless argument. So I believe out of respect that we should agree to disagree and leave it at that

 

[Dirty Dog]

There's another possibility. We can be more specific about what we are teaching and what we are learning. This is where I see sport arts as having a head start. They teach to the test, so to speak.

In BJJ, lineage speaks to the quality of instruction, something that James Kovacich brought up. But, if I train under a BJJ legend, am I then a legend by proxy? Of course not. In fact, my BJJ legend instructor might be a terrible coach. So, it's important in BJJ to test yourself from time to time and see what's what. And, fortunately, the tests are easy to come by. We spar. We compete. We train for the test, and we routinely apply our skills in context.

Other sports do the same. But, how do you test your self defense skills without ever defending yourself? How do you test your sword fighting skills without dueling with swords?

You cannot test your own execution of these skills in a real situation without BEING in a real situation. Sparring/simulations/dream walking/whatever can certainly help, but nothing totally duplicates a real world experience except a real world experience.

Does that we we shouldn't TRY? Absolutely not. Sparring helps, and it's even fun. So put away your steel and do some free sparring with shinai. It's not perfect, but it's the best available option.

And, the same could be said with marksman skills. While a police office might never draw his sidearm, a soldier might see combat routinely in a time of war. Wouldn't the soldier be more expert in the area of marksmanship while under fire than the average, domestic LEO?

Probably.

 

[Chris Parker]

When I was boxing (for a short time) it was amazing how after years of "martial arts"...thinking you can throw a punch...you discover that REALLY trying to land a power blow on a guy whos trying to land one on you is a whole different world from point sparring, limited contact sparring or "control" sparring. It's the closest you are going to get to the "real thing" without being in the real thing in terms of someone actually trying to put you down. Not something I wanted to do all of the time (KO's at my age? No thanks....) but it's an eyeopener.

Nope. You can get closer. I'm not saying it's not an eye-opener (it is, and is highly recommended), but it's not really an analogue for an assault. There are other methods for that.

Many MA'ists like to believe sport has no "real world" value but most MA have never been (intentionally) KO'ed or KO'ed someone else.

I have. Does that count?

Theres value in actually taking and receiving full contact shots in a sporting environemnt and seeing how you react to someone actually trying to put your lights out. At lest as much value as there is in practicing "killing" moves against a non-resisting opponent.

See, now, here's the issue.... who ever said these things were practiced against "non-resisting opponents"? If they are, then maybe it's time to look at the way things are supposed to be done... compliant doesn't mean non-resistant, it means that both parties are working towards the same end, and helping each other. That's very different to not resisting, as no resistance (within the context of the training) means that there's nothing for the training to work against, and it just doesn't work that way. The opponent should be actively trying to hurt/injure/kill (depending on the training drill) the defender... and if the defenders technique isn't working, it shouldn't work.

I have to say, the idea of compliant training is probably the least understood I've come across, especially by any who train sporting or sparring systems.

This actually gets to one of the key questions I have.

In boxing, you train to box. The punching is trained to be executed at full power in a ring against an opponent. You are training for that and you practice it. Over and over. You aren't training to street fight.

BUT,here's the million dollar question. Is any school REALLY teaching self defense, if the students never defend themselves? If you're training to sword fight, but never actually sword fight, then are you training to fight with a sword?

Could the skills translate? Sure. In the same way that a proficient boxer or MMAist can defend him or herself effectively using the skills learned in the gym, a kenpoist or whatever might also have skills that translate. But there is a transition. Isn't there? Training in wing chun isn't the same as fighting with wing chun. Training in Iaido isn't the same as fighting with a sword.

The problem with this way of thinking is that you're not comparing the same types of thing. I know that it's easy to try to group them together, but they aren't really that similar (contextually). But, to answer your questions, yes, they are teaching self defence, yes, you are training to fight with a sword, no, training in boxing or MMA isn't training to defend yourself with either (so arguing that they are training to "actually do it" isn't correct either, as they aren't training for self defence), and yes, training in Iaido is the same as fighting with a sword (in it's ideal context).

I don't know if I posted this or not, but the next question would be how removed from concrete expertise one can be and still be confident that they are learning practical skills.

Put it like this. Let's say you're a veteran cop. You've been at it for 20 years. Are you an expert in every aspect of law enforcement? Likely not, according to Tgace. But, you're credible. You've been there, and the skills you will teach (hard skills like firing a weapon or soft skills like critical thinking/decision making/conflict management) will be skills you've mastered through application. The students you teach are learning practical skills, but are now 1 generation away from application. They never use the skills in "real life," but continue to practice, and they teach students, who are now 2 generations away from application. And so on.

