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

[harlan]

Sorry, but could you clarify: what is 'modern' self-defense'? That is a new twist to this thread.

Okay. Had some coffee. A little more awake now. I'll just clarify that, if you understood this from my posts, it is because I was unclear. I see a clear distinction between a person being an expert on some topic and that person having experience with some thing. I hope that's settled, because the rest of your post builds on this misunderstanding.You're close. Experience /= Expertise, but yes, expertise is (IMO) a critical component of building expertise... one of many. Sugar does not equal cake, but certainly any good cake has sugar in it.

Regarding the theme of the thread, I'd suggest that it's self awareness. And if there's one solid conclusion I've seen amply supported in this thread, it is that the danger is in mis-identifying the area of expertise through a lack of self-awareness. Tgace and MJS articulated two aspects of this. In Tgace's post, he pointed out that Todd Jaret is an "expert" and that his instruction is valuable and in demand. But Tgace stated very concisely what Todd Jaret's area of expertise really is... and what it isn't. It's clear to the students and(this is the part I think many martial arts instructors don't get) it is very clear to the instructor.

Are martial arts instructors so careful? Some are and some are not. The martial arts connection here is that the "self defense" oriented martial arts instructor is not typically as self aware as someone like Todd Jaret. You can be an expert only on what you have experience with. It's being self-aware that is the key. It is possible, for example, to be expert on theory. Training experience is experience with training. Sounds simple, I know, but I've seen you argue this same point. Sparring is not fighting. It is sparring. In MMA, sparring is not the same as fighting in the cage. Which is, in turn, not the same thing as self defense. And so on. So, training is training. There are a million different ways to train, some more effective at others. And training is an important step in the development of expertise. But, training it remains. The question becomes experience at what. Well, if you've already decided that you are right, I appreciate your contribution. Thanks. It's helpful for me to know what your thoughts are on the subject. Where have I suggested that it must be otherwise? Excellent. The crux. The nut, as they say.Ah... here it is. You don't understand at all what I'm saying. Because if you did, you'd understand that I agree that most (if not all) modern martial arts are NOT designed for modern self defence. It's helpful to understand your definition of the term. I define the term differently. To me, an expert is someone who has particular skill and knowledge. Obviously, if the subject is academic, then the expertise will also be academic. But in a physical skill being taught, there must be an intimate, physical familiarity.

I am not saying that only experts can teach. Certainly, even a novice can share helpful information. What I am saying is that an expert is, IMO, deeper than knowing. Knowing is the lowest form of understanding. I've said before, I see learning as moving through predictable and unavoidable stages:
Developing Expertise:

1. Knowing something,
2. Understanding that thing,
3. then you can do it (this stage, in martial arts, can take a while)

Refining Expertise:

1. Evaluation (this is where you start to think about the skill in context)
2. then you can synthesize it (this is where you start to examine this skill in connection to other, skills)
3. and, finally, you can innovate

Some would reserve the term expert to the very last stage.

I don't agree. To use your chef analogy (which I think I have earlier in the thread), I'd say that one could not call himself a chef if he has only ever read cookbooks. So, in order to be a chef, one must have experience actually, physically cooking. To be an expert chef, one must have done this... a lot. How much? Well, that depends. As Tgace pointed out, there is expert and then there is EXPERT.

To extend your analogy further, one doesn't need to work in a restaurant kitchen in order to be an excellent cook. However, to be an expert in cooking AND in managing a kitchen in a restaurant, one must have expertise in both skill sets. And you don't become an expert chef in a busy restaurant without experience. You forgot to add, "in my opinion." Surely you understand that, in spite of your absolute declaration, your definition of expert is your own. As I said before, it's helpful to know how you define the term, but I don't agree.

 

[Steve]

Sorry, but could you clarify: what is 'modern' self-defense'? That is a new twist to this thread.

Ask Chris. It's his term.

For myself, I take it to mean self defense in a contemporary setting.

 

[Tgace]

The problem with an "art"...or instructor...or technique being taught... with a lack of updated experience is that some instructors begin teaching things apparently based on an imagined or fantasy perspective of what will "work in combat" and you get stuff like this.

http://tgace.com/2011/08/16/we-do-dangerous-things/

 

[Dirty Dog]

The problem with an "art"...or instructor...or technique being taught... with a lack of updated experience is that some instructors begin teaching things apparently based on an imagined or fantasy perspective of what will "work in combat" and you get stuff like this.

http://tgace.com/2011/08/16/we-do-dangerous-things/

Oh my...

I quote... "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong..."

 

[Tgace]

Then you have issues with "experts" who may indeed have rank/certification in some skills/arts who try to claim expertise in fields they don't.

http://www.papadeltabravo.com/blog/?p=1150

The issue of martial arts instructors trying to hang shingles as firearms instructors too can be found in a few arts. To me it seems like instructors are trying to get modern "warrior" cred by bolting on tactical firearms training to their arts. In the military people like this would be told to "stay in their lane".

 

[Drasken]

The problem with an "art"...or instructor...or technique being taught... with a lack of updated experience is that some instructors begin teaching things apparently based on an imagined or fantasy perspective of what will "work in combat" and you get stuff like this.

http://tgace.com/2011/08/16/we-do-dangerous-things/

Wow... Just...... Wow. I'd like to see the numbers relating to how many training accidents they've had. My wife, who has little training at all was just staring wide eyed at my screen as I watched this video. Her only comment was "Well they have the music right for this video. These people are idiots..."

But it is worth it to mention that all martial arts have their fair share of this level of stupid. Though when live weapons are involved it kind of ups the level of Wtf to a higher level.

 

[Carol]

This isnt to imply that I think one is "better" than the other. LE/MIL seek them both but what they provide isnt identitical.

Actually I think this is a great reason why MAists should seek a broad base of experiences. Seminars, slapping leather with as many people as possible, even cross-training.

