Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't train SD because all my training emphasizes on I attack first. I believe this violate the SD guideline.

If you can only fight by attacking first, yes, that training is not well suited to defensive use, where you may not get the opportunity to do so.

 

[dvcochran]

Like I said earlier, this kind of post in which you do nothing but attack the poster is just not okay. Or maybe it is okay around here now. I’ve been away for a bit and there’s a new batch of moderators.

Do you not realize you have been doing the same thing, just not as direct as I may be doing it?
A white horse painted grey is still a white horse (yes, I have likely said this before).

 

[Steve]

No, I’m not missing that. You’re missing that throwing people who don’t want to be thrown is flying the plane, not a simulator.

And when are you ever throwing someone who doesn't want to be thrown? Only time I ever did was in competition. The one thing training, no matter how good, can ever do, is simulate application. Further, and this is the key, a BJJ black belt who has no actual, practical experience applying skills shouldn't open his own school. Just like a random karate master or ninja or aikidoka who has no actual, practical experience applying skills should probably not be teaching self defense.

Simply put, if you're not applying your skills, you aren't the pilot in the analogy. You aren't cooking actual food. You aren't playing a round of golf or riding an actual bike. You're never taking the step out of training and into performance. And without application, there is no expertise, and without expertise... honest to goodness expertise... you will never get to the point of innovation, where you can take skills you have mastered and apply them in a completely different context, even under extreme stress. This is what it takes to land a plane in the Hudson River.

Training ---> Performance --> Expertise --> Innovation
You .................................................................Capt. Sullenberger

Your tone comes across as mocking in that post. You dislike the claims made by some in SD circles with seminars and short courses (and I largely agree on that point). But when someone doesn’t commit that sin, you mock that they haven’t said they are teaching skills.

Personally, I believe there’s value in folks learning that learning to fight takes time and commitment. Some movies (and some advertising) have made it seem otherwise, so it’s useful education. Just telling people doesn’t seem to work well - some experience with the process makes the learning curve clear.

Mocking isn't quite right, and dislike is completely the wrong word. Disagreement isn't mocking, and it isn't disliking. At most, I'll give you sincere amusement. I used the language he used, which was (paraphrasing slightly) that he taught no usable skills, and told them at the outset that this was an introduction in which the best they could hope for was a nugget of some kind. I mean, that's really the nut of the issue here, and he articulated it very well.

Do you not realize you have been doing the same thing, just not as direct as I may be doing it?
A white horse painted grey is still a white horse (yes, I have likely said this before).

There's a real difference between addressing the post and addressing the poster. You seem to want to make this personal, which I frankly don't get. Well, that's not entirely true. I understand why, because you've shared that you conduct seminars in which you do not expect to teach any functional skill. Like I said earlier, as a trainer, that's one heck of a gig if you can get it. There is zero accountability there.

It's analogous to professional trainers we see all the time who work for these national training corporations. The corporation has these packages on various topics, from managing virtual workgroups to coaching to you name it. The facilitators they have are professional facilitators, with varying expertise. Sometimes, they send a facilitator to teach subjects that he or she is just not qualified to teach. And you can tell. They will facilitate their way through the session, but regardless of how well they know the material, their lack of depth is revealed the first moment someone asks a real world question. In professional training, I personally don't think someone without real world experience coaching and supervising employees has any business teaching others to do so. If you've never managed a virtual team, I don't think you have any business teaching others to do so.

And presuming the instructor is fully qualified, if you're not managing a virtual team, you will get very little out of the training on that subject because you aren't applying what you're learning. If you're not managing employees, training on coaching subordinates is going to be pointless, because you aren't applying those skills.

There's an evaluation model commonly used in professional training called the Kirkpatrick model. Lots of information on it if you google it, but essentially, there are four stages to evaluating the effectiveness of training: Reaction, Learning, Transfer, and Results. I'll leave it to you guys whether you are curious about the model. To the point here, seminars such as @dvcochran described can only be evaluated at the first stage. Training without application can only ever be evaluated at the second stage. That's the best one can do without application.

