It really is the system.

[drop bear]

More Rokus stuff but he is creating a consensus where a bad system will hold back the development of the individual.

He keeps finding examples where people have improved by changing methods.

I have always felt this as self evident. In that eben if you train really hard in something that is not fundamentally designed to make you better. You will really struggle to get better.

And If the system doesn't work. Then naturally talented people will always be better at it because they are the only variable.

And that the system needs a self regulating method to determine if it is working. Which is basically resisted training. And cross training.

 

[Damien]

I think it is also down to honesty about what something is for and what it isn't. There are plenty of things in traditional martial arts which are there as training tools, but people try to make them into martial applications, or create elaborate scenarios where they actually work.

Take horse stance, good for leg and lower back strength and endurance, good for hip mobility and balance, but despite what some might say you're never going to hold it for an extended period in a fight and it isn't going to make you more stable when being pushed or take leg kicks better.

Build attributes, then build basic high percentage success rate skills, then go off into the weeds of situational stuff and be honest with yourself about what in your system lies where and you can't go too wrong. Obviously the teacher has a big role to play in facilitating that. Of course if your system doesn't have those basic reliable skills, then it really is the system that is the problem!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think it is also down to honesty about what something is for and what it isn't. There are plenty of things in traditional martial arts which are there as training tools, but people try to make them into martial applications, or create elaborate scenarios where they actually work.

Take horse stance, good for leg and lower back strength and endurance, good for hip mobility and balance, but despite what some might say you're never going to hold it for an extended period in a fight and it isn't going to make you more stable when being pushed or take leg kicks better.

Build attributes, then build basic high percentage success rate skills, then go off into the weeds of situational stuff and be honest with yourself about what in your system lies where and you can't go too wrong. Obviously the teacher has a big role to play in facilitating that. Of course if your system doesn't have those basic reliable skills, then it really is the system that is the problem!

I will say there's at least one person here on MT who uses what I'd classify as a horse stance in his sparring. He stays low in it and seems to do pretty well with it from some of the videos and pictures he has posted. And it seems to be built into the style to use it that way. But I do think that's not true in most styles.

But on the whole, I agree. THere are things in all systems that do not/should not have direct application (hanmi walk in my system, speedbag in boxing, etc.). Knowing what those are and acknowledging their purpose is important. I try to teach students where those are - some of them are even taught as "techniques" in NGA, but I see them as training drills for specific principles, rather than anything that has reasonable application.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

More Rokus stuff but he is creating a consensus where a bad system will hold back the development of the individual.

He keeps finding examples where people have improved by changing methods.

I have always felt this as self evident. In that eben if you train really hard in something that is not fundamentally designed to make you better. You will really struggle to get better.

And If the system doesn't work. Then naturally talented people will always be better at it because they are the only variable.

And that the system needs a self regulating method to determine if it is working. Which is basically resisted training. And cross training.

It always surprises me that this is controversial. Of course the person matters (someone who trains harder and with higher intensity will develop better skills than me), but the system matters, too. Somoene could train for boxing or MMA with my system, but it'd be a bad decision. It's not a good approach for that. If they want to focus just on fighting skills, it's not the best choice for that (though a closed group could use it for that by pruning some of the stuff that serves other purposes). I'm not the best source for ground fighting (BJJ or catch wrestling would be much better there).

The system matters. Hard stop.

 

[dvcochran]

It always surprises me that this is controversial. Of course the person matters (someone who trains harder and with higher intensity will develop better skills than me), but the system matters, too. Somoene could train for boxing or MMA with my system, but it'd be a bad decision. It's not a good approach for that. If they want to focus just on fighting skills, it's not the best choice for that (though a closed group could use it for that by pruning some of the stuff that serves other purposes). I'm not the best source for ground fighting (BJJ or catch wrestling would be much better there).

The system matters. Hard stop.

Agree. I think the conversation is at the juncture where a persons intentions, ability, and the access to information weighs heavy. Since systems like MMA and even BJJ are amalgamations I am not convinced any one defined style covers everything. A serious 'fighter' is going to widen their knowledge with experience in multiple styles.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agree. I think the conversation is at the juncture where a persons intentions, ability, and the access to information weighs heavy. Since systems like MMA and even BJJ are amalgamations I am not convinced any one defined style covers everything. A serious 'fighter' is going to widen their knowledge with experience in multiple styles.