I think expertise is not defined by what you've seen or done. I think its defined by how well a person uses existing skills to put together an effective solution to an unfamiliar problem in a timely fashion.

What is timely? In my day job as a network engineer, I can be alerted to an issue with a device/appliance that I am not familiar with. If I have the root cause diagnosed and service restored in about an hour, I might be seen as a hero. But in a physical confrontation? Someone could brutalize me and escape to another next time zone in the same window of time. The scenario is different, the timing is different, but the results still depend on timely delivery of an effective solution one can provide to an unfamiliar problem.

Personally, I have been spending more time on the hiking trails than I have in the dojo. If something happens in the back country, you have to be able to save yourself....with no instructor, no cell phone reception, and perhaps no other sign of human life for miles. I've limped down Cannon Mountain with a sprained ankle. I've trudged for miles in the Pemigewasset wilderness with a sudden onset of bronchitis, complete with a fever north of 100F. Each time what has saved me was my preparation (including my gear) and my training. The bronchitis, by the way, was far worse than the sprained ankle. The sprained ankle was only painful.

I am skeptical. I'm not ashamed to say so. To hear that someone has been doing X the same way for years is not good enough for me. I want to know how an imperfect 40-something woman can utilize X to my benefit in 2013, because my own experiences have proven that my life, safety, health and well-being will depend on it.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Steve,

Okay. Had some coffee. A little more awake now. I'll just clarify that, if you understood this from my posts, it is because I was unclear. I see a clear distinction between a person being an expert on some topic and that person having experience with some thing. I hope that's settled, because the rest of your post builds on this misunderstanding.

To be honest, Steve, I don't think that you're quite seeing how you're saying things here.... as you're still saying what I have been commenting on. While there's a distinction, you're still saying that experience is required. It isn't.

You're close. Experience /= Expertise, but yes, expertise is (IMO) a critical component of building expertise... one of many. Sugar does not equal cake, but certainly any good cake has sugar in it.

But are we discussing a cake? That's the thing...

I think the initial post was too limiting, really. And that there is a real lack of understanding of the different contexts involved. It dealt with sport versus self defence, and there are huge numbers of arts that don't fit either category. It attempted to equate both to a similar skill set, and a similar method of attaining (and testing) skills, which just isn't the case. The criteria for "expert" in a sports art are different to the criteria in a self defence one... and different again in many non-sport, non-self defence ones. They're not all cakes. And don't really share the same ingredients.

Regarding the theme of the thread, I'd suggest that it's self awareness. And if there's one solid conclusion I've seen amply supported in this thread, it is that the danger is in mis-identifying the area of expertise through a lack of self-awareness. Tgace and MJS articulated two aspects of this. In Tgace's post, he pointed out that Todd Jaret is an "expert" and that his instruction is valuable and in demand. But Tgace stated very concisely what Todd Jaret's area of expertise really is... and what it isn't. It's clear to the students and(this is the part I think many martial arts instructors don't get) it is very clear to the instructor.

Self awareness? I really don't get that from this thread at all... and, bluntly, you're still making the same type of connections I observed earlier (when you told me not to tell you what you were saying or thinking). Tgace did compare two different forms of expertise, but was at pains to state that he wasn't making any judgement of one being "better" than the other. As he said, both Jarrett and Lamb are offering very different instruction, but that doesn't make only one of the "expert" when it comes to firearms... just expert in different approaches.

Are martial arts instructors so careful? Some are and some are not. The martial arts connection here is that the "self defense" oriented martial arts instructor is not typically as self aware as someone like Todd Jaret.

So careful as what? I'm not really following what you're saying here... and I'm not sure what you mean by Jarret being "self aware".

You can be an expert only on what you have experience with. It's being self-aware that is the key. It is possible, for example, to be expert on theory.

The problem is the insistence on what exactly the experience should be when it comes to martial arts instructors.

Training experience is experience with training. Sounds simple, I know, but I've seen you argue this same point. Sparring is not fighting. It is sparring. In MMA, sparring is not the same as fighting in the cage. Which is, in turn, not the same thing as self defense. And so on. So, training is training. There are a million different ways to train, some more effective at others. And training is an important step in the development of expertise. But, training it remains. The question becomes experience at what.

Hate to say it, Steve, but you've never seen me argue that point, as I'd patently disagree with the way you've presented it here. What I have argued is that training for one context is not the same as training for another. But, simply, training is experience... especially when it comes to things that are not practical to gain other forms of experience in.

Well, if you've already decided that you are right, I appreciate your contribution. Thanks. It's helpful for me to know what your thoughts are on the subject.

The thing is, Steve, I haven't seen anything to counter my position.

Where have I suggested that it must be otherwise?

Uh... the quote I was replying to? Where you said "Learning Iaido won't help me in a BJJ tournament, for example"....?

Excellent. The crux. The nut, as they say.

Yep.

Ah... here it is. You don't understand at all what I'm saying. Because if you did, you'd understand that I agree that most (if not all) modern martial arts are NOT designed for modern self defence.

Okay.... except the OP was a direct contrast between "sport and self defence", you haven't really taken on board other approaches for martial arts (asking about whether or not the lack of sword combative experience lessens the "expertise" for an Iai practitioner, etc), and the discussion has focused on the need for real-world self defence experience to validate whether or not a martial art instructor should be considered an "expert" in what they teach.

It's helpful to understand your definition of the term. I define the term differently. To me, an expert is someone who has particular skill and knowledge. Obviously, if the subject is academic, then the expertise will also be academic. But in a physical skill being taught, there must be an intimate, physical familiarity.

Okay... but the question again is where does the intimate, physical familiarity come from? Honestly, the answer is the training. Some real-world experience can help... but not necessarily. A lack of training, though...

