Ok my issue with thinking that specificity allways means most appropriate

[Dirty Dog]

While I agree that seems to be the vast majority of cases, there is a smaller number of fights that go longer. Looking at videos, most of them seem avoidable (they are most commonly rage fights, so there are lots of cues and most often ready opportunities to avoid them).

Sure. But I wasn't trying to make some All Encompassing Universal Statement of Truth. I said most.

 

[drop bear]

Which - while uncommon - does happen. I can't see it lasting minutes under realistic scenarios, but 30-90 seconds does happen.

Big whopping gang fights can. And you can cover some distance.

And so for example just being able to be more mobile than the other guy means you can have more numbers in each engagement. Which is also an advantage.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I have thrown around my issues with the idea that specific training somehow just being automatically more appropriate.

No single factor automatically makes something better unless you hold other factors constant.

And the issue is that specific training doesn't prevent it from just being bad.

Very true. Of course, generalized training can also be bad.

I found a self defence expert.

That person is a self-defense "expert" to the same degree that I am a world-champion fighter. Writing a press release to claim a qualification doesn't mean you actually possess it.

An expert in self defence reveals how to fight back if you're pinned to the ground

But personally I think her method needs work. Her system needs work. And the individual, the training or the instructor is not going to be able to salvage a useable method from this.

Sadly, that video is far from the worst thing she's put out. Her video on defending against a rear choke is particularly sad.

My theory on training is you look at the results. And I learned this from looking at survival stuff. Taxtical machete vs gardening machete. One isnt better for gardening and one isnt better for being tactical.

The features define its use. Not its purpose.

So yes specific features of training will be better for different environments. But you cant tell from the label.

Here we get to the crux of your argument, which I would phrase as the difference between "designed for" and "marketed as." In general, these so-called "tactical" tools aren't designed by military professionals optimizing for the needs of their profession. Rather they're created by money-making professionals seeking to make a few bucks off of Rambo-wannabees.

Of course, the same could be said of certain martial arts training programs.

Strength is technique. We mesure strength by how much we can move. If we dont have good technique we are physically not as strong.

I'd rephrase that to say that strength is partially technique. Muscle mass still counts. A 220 pound competitive weightlifter with 8% body fat and flawless technique will move more weight than a 150 pound competitive weightlifter with 12% body fat and flawless technique.

That said, it's worth repeating that technique is a significant component of strength. A lot of people don't seem to realize that.

I'm not saying the lady doesn't know what she's talking about

I am.

I also think SD-oriented MMA training would make it even better for that purpose, and wouldn't take a huge adjustment. I'd be surprised if there weren't some folks doing that pretty well by now

Yep. Not as many as you might expect, but they're out there. Some of the JKD folks have moved that direction.

Boxers usually have weaker legs and and leg defenses than martial artists

I consider boxers to be martial artists, but I'll set that aside and presume you're comparing boxers to practitioners of Asian martial arts which include kicking.

In that case, I'll say my experience does not back up the idea that boxers have weaker legs. (Weaker defenses against leg attacks, sure. That's not part of the boxing skill set.)

they last a few seconds, because as a rule at least one doesnt don't have the fitness to last much longer,you don't really want that to be you ?

Unless the fight doesn't fit the dogma and you are still stuck fighting for longer than a few seconds.

Well, no. From what I've seen treating a few thousand people following fights, they last a few seconds because at least one doesn't have the will to continue fighting, or because someone gets knocked down/out. Very, very few people are really willing to stand there trading strikes. The vast majority are hit a couple times and it's over.

I've not seen evidence (in most of the videos I can find) of someone gassing out and it costing them the fight. That typically only happens if the fight lasts 30 seconds or more, and those are (again among the population of videos I have found) mostly rage fights (road rage, etc.). Those are the fights where (for the non-competitor) gassing out will be an issue.

In my experience and observation, most street fights are not nearly as cardio-intensive as even amateur boxing, kickboxing, MMA, or grappling competitions. That's not to say there aren't exceptions.

Even so, cardio can be an important feature of "street-oriented" training. Reasons include:

Being prepared to run after fighting long enough to break free of an attacker.

Being prepared to fight after running from an attacker and being caught.

Being prepared for those encounters which may require more of an extended struggle. (For example a smaller woman working to escape being pinned under a larger man.)

Being able to train with more intensity for longer periods, leading to greater skill levels.

Developing general mental toughness and therefore being less likely to quit in a real fight. (To be clear, it's the process of building the cardio that also builds the mental toughness. Having cardio doesn't automatically make you tough.)