In martial arts, there are some students learning "self defense" who are 3, 4, 5 or more generations away from skills taught by someone who has enough real world application of the skills to be considered an "expert." Does this matter?

The problem with this is that you're equating experience with expertise. They're related, but not always directly the way you're implying.

What's the difference between weapons training with contact and training for a sport? Aren't there still rules when you spar, however hard, in a school?

Wouldn't the stakes of an actual sword fight make a huge difference?

That's where different training methodologies (other than sparring) come into it.

You seem to be implying that I think boxing is better for self defense...therefore study boxing. All I'm saying is that boxers\MMA really hit people, take punches, and are used to fighting while taking real blows. I think that's a valuable defensive trait those guys pick up in their arts. To be honest...id take a fit, conditioned boxer with me into a bar fight call over a MA who only point sparred anyday.

While I don't disagree with anything there, there are others I'd pick over the boxer (or MMA practitioner), and certainly other training methods I'd pick over theirs. It'd include many of the same things, or similar, but there'd be a definite difference in the approach, design, set-up, and more.

Sure any MA can impart valuable skills...but not all skills are equally useful IMO. No offense intended to our Iado practiconers, but boxing is much closer to fighting than Iado is to a real sword fight. All MA'ists could benefit from a trip to a boxing ring for even just a month or two to put the experience under their belts...don't have to do it forever, but trying it may change the way you see\train your primary art.

No, boxing isn't, for the record. And I'm saying that as both an Iai student and someone who's trained in a boxing gym for a while. I agree that some boxing training is highly beneficial, but not entirely for the same reasons you're putting forth. I will say that (physically) boxing gives more applicable skills, but that's not the same thing.

 

[harlan]

Instead of trying to define what an 'expert' is, I think the OP should simply acknowledge that all studies and students will have 'gaps' in their training. Grasping at the idea that somehow someone that deals with violence on any kind of scale, whether it's a survivor of war, domestic assault, or a street-experienced police officer (or even someone that is an LEO and so automatically rates as an 'expert') and are somehow 'better' for addressing 'real-world' violence is an unexamined bias (for the most part).

Continuously 'upping the ante' for 'preferred credentials' for survival simply don't take into account...luck; Surviving the vast field of 'potential violent actions' cannot be reduced to a simplistic heirarchy of 'credentials'. If that was so, we'd all have to take a back seat to the chest-thumping of individuals touting this or that 'experience'.

Specialist, or generalist, it's about gaps, and continuously addressing them. Everybody has them, which is why we get together to train, and talk and maybe see outside of our particular boxes.

 

[Tgace]

The whole point I was arguing is that there are techniques that prepare you. And will replicate the adrenaline dump accompanying a life or death situation. The adrenal dump CAN be fully replicated without any actual danger being present. Your brain just to PERCEIVE danger.
However the emotional effects are never able to be TRUELY replicated. People don't realize the emotional toll it takes on a person to have to harm someone. The first time I had to hurt someone was my father at the age of 13. I was slightly hesitant, though he was methed out of his mind and really trying to kill me. My hesitation got me hurt, though I was able to react and do what was necissary. The emotional aspect was the hardest to overcome. Even though I was confident that I would be able to do it without hesitation. That opened my eyes.

But the adrenaline was what I was referring to. And that can be replicated. Your first post seemed like you were contradicting that point, which I adamantly disagree with as I have unfortunately had experience in this.
So I suppose this whole thing may have just been mixed up communication?

I agree with you. The military and LE have been successfuly "simulating" combat for training for YEARS now with pretty decent results. Simunituions/Airsoft, video simulations, scenario training, "box drills" etc. are extremely valuable in showing students/soldiers/LEO what happens to your range/dojo training when you have to apply it under stress. The same sort of value MMA/grappling/boxing gives in seeing how punching and getting punched really works vs your typical dojo session.

 

[Tgace]

I appreciate all of the responses. I think that the points regarding the context are really good ones, made by Tgace and a few others. It seems that expertise on a broader level, such as being a veteran cop, is as much a function of experience as it is knowing how to do specific things.