I am not saying that only experts can teach. Certainly, even a novice can share helpful information. What I am saying is that an expert is, IMO, deeper than knowing. Knowing is the lowest form of understanding. I've said before, I see learning as moving through predictable and unavoidable stages:
Developing Expertise:

1. Knowing something,
2. Understanding that thing,
3. then you can do it (this stage, in martial arts, can take a while)

Refining Expertise:

1. Evaluation (this is where you start to think about the skill in context)
2. then you can synthesize it (this is where you start to examine this skill in connection to other, skills)
3. and, finally, you can innovate

Some would reserve the term expert to the very last stage.

Okay, so you're applying the term "knowledge" in a different way.... this is why I qualified by saying "deep knowledge". The way you're applying the term here I'd class as some exposure, and not the same thing. As for the rest, again, I have to say that this is thoroughly coloured by your experience in martial arts. You don't train for self defence (by your own words), your exposure is to sports training (for which I'd be agreeing with much of what you're saying), but it just doesn't apply across the board. Again, my background (to explain where I'm coming from) includes modern self defence, RBSD, BJJ, karate, TKD, Koryu, traditional arts, semi-traditional (not really sure how else to describe the Ninjutsu side of things... it's kinda halfway between traditional and modern), weaponry, unarmed, and so on. I can see where you're coming from, but really, you're missing a bit.

I don't agree. To use your chef analogy (which I think I have earlier in the thread), I'd say that one could not call himself a chef if he has only ever read cookbooks. So, in order to be a chef, one must have experience actually, physically cooking. To be an expert chef, one must have done this... a lot. How much? Well, that depends. As Tgace pointed out, there is expert and then there is EXPERT.

Sure. But it's really not the same thing here, honestly. I agree about the person only reading cookbooks, and would equate that to someone thinking they're self-learning (through books, DVDs etc) a martial art... to be a cook, you need to be in the kitchen. To be a martial artist, you need to be in the dojo/kwoon/dojang/gym etc. You don't need to get into a situation where you need to defend yourself. It's a false expectation, and a false connection.

To extend your analogy further, one doesn't need to work in a restaurant kitchen in order to be an excellent cook. However, to be an expert in cooking AND in managing a kitchen in a restaurant, one must have expertise in both skill sets. And you don't become an expert chef in a busy restaurant without experience.

And here you've added another aspect to the requirements.

You forgot to add, "in my opinion." Surely you understand that, in spite of your absolute declaration, your definition of expert is your own. As I said before, it's helpful to know how you define the term, but I don't agree.

No, I didn't. Mind you, you forgot to add the rest of my quote, where I clarified and qualified what I said, which wasn't as hardline as you're implying here.

Sorry, but could you clarify: what is 'modern' self-defense'? That is a new twist to this thread.

Ask Chris. It's his term.

For myself, I take it to mean self defense in a contemporary setting.

Pretty much.

I think that some artists have too much invested in either their Arts legitimacy as a "combat proven over centuries...teaching TRUE WARRIOR skills..." art, or in their own estimations of themselves as "warriors".

If you are only depending on your martial arts style/school/teacher as the SOLE source of you training (or the core of your life) you are a table with one leg.

And, just to address this, I think that many modern martial artists have too little understanding of what exactly such things are, as pertaining to the old arts. Vastly.

 

[Steve]

Hey Steve,

To be honest, Steve, I don't think that you're quite seeing how you're saying things here.... as you're still saying what I have been commenting on. While there's a distinction, you're still saying that experience is required. It isn't.

Yes, Chris. It is. Or can you provide an example of expertise absent experience? Maybe I'd benefit from an illustration.

Side note, has it ever occurred to you that if there is misunderstanding, some of that could be on your side? I'm perfectly okay admitting that I don't get something, and if you explain to me that I'm wrong, I will happily admit it. I don't get that from you, Chris. You're a smart guy, Chris. I respect your broad range of experience and you are very credible, in my opinion. But it occurs to me that you never seem to sit back and think to yourself, "Hmmm... maybe Chris Parker is the one that doesn't get it." Perhaps it's just me, but I'd be surprised if that phrase ever pops into your head spontaneously.

But are we discussing a cake? That's the thing...

No. We're discussing the development of expertise in human adults, and how human beings acquire skills and learn. This is, IMO, independent of the subject.

I think the initial post was too limiting, really. And that there is a real lack of understanding of the different contexts involved. It dealt with sport versus self defence, and there are huge numbers of arts that don't fit either category. It attempted to equate both to a similar skill set, and a similar method of attaining (and testing) skills, which just isn't the case. The criteria for "expert" in a sports art are different to the criteria in a self defence one... and different again in many non-sport, non-self defence ones. They're not all cakes. And don't really share the same ingredients.

Chris. You're missing the point. The intent of the initial discussion wasn't to prove I was right. It was to start a discussion. As I said before, I'm happy to hear more from you on this, but at this point, your posts can be boiled down to, "You're wrong, Steve." That's it. Not much there. In order for your posts to further the conversation, you're going to have to back that up with some meat. I've gone out of my way to provide examples and to explain the rationale behind my assertions, and you're doing little more than saying, "Nope. You're wrong." Of course, you say it very articulately, but your responses have no meat.

So, your definition of expert is different from mine? Fine, share your definition. How would you define expertise in self defense? More to the point, explain to me how a person acquires expertise in self defense differently than in every other knowledge, skill or ability in human existence. What makes "self defencs" different from everything else?

Self awareness? I really don't get that from this thread at all... and, bluntly, you're still making the same type of connections I observed earlier (when you told me not to tell you what you were saying or thinking). Tgace did compare two different forms of expertise, but was at pains to state that he wasn't making any judgement of one being "better" than the other. As he said, both Jarrett and Lamb are offering very different instruction, but that doesn't make only one of the "expert" when it comes to firearms... just expert in different approaches.

LOL. Circling back, perhaps the message was lost on you. My suggestion to you is to focus on your own thoughts. I'm certainly not going to start fighting over what he really did or didn't mean. He's a big boy and will explain his words, if he feels like it.

