Shadow Boxing vs Kata fallacy argument.

[Flying Crane]

We were sidetracked into jump into water without swimming knowledge (or sparring without learning kick/punch).

Sure, the discussion can go into any of a number of directions, and can do so simultaneously. So I guess nothing is “sidetracking”.

 

[Steve]

Is that what we are talking about? The title of the thread had me believing that we were talking about whether or not shadowboxing is the same as kata.

I think we've already sorted that one out. Consensus is that it is not.

 

[drop bear]

First of all all jumping into a river, with a current, without knowing how to swim, is a deathwish. I’m guessing that if an adult threw a minor into that situation, there might be an arrest for child endangerment. Some people might have actually survived such a stupid incident and therefor might be tempted to brush it off as a fine way to teach swimming. I suspect the law might see it differently because most reasonable people now would recognize how dangerous that can be.

A similar, but more controllable situation, would be to do that in a swimming pool. In this case, I seriously doubt that someone would learn to swim any better than dog paddle. Which is a very inefficient form of swimming. Without actual instruction, it is unlikely said person would ever progress beyond that.

That’s what you get when you try to jump over the foundation and technical aspects of good instruction. Yes, you can become functional quickly. But you remain at a low level.

Be like a self defense instructor that hasn't had to defend himself.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ummm... so we can agree that the folks coming in can have some useful ability without instruction, from horseplay or whatever? How can that be?

To be clear, we can debate the ideal ratio of training vs application. There's room for discussion. But....

Can we agree that 100% training vs 0% application does not work? Best case scenario, you end up with something like cops firing their weapons indiscriminately, hitting their intended target about 1 out of every 5 shots they fire? There is a transfer of learning that must occur. The transfer of learning from training to application is always far less reliable than the application of a skill from one context in another. In fact, we can be pretty sure that the accuracy rate of cops is not a training issue. More training hasn't helped improve their accuracy. It's an application issue.

Can we agree that 0% training vs 100% application is not ideal? While is does work, it can take longer and often leads to skills gaps and potentially some creative problem solving (aka, bad habits).

Can we agree that some mix of the two is ideal?

We can definitely agree to that last point. That was pretty much my initial assertion.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Playing the game is the key, though. Right? Not analogous to sparring at all, IMO. Because, unless your goal is to be an expert sparring partner, that's not what you're trying to learn. Is it?

If you’re learning to grapple people, you need to actually grapple people (who are trying to grapple back). If you’re learning to punch people, you need to actually punch people (who are trying to punch back).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think we have sidetracked a bit here.

We are not talking about how to start sparring without knowing how to kick and punch. We are talking whether one can develop foundation through partner drill (application) or not.

To me, partner drills aren’t application (though that’s the term we use in NGA). They are drills. When you get to resistance, you enter the realm of application.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Be like a self defense instructor that hasn't had to defend himself.

That’s a different issue. More like a swimming instructor who has never almost drowned, teaching how to recover from that situation.

 

[Steve]

We can definitely agree to that last point. That was pretty much my initial assertion.

Yeah, where you lost me was when you said something about focusing on foundational skills and deferring application. What got us down this road is that application should be incorporated as absolutely soon as is reasonable, and after the absolute minimum amount of training needed to get there.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Fair warning: none of the below will really be relevant to the thread, or it's offshoot topics. It's also a bit rambly. Feel free to read it if you like, but don't expect to gain anything insightful from it.

@Steve I had a whole long post I made last night using your chess example, explaining how even with chess you need both the training and experience, and it goes back and forth. In response to this line "Application can replace training."

Didn't send for some reason, but today I see that you clarified with the post starting with this "I'm not arguing against training nor foundational instruction. I'm arguing against training as a replacement for application."

What's funny is my post that didn't send was basically me explaining how that hybrid model you talked about is needed for chess, based on me teaching it.

Except not so much the hybrid model you described, but a different hybrid. Training first-then application (playing chess) for a while, then when a plateau is hit, diagnose and train, then go back to application (you dip a bit but then get past your plateau) and rinse and repeat. If you try to analyze each and every game afterwards, I've found (at least for the levels I taught to) then you end up a: spending too much time analyzing, not enough playing, and b: have too many things you're trying to focus on and no set clear goal with it. At higher levels (basically the level I grazed at my peak, nowhere near where I'm at now, or where I could teach to..), the b isn't really true since you're doing a lot more fine tuning.