The points you've all made are solid and I largely agree. But that leads me to another question, which is this. I get that being a veteran cop means a broad range of experience and perhaps specific expertise in a few areas. Same might go for being a veteran RN, like DD or Celtic. DD mentioned teaching a person how to put a chest tube into a side of beef. It's close to the real thing, but not quite. If you've learned it from someone who has actual experience with it, let's say your experience is 2nd generation. You never actually put in a chest tube, but have practiced it over and over and then you teach someone. That person is 3rd generation. They practice it over and over and then teach someone else, a 4th generation. Then a 5th.

Applying that to martial arts, many martial arts instructors are many generations removed from the practical experience. Do you think that there is a danger that the skills being taught risk becoming detached from reality? Consider the phone call game many of us played as kids, where one person is given a short message, to tell to another person around the room until at the end, the message is completely different. Is this a risk? If not, how do you keep the theoretical skills practical, when taught to you by someone who has never actually done them, taught to them by someone who has never actually done them, and so on.

Sukerkin, perhaps sword arts like yours are the best example of this, but I think it could apply to any art purporting to teach "self defense."

I wonder about this too. While trad arts like to talk about "direct transmission" and "preserving ancient arts"....if we had time machines I'd bet my fortune that their arts are not as "unchanged" as they like to think.

 

[MJS]

I don't know if I posted this or not, but the next question would be how removed from concrete expertise one can be and still be confident that they are learning practical skills.

Put it like this. Let's say you're a veteran cop. You've been at it for 20 years. Are you an expert in every aspect of law enforcement? Likely not, according to Tgace. But, you're credible. You've been there, and the skills you will teach (hard skills like firing a weapon or soft skills like critical thinking/decision making/conflict management) will be skills you've mastered through application. The students you teach are learning practical skills, but are now 1 generation away from application. They never use the skills in "real life," but continue to practice, and they teach students, who are now 2 generations away from application. And so on.

In martial arts, there are some students learning "self defense" who are 3, 4, 5 or more generations away from skills taught by someone who has enough real world application of the skills to be considered an "expert." Does this matter?

Good points Steve. To use the martial arts analogy...one would possibly get more out of training with Rickson himself, rather than the student of a student of a student, etc. lol. I'd like to think though, that if you've been a cop for 20yrs, that while you may not know everything, that you'd be pretty damn close. Then again, just like there're crappy martial artists...well, you see where I'm going.

My suggestion would be: if one is serious about training, even if that day never comes, do anything and everything, to keep your training as real as possible. Yes, I know when people read that, the next thing they tend to say is, "Well, you can replicate things 100% real life!" Umm...yes, no kidding! LOL!. However, LEOs, firefighters, Military, they all do training scenarios that put them as close as possible, and IMO, if it works for them, it'll work for the serious martial artist.

Just my .02.

 

[MJS]

It cannot be replicated. A similar, but significantly less extreme, reaction may be induced, but this is not, and cannot be, a duplicate for the response to a real situation. In all simulations, you KNOW you're not really going to die or be seriously hurt. If you didn't, then you'd really try to seriously hurt or kill the person(s) simulating the attack. That is my point. You can TRY, and that's better than nothing, but you cannot duplicate the response.

Maybe when we achieve a true virtual reality it will be possible. But at this point? No. It's not possible.

I see the point he's trying to make though. Peyton Quinn did it with his adrenal stress conditioning. Sure, the guy wearing the padded suit, really isn't going to rape you, stab you, etc, but the idea is to trick the mind into really thinking that you are going to die, get raped, stabbed, etc. I've never been to his courses, but from what i've heard of them, he makes them pretty realistic.

A few years ago, the PD I dispatch for, had a firearms training simulator available for the cops to use. I took advantage of an opportunity to use it. So yes, while I 'knew' the guy pointing the gun at me, really wasn't going to shoot and kill me, I still did my best to put my mindset, into that of an LEO who was actually facing a shoot/don't shoot scenario. It was pretty cool!

 

[Steve]

The problem with this is that you're equating experience with expertise. They're related, but not always directly the way you're implying.

That's where different training methodologies (other than sparring) come into it.

While I don't disagree with anything there, there are others I'd pick over the boxer (or MMA practitioner), and certainly other training methods I'd pick over theirs. It'd include many of the same things, or similar, but there'd be a definite difference in the approach, design, set-up, and more.

I think that you're misunderstanding me, Chris. I'm not equating experience and expertise. I'm suggesting that experience is an essential component to developing expertise. You cannot become an expert in something with which you have no experience.