So careful as what? I'm not really following what you're saying here... and I'm not sure what you mean by Jarret being "self aware".

Jarret doesn't claim to have expertise in areas where he has none. He does claim expertise in areas in which he is an expert. You really don't get that? Now you're just being coy.

You spoke to this and presumed that it is based upon my martial arts training:

Developing Expertise:

1. Knowing something,
2. Understanding that thing,
3. then you can do it (this stage, in martial arts, can take a while)

Refining Expertise:

1. Evaluation (this is where you start to think about the skill in context)
2. then you can synthesize it (this is where you start to examine this skill in connection to other, skills)
3. and, finally, you can innovate

It is not. It's actually based upon adult learning theory. It, or versions of it, have been used in every field of training and instruction since the 1950s. Just, FYI. And it has been a foundational principle in instructional design in every field for decades. Martial Arts instructors who are effective use this model, whether intentionally or intuitively. Why? Because it's how people learn things. Kids, adults, old, young.

Chris, I'm sorry buddy. I don't have the time to be the only one trying here. You're going to have to give me something back to make this interesting. So, stop being defensive. Stop being coy. Start giving something back. Use the pronoun "you" a lot less and start writing sentences that begin with "I". For example, "I think that..." (and it doesn't count if you say, "I think that you're wrong." That's cheating).

Let's get a little less of Chris the defensive critic and more of Chris the actual, constructive participant in the thread, sharing his own ideas. Because frankly, I haven't seen anything from you at all, much less that would indicate to me that I'm off base.

 

[Tgace]

Let me take you back to 2004.......

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...eness-of-Empty-Hand-Arnis?p=204707#post204707

I don’t think any of us are trying to equate "experience" with skill. My friend Paul M. made an analogy with hockey, I’m going to try and make a comparison with a different sport, rock climbing.

Climbing is a very technical sport. There are specific physical techniques for climbing different features and various ways to use your hands and feet to adhere to the rock. Beyond using your body, there are ropes and knots. There’s hardware with specific uses and precise applications; carabineers, descenders, cams+chocks, harnesses, chalk, webbing and on and on. Many climbers (me) start by top roping (rope goes from ground to top and back to climber, so you don’t fall more than a few feet) or gym climbing. This is a safe environment where you can practice technique, train with gear and even compete. Many climbers never leave this level and that’s OK, it's as close to a real cliff as you can get without a real cliff. The skills built here can be applied to the "real thing". Most walls are 50'-100'.

"Real" rock climbing is called lead climbing. A length of rope connects two climbers. One climbs up placing anchors and clipping the rope through them as he goes. The length of fall depends on how far back your last anchor is and if it holds. Once the rope runs out the leader sets up an anchor system called a belay and the second climber climbs up, removing the anchors and the system repeats. I’ve climbed faces as high as 800'-900' and those are on the small side of average.

The first time I "lead" a climb, it was an eye-opener.... I had the technical skills; I knew the ropework, the knots, and the gear placement techniques. I could climb gym routes 2-3 grades higher than the cliff I was on BUT.... I could die here, I was getting way up, I was getting scared, my physical technique was degrading, I was clinging and scrambling more than I was climbing, I was slapping in anchors as quick as I could (OK was good enough, #@$% perfect). I learned that some techniques I could pull off in the gym I couldn’t do (yet) on the face so I tossed them. Many times I "just did things" without thought, sometimes there were moments of "wow I actually planned to do that and I did". I did it though and made it to the top.

Did the gym training help? Couldn’t have done without it. Did it apply on the cliff? Yep. Did "real" climbing improve my technique? That is a qualified "yes", yes in the sense that it gave me a better grasp on what I had to work on back in the gym. It gave me a different perspective on what my training produced and my "real" (current) ability to apply what I learned. Was the "real" climbing "necessary"? Obviously no. I did my first climb successfully with what I had. If I lived near real cliffs and could climb on them regularly I probably could have improved my technique with constant practice on them, if I survived. Did "real" climbing give me more clout in teaching a new climber? Not really, there are many climbers WAY better than me in the gym and on the cliff , BUT...I think I could give a new climber a better grasp on what the "real" thing is like and what he should know, at a minimum, to reach the top than a gym only climber. I would advise him to get better training on technique than I could provide though.

Now an analogy can’t be perfect in all its facets. I chose to climb, it wasn’t something I was forced into or would rather have avoided like a fight. But this is as close to an explanation of "experience counts" as I can make right now.

The other bottom line is this: "Experience" is not conducive of success in a self-defense encounter. The experienced vet could take a bullet just as easily as the green private. The experienced "brawler" can be taken out by a first timer. One doesn't mean the other.

Now, I do understand what you are saying here and I don’t say this as argument. Yes the random bullet can kill the commando as easily as the private, but every military man will tell you that experienced soldiers will put themselves into fewer situations where that random bullet will get the chance. Every war tells the story of new replacements being killed quicker than the veterans. In your field whom would you hire? 2 applicants with identical educations and personnel traits but one has 5 years of successful experience in the field where the other has none? Again, a perfect analogy, no. But I think you get my point.
So, in the martial arts, do I believe that "fight experience" (read:street fight) is necessary for my personal development? No, I would rather have MA training as a "better to have it and not need it, than a need it and not have it" type thing. However I would want to simulate it as close and often as possible.

That entire thread (more towards the end) had an interesting discussion on the "experience" thing.

 

[Tgace]

Tgace did compare two different forms of expertise, but was at pains to state that he wasn't making any judgement of one being "better" than the other. As he said, both Jarrett and Lamb are offering very different instruction, but that doesn't make only one of the "expert" when it comes to firearms... just expert in different approaches.

True. But if both of them were to start a "Way of the Gun-Dojo" which would you say has more clout when it comes to being a gunfighter?