If you have application, it's really easy to think of how the training can be evaluated to the Transfer level. Results might take some planning, because it involves thinking about measurable results at the outset. This is easy if it's considered at the outset, but can be tricky if you haven't thought about measurable results up front.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I understand why, because you've shared that you conduct seminars in which you do not expect to teach any functional skill. Like I said earlier, as a trainer, that's one heck of a gig if you can get it. There is zero accountability there.

As I read dvcochran's post, he was talking about more of a demo or a sample taste for people who want to see what it would be like to pursue training. For a short one time session, that's all anyone could realistically deliver, so kudos to him for being honest about it. Teaching of functional skills would only be possible during longer sustained training, so that's where any "accountability" would be found.

And when are you ever throwing someone who doesn't want to be thrown? Only time I ever did was in competition.

I've thrown people who don't want to be thrown during sparring/randori hundreds (thousands?) of times. The only thing different about doing it in an official tournament is some extra adrenaline. (I've done that too, but not nearly as often as I've done regular sparring in the gym.)

 

[Steve]

As I read dvcochran's post, he was talking about more of a demo or a sample taste for people who want to see what it would be like to pursue training. For a short one time session, that's all anyone could realistically deliver, so kudos to him for being honest about it. Teaching of functional skills would only be possible during longer sustained training, so that's where any "accountability" would be found.

Maybe so. He did use the word "demonstration." However, he also used the term "class" and the thread is on training, not sales demonstrations. All that said, hopefully, he isn't charging for these demonstrations. Regarding "accountability", I haven't seen any evidence of that. I'm sincerely interested in hearing what that looks like.

I've thrown people who don't want to be thrown during sparring/randori hundreds (thousands?) of times. The only thing different about doing it in an official tournament is some extra adrenaline. (I've done that too, but not nearly as often as I've done regular sparring in the gym.)

This is where subjective language like "doesn't want to be thrown" causes problems. I mean, sure, your training partner might not want to be thrown. But how much training value does their sincere desire to stay upright give you? If your instructor hasn't ever applied their skills, and no one else in the school applies the skills, then how do you know what you're learning. There's no independent, measurable result. Just a giant feedback loop.

Think about it like this: what's the difference between learning a grappling technique from a bujinkan taijutsu instructor and the same technique from a BJJ instructor? They both teach people to throw other people, and I'm sure, if asked, the student would say, "Hey man, I've thrown hundreds of people who didn't want to be thrown." The technique is the same. Let's say the training is the same, too. I mean, randori/sparring, a sincere desire to learn and apply the techniques... for real. Let's even say, like Hatsumi, that the instructor's, instructor's instructor trained in judo, western boxing, and a few other styles. I think (hope?) that we can all agree that learning a grappling technique in a bujinkan school and learning that same technique in a BJJ school would render different results. The question is, why? What's different?

Now step that up from a skill to a skill set. You are learning something from your instructors, I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm saying, without application, you aren't learning what you think. And your instructor might not even know it, if they've also been taught within the echo chamber of their style. He or she might believe they are teaching you things you aren't learning, if they have no experience, either. The best you can hope for, is that the training mimics the real thing closely enough to give you some hope of transferring the skills to application when needed. But that's not application, much less expertise. Ultimately, as @drop bear says, that's faith.

 

[drop bear]

So create the competition. Figure out a way to make conflict resolution into a competition. Or weapon training (also called the dog brothers, who have succesfully turned that part of grappling plus weapons into SD competition), or multiple attacker training into a competition. Once you create it, and offer some sort of cash for winning, I'm sure you'll find out who's best at it. Until then, don't complain that it doesn't exist just because no one's offering a reward for competing in that regard.

And incorporating conflict resolution, weapons, multiple attackers and situational awareness is far different than incorporating camo pants. I wouldn't expect you to get that though, considering your past posts here.

Ok. So we can't tell if self defense works. Or to what extent. We can't tell if an instructor is any good at it. And a self defense instructor admits quite possibly we can train self defense and not take away anything at all from it.

Results don't matter.

And this is acceptable by people defending the merits of self defence.

I can't fix that.