Focusing on B: let's say I play a game and I'm doing well, but ultimately end up losing. I go back over the game, by myself, with my opponent, or with my coach. We realize that the key point in the game seemed to be a move my opponent made with his knight, that I could have stopped had I been paying more attention to his knight. So next game I play, I make sure that I don't forget about the knight (or even, I make sure that I'm paying attention to the individual potential of each piece). This may be too much for me to focus on and I completely fall apart. But let's assume I'm past the level where I can't focus on each individual piece. I do so, but now I'm not looking at the board state, and while he isn't able to make any moves that my coach or other spectators would label as brilliant, he ends up with control over the center by middlegame, and I end up losing. Okay, so now I've got to watch out for that. And I should also probably watch out for the individual pieces, but that seems like a lot to focus on, so let me just make sure I don't get caught off guard by the knight again. I'm playing a new game, watching for center-board control and the knights, and get caught in a key fork without realizing it. Oops. Maybe I need to do some chess tactic puzzles again. i do a bunch, I'm ready for any tactics, but again I get focused on that and lose control of the center without realizing it.

You can see how that could (and does) easily spiral out with me focusing on a bunch of different things, but never actually improving in any of them. Even with some wins splattered in, I'm still stuck where I am. The better option (again depending on your elo, really good players who just need to fine tune and can focus are past this part) would be to play 10-20 games seriously, record them (or have a coach watch) then review them afterwards to see if there are any themes. So if I was the player mentioned above, I might notice that my openings are weak and I need to focus more on control of the center. I do some practice games and learn some new opening variations to help me with that, and make sure I'm paying attention to it going forwards. I might miss some things I would have caught had I not been focusing on it, but eventually I win a lot more by doing that, and get to the next level of competition where I stall out and start losing more often than I'm winning. Now I go through again, review my last 10-20 games to see what changed, and see if there's some tactics I'm missing, did I start getting worse with control, am I not thinking far enough ahead, am I staying too far ahead, is my endgame failing, etc. And repeat the process.

I'm sure there's some relationship here to martial arts. If someone else wants to find it, feel free.

 

[Steve]

If you’re learning to grapple people, you need to actually grapple people (who are trying to grapple back). If you’re learning to punch people, you need to actually punch people (who are trying to punch back).

So, then, being an expert sparring partner is the goal?
Question: "Hey man. What are you learning in your martial arts class?"
Answer: "I'm learning to spar."

I've never heard anyone say that, but if that's the apex of your training, that's what you're learning to do.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

When you get to resistance, you enter the realm of application.

The term resistance can be misleading.

If the moment you touch me, I sink down (resist as hard as I can), you will never be able to develop your hip throw by using me as your training partner.

So where will you draw the line between technique developing vs. technique testing?

No resistance in this hip throw training.

When someone resists your hip throw, he is helping you to train a different technique.

 

[Steve]

Fair warning: none of the below will really be relevant to the thread, or it's offshoot topics. It's also a bit rambly. Feel free to read it if you like, but don't expect to gain anything insightful from it.

@Steve I had a whole long post I made last night using your chess example, explaining how even with chess you need both the training and experience, and it goes back and forth. In response to this line "Application can replace training."

Didn't send for some reason, but today I see that you clarified with the post starting with this "I'm not arguing against training nor foundational instruction. I'm arguing against training as a replacement for application."

What's funny is my post that didn't send was basically me explaining how that hybrid model you talked about is needed for chess, based on me teaching it.

Except not so much the hybrid model you described, but a different hybrid. Training first-then application (playing chess) for a while, then when a plateau is hit, diagnose and train, then go back to application (you dip a bit but then get past your plateau) and rinse and repeat. If you try to analyze each and every game afterwards, I've found (at least for the levels I taught to) then you end up a: spending too much time analyzing, not enough playing, and b: have too many things you're trying to focus on and no set clear goal with it. At higher levels (basically the level I grazed at my peak, nowhere near where I'm at now, or where I could teach to..), the b isn't really true since you're doing a lot more fine tuning.

Focusing on B: let's say I play a game and I'm doing well, but ultimately end up losing. I go back over the game, by myself, with my opponent, or with my coach. We realize that the key point in the game seemed to be a move my opponent made with his knight, that I could have stopped had I been paying more attention to his knight. So next game I play, I make sure that I don't forget about the knight (or even, I make sure that I'm paying attention to the individual potential of each piece). This may be too much for me to focus on and I completely fall apart. But let's assume I'm past the level where I can't focus on each individual piece. I do so, but now I'm not looking at the board state, and while he isn't able to make any moves that my coach or other spectators would label as brilliant, he ends up with control over the center by middlegame, and I end up losing. Okay, so now I've got to watch out for that. And I should also probably watch out for the individual pieces, but that seems like a lot to focus on, so let me just make sure I don't get caught off guard by the knight again. I'm playing a new game, watching for center-board control and the knights, and get caught in a key fork without realizing it. Oops. Maybe I need to do some chess tactic puzzles again. i do a bunch, I'm ready for any tactics, but again I get focused on that and lose control of the center without realizing it.