 

[Chris Parker]

This probably won't be short...

Yes, Chris. It is. Or can you provide an example of expertise absent experience? Maybe I'd benefit from an illustration.

First off, let's clarify what is meant when we talk about "experience" here. I'm taking the term to refer to non-training experiences, what might be called "real life" experience, in this case, in the context of self defence, or any other area taught as part of a martial art class/self defence class. I'm using this definition as all your discussions, from the OP onwards, have used this context for "experience", with a denial of training being a form of experience itself. And, in that context, no, it's not necessary, nor indeed even indicative of anything of real benefit. But let's get to some examples. I'm going to use myself and my students here, for the record.

Let's look at knife defence. I've never had a knife pulled on me (well, not in a genuine threat, at least...), but I teach knife defence a fair bit each year. All my exposure to knife defence has been in classes, both as a student as an instructor, as well as research (looking into realistic knife assaults, behaviour patterns, psychology of both defender and attacker, and more), some of which comes from my instructor, some comes from my personal endeavours, and so on. And, while I haven't been in a "real" knife defence situation, some of my students have.... including one about a month and a half ago. He avoided an attack, controlled the weapon arm, disarmed the attacker, and sent them packing. When he was telling me about it, he went through what happened (as he remembered it), saying that he wasn't sure where it all came from. I was able to point out what he did, where in our teachings it came from, how he applied it, what worked, and why. My personal skills are superior to his, as is my knowledge and understanding... but he has the "real experience" (although he couldn't really identify why what he did worked, or even what he did exactly). So which would you consider more "expert"? Who would you learn from? Someone who has a deeper understanding of the topic, a wider and more developed skill set, or someone who managed to get through an encounter, without recognizing what was done that was good, and what was lucky?

How about knife combat? I spent three hours teaching that yesterday... and, again, it's not something I've ever "tested" in real life. But my skill set, knowledge, understanding etc are superior to the rest of the school here... I don't have any experience fighting against someone in armour, but can talk you through what targets are available, where grips are advisable, or not, how to tell if a technique/system is armour based depending on such aspects, and more. Same with sword combat... I haven't needed to respond against a gun either (my instructor did, but that's another story...), but do cover both pistol and shotgun defence. Haven't gone to ground in a self defence situation either, but that's covered. Now, I'm not saying that I'm an expert in these... but I would say I have an amount of expertise. I would also say I have an amount of expertise, not only in these broad stroke areas, but in the specific areas of my martial arts... the way they approach combat, the way they approach training methods, the contexts, the uses of them, what is and what is not part of them, and so on. And that's where part of your ideas fall down completely, as you're ignoring what it is to be an expert in this area... it's not related to any experience outside of the art itself... in other words, training experience.

For other examples, or illustrations, you have Elder's comments on working in a nuclear plant (expertise in an area, such as dealing with what could go wrong, without actually experiencing it), Sukerkins' comments on sword training, Tgace's two gun examples, with Jarrett not having "experience", but still being an "expert"... really, Steve, it's not me that's not been listening here....

Side note, has it ever occurred to you that if there is misunderstanding, some of that could be on your side? I'm perfectly okay admitting that I don't get something, and if you explain to me that I'm wrong, I will happily admit it. I don't get that from you, Chris. You're a smart guy, Chris. I respect your broad range of experience and you are very credible, in my opinion. But it occurs to me that you never seem to sit back and think to yourself, "Hmmm... maybe Chris Parker is the one that doesn't get it." Perhaps it's just me, but I'd be surprised if that phrase ever pops into your head spontaneously.

Constantly, Steve. Each time I do a post like this, I constantly review the entire thread to ensure I haven't misunderstood something, or missed a comment (it does still happen from time to time, but it's not due to me willfully ignoring contrary positions), always questioning my take on things. But really, Steve, you posted a question asking if it was possible... and a number of people, including myself, have all answered "yes, it is". You have kept questioning, pushing against the answer you've been given. I have explained that your take on things is coming from, bluntly, a limited perspective (which you've misunderstood again), and you're still arguing against it. The message from myself and others has been consistent... yes, it is possible. Not only possible, but common in areas where real-world experience/exposure is not practical.

No. We're discussing the development of expertise in human adults, and how human beings acquire skills and learn. This is, IMO, independent of the subject.

Hmm, perhaps I should have put quotation marks around "cake" there.... what I meant was "are we discussing the same thing?", by extending your metaphor of a single ingredient being essential to a cake. When I asked "But are we discussing a cake?", what I meant was "are all martial arts to be judged as the same thing, therefore subject to the same set of requirements and essential aspects?", to which the answer is, well, no. And that's what you've missed in your OP and beyond.

But to take what you say here, acquiring skills and learning are not dependent upon real life experience. Again, that's been shown by Elder, Suke, myself, Tgace, and so on throughout the thread, mate. In self defence, it comes down to training, not real life usage in self defence, as that's just not practical. Sport arts are different entirely, as it is practical to test them in a sporting context. The exact methods, requirements etc are absolutely dependent on the subject.

Chris. You're missing the point. The intent of the initial discussion wasn't to prove I was right. It was to start a discussion. As I said before, I'm happy to hear more from you on this, but at this point, your posts can be boiled down to, "You're wrong, Steve." That's it. Not much there. In order for your posts to further the conversation, you're going to have to back that up with some meat. I've gone out of my way to provide examples and to explain the rationale behind my assertions, and you're doing little more than saying, "Nope. You're wrong." Of course, you say it very articulately, but your responses have no meat.