Agreed. The best folks (in whatever way we choose to define "best") in any group of martial artists are likely to have gotten that way by being or doing different from the rest. So they either had some natural athletic gifts or abilities when they started, or they worked harder/smarter in their training.

Within the group, the person matters a lot. Who is in the group matters, too - and that is at least partly a function of the training (what attracts/repels different kinds of people).

 

[jobo]

More Rokus stuff but he is creating a consensus where a bad system will hold back the development of the individual.

He keeps finding examples where people have improved by changing methods.

I have always felt this as self evident. In that eben if you train really hard in something that is not fundamentally designed to make you better. You will really struggle to get better.

And If the system doesn't work. Then naturally talented people will always be better at it because they are the only variable.

And that the system needs a self regulating method to determine if it is working. Which is basically resisted training. And cross training.

BUT NATRALLY TALENTED PEOPLE WILL ALW3AYS BE BETTER AT EVERYTHING, given any equality at all in how dedicated they are to training, so its a totally spurious argument

 

[Gerry Seymour]

BUT NATRALLY TALENTED PEOPLE WILL ALW3AYS BE BETTER AT EVERYTHING, given any equality at all in how dedicated they are to training, so its a totally spurious argument

While the fist part is true, that doesn't render the argument spurious. There's not equal result (for any given context) across different systems. Two equally gifted people can get different results from different systems, because the system does matter. Give me a fantastic athlete and ask me to train them to kick. Give @andyjeffries someone slightly less talented and ask the same thing. I'm gonna bet his system produces the better kicker, even though my student had an advantage in physical skill. Of course, if you gave me someone who's highly gifted and Andy someone who has trouble standing on one leg, I might manage to come out on top, but that's a huge difference in the starting point.

 

[jobo]

While the fist part is true, that doesn't render the argument spurious. There's not equal result (for any given context) across different systems. Two equally gifted people can get different results from different systems, because the system does matter. Give me a fantastic athlete and ask me to train them to kick. Give @andyjeffries someone slightly less talented and ask the same thing. I'm gonna bet his system produces the better kicker, even though my student had an advantage in physical skill. Of course, if you gave me someone who's highly gifted and Andy someone who has trouble standing on one leg, I might manage to come out on top, but that's a huge difference in the starting point.

how have you decided that one fantastic athlete is slightly less talented than the other fantastic athlete, how is this measured ?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Take horse stance, good for leg and lower back strength and endurance, good for hip mobility and balance, but despite what some might say you're never going to hold it for an extended period in a fight and it isn't going to make you more stable when being pushed or take leg kicks better.

I'm going to say with exceptions.

There are cases where you would hold a horse stance or horse like stance for a long period of times. It's more like a modified horse than a traditional horse and it's used in grappling defense. This is what the modified horse stance looks like. When someone is determined to take me down, then I will take this stance. Depending on the person attacking you may have to stand like this for a significant amount of time and your legs will burn. It's a good defensive stance for grappling but you have to have crazy strong legs to do it, because like you stated. I'm not going to hold it. In reality, I have to move around while keeping the same height. I have to move at the same height when attacking and defending. This stance makes you more stable in terms of grappling. If the person starts to kick then I have to abort this stance for a more mobile stance.

I think it is also down to honesty about what something is for and what it isn't. There are plenty of things in traditional martial arts which are there as training tools, but people try to make them into martial applications, or create elaborate scenarios where they actually work.

I agree with this as well, and many times there's actually an application for it, but the person doesn't understand the application so you end up with something really elaborate. Then you have things that are training tools like you stated. Things that help improve balance, sensitivity, develop breathing, or tension / relaxation. Sometimes it develops explosive power, but it's a training tool and not an application. And don't let me get started on Performance Martial Arts.

 

[drop bear]

BUT NATRALLY TALENTED PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS BE BETTER AT EVERYTHING, given any equality at all in how dedicated they are to training, so its a totally spurious argument

The point is there isn't equality in dedication or efficiency of training

 

[drop bear]

how have you decided that one fantastic athlete is slightly less talented than the other fantastic athlete, how is this measured ?

Through competition.