You can see how that could (and does) easily spiral out with me focusing on a bunch of different things, but never actually improving in any of them. Even with some wins splattered in, I'm still stuck where I am. The better option (again depending on your elo, really good players who just need to fine tune and can focus are past this part) would be to play 10-20 games seriously, record them (or have a coach watch) then review them afterwards to see if there are any themes. So if I was the player mentioned above, I might notice that my openings are weak and I need to focus more on control of the center. I do some practice games and learn some new opening variations to help me with that, and make sure I'm paying attention to it going forwards. I might miss some things I would have caught had I not been focusing on it, but eventually I win a lot more by doing that, and get to the next level of competition where I stall out and start losing more often than I'm winning. Now I go through again, review my last 10-20 games to see what changed, and see if there's some tactics I'm missing, did I start getting worse with control, am I not thinking far enough ahead, am I staying too far ahead, is my endgame failing, etc. And repeat the process.

I'm sure there's some relationship here to martial arts. If someone else wants to find it, feel free.

I actually think you're explaining what I'm trying to say better than I did. Train a little, apply a lot... hit a plateau, train a little more (in the broad sense of training which could be analysis, coaching, etc)., apply a lot more. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Steve]

To me, partner drills aren’t application (though that’s the term we use in NGA). They are drills. When you get to resistance, you enter the realm of application.

That sound you hear is me groaning uncontrollably.... like Tina from Bob's Burgers.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah, where you lost me was when you said something about focusing on foundational skills and deferring application. What got us down this road is that application should be incorporated as absolutely soon as is reasonable, and after the absolute minimum amount of training needed to get there.

I must've been unclear. So, if we looked at a basic bridging escape, you'd want a new student to get a little time playing with it in some simple drills, starting with a purely static version. You'd want those drills to add resistance gradually. And you'd want them to get to (try to) use it while rolling as soon as they have any hope of doing so (rather than waiting until they develop full "static competency" before they get to roll).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So, then, being an expert sparring partner is the goal?
Question: "Hey man. What are you learning in your martial arts class?"
Answer: "I'm learning to spar."

I've never heard anyone say that, but if that's the apex of your training, that's what you're learning to do.

Learning to punch/throw/whatever against a resisting opponent (and successfully resist the same from them) is the broad goal, in that example.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The term resistance can be misleading.

If the moment you touch me, I sink down (resist as hard as I can), you will never be able to develop your hip throw by using me as your training partner.

So where will you draw the line between technique developing vs. technique testing?

No resistance in this hip throw training.

When someone resists your hip throw, he is helping you to train a different technique.

Preface: When I speak of "resistance" in this context, I'm not talking about resisting a specific technique during a drill, but about having an opponent who doesn't want to be thrown/hit so is using their skills against you.

I agree. But it's not really application if it's in a vacuum (as it the case where there's no resistance). Getting to apply the skills isn't about a specific skill (usually), but about applying the skill set. So in a given grappling/sparring session, I may not get to use my hip throw, because of the resistance.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That sound you hear is me groaning uncontrollably.... like Tina from Bob's Burgers.

I know. You and I fundamentally disagree about context.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Preface: When I speak of "resistance" in this context, I'm not talking about resisting a specific technique during a drill, but about having an opponent who doesn't want to be thrown/hit so is using their skills against you.

If I just running around you (avoid contact), what technique can you use to against me? I will not be a good training partner for you because I cannot help you to develop any MA skill (except running).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If I just running around you (avoid contact), what technique can you use to against me? I will not be a good training partner for you because I cannot help you to develop any MA skill (except running).

In that case, you're not trying to use your technique against me, so you're not a good training partner. I can also outline a couple dozen things people can do that make them bad training partners, and none of them have much to do with what I said.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

If I just running around you (avoid contact), what technique can you use to against me? I will not be a good training partner for you because I cannot help you to develop any MA skill (except running).

That depends, are we in a ring? Or a wide open space. If wide open space, then yeah we're just practicing running. if we're in a ring/octagan/square/whatever, then it's an opportunity for me to practice using footwork and feints to force a position where you can't run.