Bluntly, Steve, your posts have boiled down to "no I'm not". Not much there, either. You tend to couch it in questioning, but your view is still there. And, I gotta say, I just reread this entire thread (again), and there is no example that you've provided at all. What you have done is put up hypothetical constructs and metaphors that deny the very subject you're trying to address... but no examples. You have neither demonstrated any accuracy in your ideas, nor countered any of mine (or Frank Raud's, or JKS's, or Sukerkin's, or Tgace's, or anyone else who has told you the same thing... namely, that you've gotten things a little wrong here). Just further questions along the same lines with different wording. Now, the way I read that is that you haven't understood the answers you've received... most likely as you can't relate it to your experience and understanding... so you're not accepting the answer. That leads you to ask for clarification, by asking in a different fashion. It hasn't bolstered your argument, nor has it denied any you've been presented with.

So, your definition of expert is different from mine? Fine, share your definition. How would you define expertise in self defense? More to the point, explain to me how a person acquires expertise in self defense differently than in every other knowledge, skill or ability in human existence. What makes "self defencs" different from everything else?

No, Steve, nothing in the passage you quoted said that I had a different definition of "expert", it said that what is required to become one in different contexts is dependent on those different contexts... that to be an "expert" in sports methods is different to being an "expert" in self defence methods. And I've given my definition of "expert" a few times now... someone who has a deep knowledge/understanding/insight of a subject. That deep knowledge can be academic, physical, or any combination of the two (in martial arts and self defence, I'd say both are required, but that doesn't mean that real-life experience is required). Expertise in self defence is a deep knowledge/understanding of the subject... understanding of the legal, physical, mental, and social aspects, knowledge of realistic violence, knowledge of common attacks, awareness of what priorities should be, a lack of fantasy regarding the subject, and so on. How is that acquired? Through proper training that covers all these areas and more. There is no real difference in the way expertise is attained, but that doesn't mean that your assertion that real experience at defending yourself "on the streets" is required is correct. That's the real distinction between our positions, Steve.

LOL. Circling back, perhaps the message was lost on you. My suggestion to you is to focus on your own thoughts. I'm certainly not going to start fighting over what he really did or didn't mean. He's a big boy and will explain his words, if he feels like it.

Are you sure you haven't decided that you know what he meant....? He presented both as experts, just as different ones in different areas, not that one was a "real" expert, and one wasn't.

Jarret doesn't claim to have expertise in areas where he has none. He does claim expertise in areas in which he is an expert. You really don't get that? Now you're just being coy.

Does Jarrett not present himself as a firearms expert? I know that Tgace was clear on his perception of where Jarrett's expertise was, and where it came from, but who says that Jarrett would present himself the same way? I wasn't being coy, I was genuinely asking... as you seem to be making assumptions that fit your beliefs, rather than seeing what's genuinely being presented... and you were addressing something that seemed unrelated. You had come up with the idea that the thread was about "self awareness"... the idea that, unless a "self defence instructor" has genuinely defended themselves, they aren't an expert, and shouldn't present themselves as such... they should be more "self aware" of that detail (which, bluntly, is wrong), and were then applying this concept to Jarrett without any real basis other than Tgace's description (from his perspective).

This is what I've meant when I've said you've been making false connections here.

You spoke to this and presumed that it is based upon my martial arts training:

Developing Expertise:

1. Knowing something,
2. Understanding that thing,
3. then you can do it (this stage, in martial arts, can take a while)

Refining Expertise:

1. Evaluation (this is where you start to think about the skill in context)
2. then you can synthesize it (this is where you start to examine this skill in connection to other, skills)
3. and, finally, you can innovate

It is not. It's actually based upon adult learning theory. It, or versions of it, have been used in every field of training and instruction since the 1950s. Just, FYI. And it has been a foundational principle in instructional design in every field for decades. Martial Arts instructors who are effective use this model, whether intentionally or intuitively. Why? Because it's how people learn things. Kids, adults, old, young.

No, Steve, I've said that your outlook on the thread, your OP, many of your posts here, your contention, your arguments, your false connections, your not following when told by the majority that your contention isn't accurate comes from your martial background, not that this progression did. I'd agree with the progression (for the "developing expertise" section), and that's what I was referring to as "a deep knowledge of the subject". The second part ("refining expertise") is less applicable to a range of arts, for the record.

Chris, I'm sorry buddy. I don't have the time to be the only one trying here. You're going to have to give me something back to make this interesting. So, stop being defensive. Stop being coy. Start giving something back. Use the pronoun "you" a lot less and start writing sentences that begin with "I". For example, "I think that..." (and it doesn't count if you say, "I think that you're wrong." That's cheating).

Are you trying to see what you're being told, though, Steve? I'm not being defensive (don't really see the need for it), nor coy (hardly a common colour on me...), and have been giving you something. You've missed it each time. It started with my first response in this thread, mate, and has been consistent and constant since. The OP is limited, the contention is inaccurate, and there is a real lack of breadth of understanding shown.

Let's get a little less of Chris the defensive critic and more of Chris the actual, constructive participant in the thread, sharing his own ideas. Because frankly, I haven't seen anything from you at all, much less that would indicate to me that I'm off base.

I'm going to break down the OP again, to see if we can get somewhere with this. I might add other comments of yours afterwards to show how you've missed what you've been shown:

We still have threads that distinguish between "sports" and "self defense." Whether the sub-topic is TKD or MMA or whatever, it's common to hear something along the lines of this: "Why don't you/they understand that we don't train for sport. We train to deal with multiple attackers with weapons for self defense."

Yep. Because they are different. They are different tactically, they are different contextually, they are different in terms of training requirements, they are different in scope, and more. And, pertinent to this thread, they are different in regards to testing methodology and application.

The specific verbiage changes, but the message is consistent. Sport people train for sport. Other people train for other things.

Yeah, again, true. And, bluntly, what I have found is that it's always the sporting practitioners who can't get past this idea, or who think that what they do is more "real" due to sporting style testing and training methods. There seems to be a belief that, despite the situation, environment, context, application, ruleset, opponent, common tactics and strategies, technique etc all being very different, the randomness of sporting style testing and competition is closer to reality. That leads to what you've shown here, which is an insistence that things be done "for real" in order for it to be considered credible... sport arts are credible, as they test in sporting competition... so surely self defence arts, or teachers, in order to be credible, need to be tested in real self defence. No. What is required is a realistic training methodology, and an understanding of the context.