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Getting back to DB's original point, I'll sum up my take as follows:

A well-designed training program for a specific purpose does have advantages in producing good results in that context over a more general program or a program designed for a different purpose.

The key words in that sentence are well-designed. In order to fulfill that requirement, your program needs a few features.

First, the general fundamentals have to be there. If I can't teach you to hit hard, then it doesn't matter if I'm teaching you striking for the street or MMA or the boxing ring. It's not going to help regardless. If I don't know how to grapple, then it doesn't matter if I'm trying to prepare Judo competitors or teach police officers how to cuff a resisting suspect.

Secondly, the understanding of the specific context has to be there. I might be a skilled grappler, but if I don't know the rules of BJJ competition, I'm not going to give you the best preparation for a BJJ tournament. Likewise, if I don't know the rules of engagement for a prison guard, I may give you sub-optimal advice for restraining a prisoner. In some cases, misunderstanding the requirements of the immediate context may lead to minor problems. In others it may lead to total failure.

Thirdly (though not directly relevant to the current discussion), the person designing the program needs to understand how to actually teach the material. I might be a great boxer or bouncer or soldier or whatever, but if I can't pass on those skills and attributes, then the training program isn't that helpful.

Speaking for myself as an instructor, I feel reasonably confident about my fundamentals (striking, grappling, body mechanics, footwork, etc.) I don't pretend to be any sort of great authority on any specific context (tournament, street fight, etc) for the application of those skills. What I try to do is help my students build the underlying skills and attributes, give them what pointers I can for specific application based on my experience and study, and then give them opportunities to drill live applications with different rules and objectives, so that hopefully they will have the mental flexibility to adapt their skills for the context at hand.

 

[skribs]

Getting back to DB's original point, I'll sum up my take as follows:

A well-designed training program for a specific purpose does have advantages in producing good results in that context over a more general program or a program designed for a different purpose.

The key words in that sentence are well-designed. In order to fulfill that requirement, your program needs a few features.

First, the general fundamentals have to be there. If I can't teach you to hit hard, then it doesn't matter if I'm teaching you striking for the street or MMA or the boxing ring. It's not going to help regardless. If I don't know how to grapple, then it doesn't matter if I'm trying to prepare Judo competitors or teach police officers how to cuff a resisting suspect.

Secondly, the understanding of the specific context has to be there. I might be a skilled grappler, but if I don't know the rules of BJJ competition, I'm not going to give you the best preparation for a BJJ tournament. Likewise, if I don't know the rules of engagement for a prison guard, I may give you sub-optimal advice for restraining a prisoner. In some cases, misunderstanding the requirements of the immediate context may lead to minor problems. In others it may lead to total failure.

Thirdly (though not directly relevant to the current discussion), the person designing the program needs to understand how to actually teach the material. I might be a great boxer or bouncer or soldier or whatever, but if I can't pass on those skills and attributes, then the training program isn't that helpful.

Speaking for myself as an instructor, I feel reasonably confident about my fundamentals (striking, grappling, body mechanics, footwork, etc.) I don't pretend to be any sort of great authority on any specific context (tournament, street fight, etc) for the application of those skills. What I try to do is help my students build the underlying skills and attributes, give them what pointers I can for specific application based on my experience and study, and then give them opportunities to drill live applications with different rules and objectives, so that hopefully they will have the mental flexibility to adapt their skills for the context at hand.

This is what I was trying to say with my Quality vs. Quantity statement. The quality of the instruction (fundamentals, contextual understanding, teaching skill) is one aspect, as is the amount of time focused in class on that particular subject. If have a generalized class where you spend 10 minutes on fundamentals, 10 minutes on forms, 10 minutes on sport sparring, and 10 minutes on self defense, it's going to be a lot different than a class where you spend 20 minutes on fundamentals and 30 minutes on self defense.

 

[jobo]

[QUOTE="Tony Dismukes, post: 1877285, member:









In my experience and observation, most street fights are not nearly as cardio-intensive as even amateur boxing, kickboxing, MMA, or grappling competitions. That's not to say there aren't exceptions.

Even so, cardio can be an important feature of "street-oriented" training. Reasons include:

Being prepared to run after fighting long enough to break free of an attacker.

Being prepared to fight after running from an attacker and being caught.

Being prepared for those encounters which may require more of an extended struggle. (For example a smaller woman working to escape being pinned under a larger man.)

Being able to train with more intensity for longer periods, leading to greater skill levels.