So, then, the next step is to further define "experience." I think many martial arts equate training to experience. You seem to be doing this very thing. While training can prepare you to a point, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread through multiple examples, it is no replacement for actual, practical experience.

And notice that I'm not saying that all training is the same. Some is better suited than others for different applications. Learning iaido won't help me in a BJJ tournament, for example. And some training methods are more effective than others. But in the end, no matter how good the training is, without ample real experience, all of the skills remain theoretical.

Instead of trying to define what an 'expert' is, I think the OP should simply acknowledge that all studies and students will have 'gaps' in their training. Grasping at the idea that somehow someone that deals with violence on any kind of scale, whether it's a survivor of war, domestic assault, or a street-experienced police officer (or even someone that is an LEO and so automatically rates as an 'expert') and are somehow 'better' for addressing 'real-world' violence is an unexamined bias (for the most part).

Harlan, frankly, I have no idea what you're referring to, here. Could you elaborate a little? What I think I've written doesn't seem to be the same thing as what you think I've written.

Continuously 'upping the ante' for 'preferred credentials' for survival simply don't take into account...luck; Surviving the vast field of 'potential violent actions' cannot be reduced to a simplistic heirarchy of 'credentials'. If that was so, we'd all have to take a back seat to the chest-thumping of individuals touting this or that 'experience'.

If you're training to be a street fighter, but the person who is teaching you has never been in a street fight, are you learning from an expert? If you're learning to be sniper and the person you're learning from has never been a sniper in a live, field operation, are you learning from an expert? If you're learning to perform open heart surgery from someone who has only ever done it on a cadaver, is your instructor an expert? It has nothing to do with escalation, and while I think simplistic is a little patronizing, I think I'd agree that it's simple. It's a simple question: can you be an expert in something you've never actually done? My assertion is that you cannot.

I wonder about this too. While trad arts like to talk about "direct transmission" and "preserving ancient arts"....if we had time machines I'd bet my fortune that their arts are not as "unchanged" as they like to think.

Agreed. It's sort of like that 'phone call' game many of us played as kids at parties. One person is given a short message, and then that message is passed around the room until at the end, we all hear the original message and the end result. The difference is astounding, even through each person passed along the "same" message. This is precisely the hazard of learning from someone who is not an actual expert. They have no practical experience. It's all theory, regardless of how well trained.

Good points Steve. To use the martial arts analogy...one would possibly get more out of training with Rickson himself, rather than the student of a student of a student, etc. lol. I'd like to think though, that if you've been a cop for 20yrs, that while you may not know everything, that you'd be pretty damn close. Then again, just like there're crappy martial artists...well, you see where I'm going.

My suggestion would be: if one is serious about training, even if that day never comes, do anything and everything, to keep your training as real as possible. Yes, I know when people read that, the next thing they tend to say is, "Well, you can replicate things 100% real life!" Umm...yes, no kidding! LOL!. However, LEOs, firefighters, Military, they all do training scenarios that put them as close as possible, and IMO, if it works for them, it'll work for the serious martial artist.

Just my .02.

Agreed, MJS. Here's a question, though. The instructors at the training that first responders and military appoint. Aren't they people with actual, real life experience?

 

[Sukerkin]

I wonder about this too. While trad arts like to talk about "direct transmission" and "preserving ancient arts"....if we had time machines I'd bet my fortune that their arts are not as "unchanged" as they like to think.

It's a phenomenon that is guarded against as rigorously as possible. It's known by different names but we've always termed it Kata Drift. What do we mean by that? Simply it is that there is a range of motion that is permitted within a given form inside which it is a valid execution of that form. If someone is taught the form and they learn that it is okay to be an inch either way at a certain point then they practise that form and get good at it and their sword naturally begins to be always in the same place (because that is what we train so hard for at the end of the day ). If that person teaches another person the form then the new student learns that sensei places his sword 'here' but that an inch either way is still okay. So they practise the form and get good at it and, eventually, they too begin to teach ... and so on with each successive generation learning as best they can a technique that, potentially, could become more and more different from what it should be (assuming that the 'drift' is always in the same direction of course, which it likely would not be given the natural physics of sword work).

That is why the koryu place such store by the direct line back to the beginning and to having strong links to those that hold the original material of the art. It's part of why seminars with such masters as Iwata Sensei (sadly now gone) are so highly prized - it lets you look 'back in time' and detect if you have kata drift setting in.