My question is simply this. Can you train for something you never do? Or more accurately, can one actually become expert in something he or she has never actually done?

And here's where we started to get into issues. The question I asked in my first post in this thread was "what do you mean by 'actually done'?" You didn't answer any of those questions, by the way. Instead, we get a repeat in post 46 asking if any school is really teachings self defence if the students never get into a situation where they need to apply their skills. The answer is yes. It might not be an answer you can understand, but it's still the right one. JKS has given examples, Rich Parsons (quite experienced) backed it up as well, I've given examples, so has Tgace, same with Frank Raud... In post 69 you said that you wanted to make it clear that you were asking, not stating... while putting forth the contention that someone well trained in firearm use (a cop routinely on the range) wouldn't be expert compared to a soldier who dealt with live fire and returning it frequently... which implies the opposite. By the time we're at posts 79 and 82, you're bluntly stating your opinion (that training does not equal experience, and that real world experience is required to be considered a "credible expert"), even though it flatly denies the answers you've been given for (at that point) 6 pages.

True. But if both of them were to start a "Way of the Gun-Dojo" which would you say has more clout when it comes to being a gunfighter?

Is that what you'd be after, though? Does it really matter where the expertise comes from, if it's real expertise? Jarrett, from what I can see, has devoted himself to a superior understanding of and usage of a firearm, particularly from a mechanical and technical standpoint.... you even said yourself he probably "drives" the gun better than Lamb does.... but Lamb's focus is more on immediately practical skills in a slightly different context. Both are experts in what they do, and present. As to who you'd go with, well, that'd depend more on what was higher value for you.

 

[Tgace]

Is that what you'd be after, though? Does it really matter where the expertise comes from, if it's real expertise? Jarrett, from what I can see, has devoted himself to a superior understanding of and usage of a firearm, particularly from a mechanical and technical standpoint.... you even said yourself he probably "drives" the gun better than Lamb does.... but Lamb's focus is more on immediately practical skills in a slightly different context. Both are experts in what they do, and present. As to who you'd go with, well, that'd depend more on what was higher value for you.

"Is that what you are after?" Well that's the question isn't it? As is "is that what he's selling?"

If Jarrett was touting that he was teaching "the way of firearm combat", I'd be raising an eyebrow. As I would if Lamb was trying to sell seminars on how to improve ones IPSC competition ability.

If I were a SEAL Team 6 member with my own base of combat experience and training I may want a Jarrett to improve my technical skills. I wouldn't expect him to be schooling me on "what combat is like" or "what people do under fire". Which he doesn't by the way, Jarrett is "self aware" of what is expertise is (to steal a term from Steve).

If I were a municipal SWAT team member looking for tactical training (room clearing, negotiating Terrain under fire, etc) I would lean towards Lamb.

My question was which instructor has clout if it came to claims of ability to teach gun FIGHTING. I think they themselves would be very clear about what it is they provide.

IMO. What firearms schools....to somewhat of an extent...have going for them is that they "stay in their lane". You don't see Jarrett teaching H2H. Lamb isn't out teaching knife defence. Neither of them...even the Delta Operator...claims to be training the "True way of the Warrior".

If I were in a MA school where my non mil, non gun competing, non certified instructor started teaching gun techniques of questionable value I'd be in a conundrum. What does a student do when he has more expertise than his teacher on a subject and sees what's being taught is dangerously wrong?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chris Parker]

"Is that what you are after?" Well that's the question isn't it? As is "is that what he's selling?"

If Jarrett was touting that he was teaching "the way of firearm combat", I'd be raising an eyebrow. As I would if Lamb was trying to sell seminars on how to improve ones IPSC competition ability.

If I were a SEAL Team 6 member with my own base of combat experience and training I may want a Jarrett to improve my technical skills. I wouldn't expect him to be schooling me on "what combat is like" or "what people do under fire". Which he doesn't by the way, Jarrett is "self aware" of what is expertise is (to steal a term from Steve).

If I were a municipal SWAT team member looking for tactical training (room clearing, negotiating Terrain under fire, etc) I would lean towards Lamb.

All of which goes back to my point about the many different contexts that different martial art instructors and systems can have... it's not just split into "self defence" and "sport"... there's a lot more out there.... and they don't have the same requirements as each other to determine what makes one an "expert" in one or another context.

My question was which instructor has clout if it came to claims of ability to teach gun FIGHTING. I think they themselves would be very clear about what it is they provide.

And, honestly, it's a false analogy to the thread, and completely inconclusive to the point of being totally besides the point. There are plenty of soldiers that have a lot of experience but aren't at the level of Lamb, and there are plenty of sports marksmen who aren't at the level of Jarrett... both of whom excel at what they offer. If you're going to present two individuals and only ask who you would choose out of one who is recognized as a specialist in that area, and another who isn't, but is recognized as a specialist in another, related one, it's a false option. I'll put it this way... who would you have teach you gun safety? Are either more expert than the other in that regard? How about putting Jarrett up against a different "experienced" soldier, but not anywhere near as skilled... do you still go for the guy with experience over the one with the skillset? Lamb's experience has helped shape his approach, certainly... but there's nothing indicating that it was required for a level of expertise with a firearm.

IMO. What firearms schools....to somewhat of an extent...have going for them is that they "stay in their lane". You don't see Jarrett teaching H2H. Lamb isn't out teaching knife defence. Neither of them...even the Delta Operator...claims to be training the "True way of the Warrior".

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103856

If I were in a MA school where my non mil, non gun competing, non certified instructor started teaching gun techniques of questionable value I'd be in a conundrum. What does a student do when he has more expertise than his teacher on a subject and sees what's being taught is dangerously wrong?