Developing general mental toughness and therefore being less likely to quit in a real fight. (To be clear, it's the process of building the cardio that also builds the mental toughness. Having cardio doesn't automatically make you tough.)[/QUOTE]

tony I'm replying to the quotes from Gerry and dd as well as to what you've written n reply to them.

I'm beginning to thing that their is a middle aged ma facility, that skill will over come a younger fitter heavier opponent, therefore fitness can be taken lightly, and i suppose to some extent that so, provide d your techneque is good enough AND the fitness disparity isn't so great.

but the whole fitness isn't important as fights last only a few,seconds is to the most part nonsnse, if they only last a few seconds its because its a complete miss match in terms of either skill or fitness or most likely both. Or both parties are equally unfit and five seconds of effort has wiped them out and they give it up. Consequently, there are fights where both have a matched level of skill and developed fitness which will last far longer. Or one has far more strengh ans the other more speed and duration or any of quite a few combinations . In those fights the fittest tends to win after,,, 2minetts 5 mins 10 mins ????? How ever long it takes for once party to gas out and lose. Co ordination strengh etal or some one. Breaks it up ??

if you cant just put your attacker away in a few seconds, you'd better hope he doesn't,cycle to work or play soccer or basket ball, or you may very well lose two minutes latter when your under develop cardio let's go

 

[Tony Dismukes]

tony I'm replying to the quotes from Gerry and dd as well as to what you've written n reply to them.

I'm beginning to thing that their is a middle aged ma facility, that skill will over come a younger fitter heavier opponent, therefore fitness can be taken lightly, and i suppose to some extent that so, provide d your techneque is good enough AND the fitness disparity isn't so great.

but the whole fitness isn't important as fights last only a few,seconds is to the most part nonsnse, if they only last a few seconds its because its a complete miss match in terms of either skill or fitness or most likely both. Or both parties are equally unfit and five seconds of effort has wiped them out and they give it up. Consequently, there are fights where both have a matched level of skill and developed fitness which will last far longer. Or one has far more strengh ans the other more speed and duration or any of quite a few combinations . In those fights the fittest tends to win after,,, 2minetts 5 mins 10 mins ????? How ever long it takes for once party to gas out and lose. Co ordination strengh etal or some one. Breaks it up ??

if you cant just put your attacker away in a few seconds, you'd better hope he doesn't,cycle to work or play soccer or basket ball, or you may very well lose two minutes latter when your under develop cardio let's go

I don't think there's anything in your post which is opposed to what I wrote. The scenarios you give of fights which go longer than normal would fit within the 3rd example I listed of why cardio can still be important even for "street" application. I listed 3 other examples and I could probably come up with more.

Trust me, as a 53 year old with a desk job who regularly spars with athletes and fighters half my age (some of them professionals), I'm quite aware of the difference physical attributes can make. My skill and experience acts as somewhat of an equalizer, but if I were really concerned with improving my current fighting ability as quickly as possible, I'd switch 90% of my current training to a serious strength and conditioning program. My fitness is great compared to my peer group of computer programmers in their 50s. Compared to that of a competitive fighter, it's crap. The only reason it's not worse is I've got all these young guys trying to squash me on a regular basis.

To be honest, though, the odds of my getting in a serious fight any time soon are not high, so my focus is more on training for the love of the art. I may be getting back into some Judo competition in a few months, if so, that will be a motivation for pushing my cardio back up to a decent level.

 

[jobo]

I don't think there's anything in your post which is opposed to what I wrote. The scenarios you give of fights which go longer than normal would fit within the 3rd example I listed of why cardio can still be important even for "street" application. I listed 3 other examples and I could probably come up with more.

Trust me, as a 53 year old with a desk job who regularly spars with athletes and fighters half my age (some of them professionals), I'm quite aware of the difference physical attributes can make. My skill and experience acts as somewhat of an equalizer, but if I were really concerned with improving my current fighting ability as quickly as possible, I'd switch 90% of my current training to a serious strength and conditioning program. My fitness is great compared to my peer group of computer programmers in their 50s. Compared to that of a competitive fighter, it's crap. The only reason it's not worse is I've got all these young guys trying to squash me on a regular basis.

To be honest, though, the odds of my getting in a serious fight any time soon are not high, so my focus is more on training for the love of the art. I may be getting back into some Judo competition in a few months, if so, that will be a motivation for pushing my cardio back up to a decent level.

your examples of why cardio MIGHT be useful, centre around, fighting and then running, running ans then fighting And being q small woman, all of which are true, but in making,those specifics, you are over looking the point that cadio is essential for movement, especially fighting. So,,,, , good cardio, or better cardio than your attackers is extremely usefull, even essential if you cant. Just knock them out in a few,seconds

 

[Steve]

Getting back to DB's original point, I'll sum up my take as follows:

A well-designed training program for a specific purpose does have advantages in producing good results in that context over a more general program or a program designed for a different purpose.