 

[JowGaWolf]

BUT NATRALLY TALENTED PEOPLE WILL ALW3AYS BE BETTER AT EVERYTHING, given any equality at all in how dedicated they are to training, so its a totally spurious argument

I think the argument happens because that statement often tries to pin point "one thing" makes a system good or bad, effective or ineffective. The reality is that there are going to be tons of elements that help determine such things. It's not just 1 thing. We often hear, is it the system or the student? Answer: All of the above. Sometimes Both, Sometimes the student, Sometimes the system.

A system that was never made for fighting TKD Dancing. Will be bad for fighting, no matter how talented a person is.
A system that was made for fighting Boxing. Will be bad for fighting if the person trains poorly or incorrectly. Showing up once every 2 weeks won't produce quality results.

There are just so many examples that can go either way. My thought's about the martial arts Journey guy is that didn't understand his system in the context of fighting. Fighting is abrasive. It's not going to be smooth like Aikido and Tai Chi often show, and I think that's where the misunderstanding begins. People think it's supposed to be smooth, but I'm willing to bet, none of those martial arts formally state that.

Here we see someone doing Aikido and it doesn't look like the smooth demos we see. To me this would be more realistic training for Aikido application. Especially because it's not Style A vs Style A. How effective will it be, will all depend on the training, the person , and the system.

 

[drop bear]

I think the argument happens because that statement often tries to pin point "one thing" makes a system good or bad, effective or ineffective. The reality is that there are going to be tons of elements that help determine such things. It's not just 1 thing. We often hear, is it the system or the student? Answer: All of the above. Sometimes Both, Sometimes the student, Sometimes the system.

A system that was never made for fighting TKD Dancing. Will be bad for fighting, no matter how talented a person is.
A system that was made for fighting Boxing. Will be bad for fighting if the person trains poorly or incorrectly. Showing up once every 2 weeks won't produce quality results.

There are just so many examples that can go either way. My thought's about the martial arts Journey guy is that didn't understand his system in the context of fighting. Fighting is abrasive. It's not going to be smooth like Aikido and Tai Chi often show, and I think that's where the misunderstanding begins. People think it's supposed to be smooth, but I'm willing to bet, none of those martial arts formally state that.

Here we see someone doing Aikido and it doesn't look like the smooth demos we see. To me this would be more realistic training for Aikido application. Especially because it's not Style A vs Style A. How effective will it be, will all depend on the training, the person , and the system.

From my experience I have seen talented guys dominate in some styles regardless of their work rate.

It is literally who has the better physicality.

Where say bjj is an easy example of that rule being broken.

 

[jobo]

The point is there isn't equality in dedication or efficiency of training

how do you know there isn't equality of dedication ?

 

[JowGaWolf]

From my experience I have seen talented guys dominate in some styles regardless of their work rate.

It is literally who has the better physicality.

Where say bjj is an easy example of that rule being broken.

This is what Jobo was pointing to in regards to natural ability. Some people can train 3 times a week and be better than someone who trains 5 times a week. There's just numerous factors that come into play.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

how have you decided that one fantastic athlete is slightly less talented than the other fantastic athlete, how is this measured ?

You do understand how discussion works, don't you?

See, I didn't make a claim that someone was more talented than someone else, so I don't have to be able to measure it. But, hey, you're the person who brought up the concept of more talented folks..........so surely YOU have a way to measure that, so you can say someone is, in fact, more talented.

Or maybe that's just you trying to make an argument with no point. You tell me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Through competition.

If they had equal training, that'd work.

 

[Buka]

I’ve found that guys who come in with natural ability and God given physicality eventually get smoked by the tortoise who eventually catches them.

Most of them soon quit.

 

[jobo]

You do understand how discussion works, don't you?

See, I didn't make a claim that someone was more talented than someone else, so I don't have to be able to measure it. But, hey, you're the person who brought up the concept of more talented folks..........so surely YOU have a way to measure that, so you can say someone is, in fact, more talented.

Or maybe that's just you trying to make an argument with no point. You tell me.

yes you did, you said a fantastic athlete and one SLIGHTLYless able, so yes you need to measure it or you dont know who is the more talented or in your words fantastic, do you ?

the whole scenario you outlined is totally dependent on it, let's start with how you measure " fantastic"