I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything here... we're looking at what is required for expertise to exist, and the example you give is clearly not an expert. So... maybe just listen what they are expert in, and, if you have a good enough relationship with them, talk to them about where they're lacking? Perhaps you could offer the benefit of your superior expertise? What is this to do with the topic?

 

[MJS]

Personally, I'd be more inclined to listen to someone who's walked the walk, rather than someone who's just talking about it. Ex: An inst. who's actually had experience in a given area, rather than someone who says, "Well, I learned these 5 techs from my teacher, and he said they'd work, so even though he's never done them for real, they must work...because he said so!"

 

[Tgace]

And, honestly, it's a false analogy to the thread, and completely inconclusive to the point of being totally besides the point. There are plenty of soldiers that have a lot of experience but aren't at the level of Lamb, and there are plenty of sports marksmen who aren't at the level of Jarrett... both of whom excel at what they offer. If you're going to present two individuals and only ask who you would choose out of one who is recognized as a specialist in that area, and another who isn't, but is recognized as a specialist in another, related one, it's a false option. I'll put it this way... who would you have teach you gun safety? Are either more expert than the other in that regard? How about putting Jarrett up against a different "experienced" soldier, but not anywhere near as skilled... do you still go for the guy with experience over the one with the skillset? Lamb's experience has helped shape his approach, certainly... but there's nothing indicating that it was required for a level of expertise with a firearm.

Gun Safety? I wouldnt pay the cash these guys demand for gun safety. I'd go to an NRA class.

What experience does Jarrett have in regards to actual military/LE operations? If I wanted to improve my draw/split times and my multiple target engagement times sure I may go to Jarrett. What if I was looking for training on how to engage a gunman during a building assault? Are you suggesting Jarrett's "expertise" would still be sufficient? Damn skippy I may still go with the Soldier even though Jarrett is a better tecnician...

This is an interesting tangent into the original intent of the thread. Simply because a MA teacher may be a good technician doesn't mean that hes an "expert" in self-defense. The actual "fight" portion of a defensive engagement is but one aspect of self-defense. What about pre-fight indicators? What about self-defense law? What about post engagement?

 

[Chris Parker]

Personally, I'd be more inclined to listen to someone who's walked the walk, rather than someone who's just talking about it. Ex: An inst. who's actually had experience in a given area, rather than someone who says, "Well, I learned these 5 techs from my teacher, and he said they'd work, so even though he's never done them for real, they must work...because he said so!"

But do you require an instructor to have successfully (and, presumably, repeatedly in order to ascertain consistent skill) defended against groups, knives, guns, bats, on the ground, ambush assaults, and more? As well as having a deep understanding of everything else they're teaching? I mean, I've dealt with a number of assaults, including one which was 5 on one (me)... so do I pass? Or not, because I haven't dealt with much in the way of weaponry in real encounters?

In other words, while you might prefer someone who has some real world experience, is it really essential?

Gun Safety? I wouldnt pay the cash these guys demand for gun safety. I'd go to an NRA class.

Kinda missing the point here... the question is about what experience is necessary, not about how much you'd pay for different aspects of their expertise. Does Lamb's combat experience make his gun safety knowledge more valuable? Does it make him more "expert" in this regard?

What experience does Jarrett have in regards to actual military/LE operations? If I wanted to improve my draw/split times and my multiple target engagement times sure I may go to Jarrett. What if I was looking for training on how to engage a gunman during a building assault? Are you suggesting Jarrett's "expertise" would still be sufficient? Damn skippy I may still go with the Soldier even though Jarrett is a better tecnician...

And this is really my point... different contexts require different expertise... which have different requirements. There is no requirement for expertise that cuts across all fields, other than to have a deep knowledge of their subject... whatever that subject might be. Jarrett's not being schooled in military procedure or operations doesn't reduce his expertise in firearms, it just indicates the context within which he is an expert.

This is an interesting tangent into the original intent of the thread. Simply because a MA teacher may be a good technician doesn't mean that hes an "expert" in self-defense. The actual "fight" portion of a defensive engagement is but one aspect of self-defense. What about pre-fight indicators? What about self-defense law? What about post engagement?

Agreed. But none of that requires anything beyond being well educated and trained in it. Which has been what I've said all along.

 

[Tgace]

So an art being "combat proven" has intrinsic value but an instructors experience has no intrinsic value? At some point this becomes a chicken egg argument. If not for experienced instructors input what comabtive value would an art have?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chris Parker]

That gets into a whole 'nother can o'worms...

To begin with, I'd say that most things claimed to be "combat proven" aren't in the way most think they are... secondly, I'd say that those that are closer to that idea have more to do with development off the field of combat than on. Thirdly, an art can be considered an amalgam of a number of person's experiences, codified and disseminated, not just one guy getting lucky (it should be noted that I do know of a few that are just one guy, but even there the benefit of the experience is not definitively apparent). But really, a lot of these "combat proven" arts weren't actually developed in combat...

As far as "intrinsic value", where have I stated anything of the kind? And what intrinsic value do you think it has? Over what?

And, to the last question, it could have plenty... it would depend on the art, what it's meant to teach, how, and how (and by whom) it was developed in the first place.

 

[Tgace]

The "advantage" war brings to the firearms "arts" is that it results in a number of experienced instructors that inject the "art" with current and relevant experience.

http://www.kylelamb.com/

http://www.panteaoproductions.com/instructors/paul-howe

http://vickerstactical.com/

http://www.redbackone.com/

...and on and on.

I'd wager that quite a few Samurai broke into the teaching biz when wars started to run short and their "experience" was part and parcel of what they codified.

Im not trying to extend this into an argument that "if your instructor hasnt seen the elephant than his stuff sucks". All I'm trying to say is that combat/street (what have you) experience...current and relevant..should be influencing, updating and developing any modern combative system. Otherwize all you are doing is period reenactment.