The key words in that sentence are well-designed. In order to fulfill that requirement, your program needs a few features.

First, the general fundamentals have to be there. If I can't teach you to hit hard, then it doesn't matter if I'm teaching you striking for the street or MMA or the boxing ring. It's not going to help regardless. If I don't know how to grapple, then it doesn't matter if I'm trying to prepare Judo competitors or teach police officers how to cuff a resisting suspect.

Secondly, the understanding of the specific context has to be there. I might be a skilled grappler, but if I don't know the rules of BJJ competition, I'm not going to give you the best preparation for a BJJ tournament. Likewise, if I don't know the rules of engagement for a prison guard, I may give you sub-optimal advice for restraining a prisoner. In some cases, misunderstanding the requirements of the immediate context may lead to minor problems. In others it may lead to total failure.

Thirdly (though not directly relevant to the current discussion), the person designing the program needs to understand how to actually teach the material. I might be a great boxer or bouncer or soldier or whatever, but if I can't pass on those skills and attributes, then the training program isn't that helpful.

Speaking for myself as an instructor, I feel reasonably confident about my fundamentals (striking, grappling, body mechanics, footwork, etc.) I don't pretend to be any sort of great authority on any specific context (tournament, street fight, etc) for the application of those skills. What I try to do is help my students build the underlying skills and attributes, give them what pointers I can for specific application based on my experience and study, and then give them opportunities to drill live applications with different rules and objectives, so that hopefully they will have the mental flexibility to adapt their skills for the context at hand.

I agree with this in general, but would further add that a well designed program will start with measurable outcomes based on objective data.

What’s the purpose of the training, and how are you measuring success?

Teaching someone to punch is only helpful if punching is a relevant skill. I believe that, without this analysis, there is a lot of selling features without benefits, like selling a high efficiency A/C to an Eskimo. They might appreciate the efficiency, but won’t ever realize the benefit.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Big whopping gang fights can. And you can cover some distance.

And so for example just being able to be more mobile than the other guy means you can have more numbers in each engagement. Which is also an advantage.

That's a realistic situation, but only for those who choose to participate.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No single factor automatically makes something better unless you hold other factors constant.


Very true. Of course, generalized training can also be bad.


That person is a self-defense "expert" to the same degree that I am a world-champion fighter. Writing a press release to claim a qualification doesn't mean you actually possess it.


Sadly, that video is far from the worst thing she's put out. Her video on defending against a rear choke is particularly sad.


Here we get to the crux of your argument, which I would phrase as the difference between "designed for" and "marketed as." In general, these so-called "tactical" tools aren't designed by military professionals optimizing for the needs of their profession. Rather they're created by money-making professionals seeking to make a few bucks off of Rambo-wannabees.

Of course, the same could be said of certain martial arts training programs.


I'd rephrase that to say that strength is partially technique. Muscle mass still counts. A 220 pound competitive weightlifter with 8% body fat and flawless technique will move more weight than a 150 pound competitive weightlifter with 12% body fat and flawless technique.

That said, it's worth repeating that technique is a significant component of strength. A lot of people don't seem to realize that.



I am.


Yep. Not as many as you might expect, but they're out there. Some of the JKD folks have moved that direction.


I consider boxers to be martial artists, but I'll set that aside and presume you're comparing boxers to practitioners of Asian martial arts which include kicking.

In that case, I'll say my experience does not back up the idea that boxers have weaker legs. (Weaker defenses against leg attacks, sure. That's not part of the boxing skill set.)









In my experience and observation, most street fights are not nearly as cardio-intensive as even amateur boxing, kickboxing, MMA, or grappling competitions. That's not to say there aren't exceptions.

Even so, cardio can be an important feature of "street-oriented" training. Reasons include:

Being prepared to run after fighting long enough to break free of an attacker.

Being prepared to fight after running from an attacker and being caught.

Being prepared for those encounters which may require more of an extended struggle. (For example a smaller woman working to escape being pinned under a larger man.)

Being able to train with more intensity for longer periods, leading to greater skill levels.

Developing general mental toughness and therefore being less likely to quit in a real fight. (To be clear, it's the process of building the cardio that also builds the mental toughness. Having cardio doesn't automatically make you tough.)

As usual, well said, Tony.