The best I can do is tell people to do martial arts where results do matter. Especially if your motivation is to survive some sort of violent attack.

And incorporating conflict resolution, weapons, multiple attackers and situational awareness is far different than incorporating camo pants.

If by incorporating you mean role play by people who have no expertise in the subject then it is exactly the same as incorporating camo pants.

If I go to my gym and pretend to be an astronaut. I will not become an astronaut.

 

[drop bear]

As I read dvcochran's post, he was talking about more of a demo or a sample taste for people who want to see what it would be like to pursue training. For a short one time session, that's all anyone could realistically deliver, so kudos to him for being honest about it. Teaching of functional skills would only be possible during longer sustained training, so that's where any "accountability" would be found.

Yeah but what is the point?

This comes up Lot and it is a very strange outlook.

Let's go back to our flying analogy.

So now for whatever reason we only have two weeks to learn to fly a plane. And instead of just saying no it can't be done. We set up a flying school that doesn't work.

And when we have plane crashes it is ok because we only had two weeks?

 

[drop bear]

Maybe so. He did use the word "demonstration." However, he also used the term "class" and the thread is on training, not sales demonstrations. All that said, hopefully, he isn't charging for these demonstrations. Regarding "accountability", I haven't seen any evidence of that. I'm sincerely interested in hearing what that looks like.

It will wind up being industry training. Which is as often about mitigating liability more than teaching a functional skill.

It is one of those things I feel is grossly negligent for a bunch of reasons. But is deemed perfectly acceptable by people who are holding the purse strings.

 

[drop bear]

If you can only fight by attacking first, yes, that training is not well suited to defensive use, where you may not get the opportunity to do so.

Not if it is done with scientific method. Because to improve your ambush you will improve your counter ambush.

I used to know some airforce defense guard. And their training was to oppose the SAS. So both elements got covered.

 

[Steve]

It will wind up being industry training. Which is as often about mitigating liability more than teaching a functional skill.

It is one of those things I feel is grossly negligent for a bunch of reasons. But is deemed perfectly acceptable by people who are holding the purse strings.

We refer to that as "checking the box" training. That gets back to my earlier comments, which is that being paid to provide training for which there is no expectation of any results is a damn good gig, if you can get it.

 

[drop bear]

Ok, obviously, the way I am writing it, seems to be coming ocross not exactly as intended to some, so one last go.
Firstly I like Americans, and have enjoyed visiting there.
Last time I was there, I met a bloke in Idaho, whos passion was wrestling, he used to work a regular job, and needed more money, mainly to fund his wrestling, equipment, travel, competition fees etc, so he started an online business, he made a nice profit, he then told others of his profits, and developed a online course for a fee, to teach others what he had done, he is now estimated to be worth over 60 million dollars, you can check him out if you wish, google Russell Brunson, there is another bloke called Anthony Robbins, made millions by telling people to get off their butts, take action, follow their dreams, and he has 100s of testimonials from people hes helped.
My point is, in America opportunities can be created, and vast profits made by those willing to take it, this creates confidence, and creativity, there is real opportunity, a former kick boxer can teach kick boxing, and kick boxing based fitness programs.
With this confidence and creativity, Americans are not scared to give it a go, if it looks good, and sounds good, whats to lose, a couple of thousand bucks and a bit of time, this mentality can leave the door open to bad purchases and scams (this is my British scepticle side). I have an aunty who lives in Boston, in her kitchen she have every gadget going, nutri bullet, kitchen ninja, which as far as I can tell do the same thing, 2 or 3 mixers, juicers, but, used them once or twice, then just left in the kitchen cupboard, when asked why, she had seen it on tv, and thought oh thats good, gotta grt me one of those.
I suppose I am steriotyping, but only by experience. As with the comments about Serbs and Croats, their reputationnis probably because of a history of troubles, but met a few Croats, and quite a few Serbs and others frombthe former Yougaslavia area, not met any bad ones, same as all the Russians I have met, anyhow off for my cup o tea, fish n chips, and collecting my bowler hat from the dry cleaners.

There is a concept called exeptionalism. Which is this ironic American trait that makes them all offended when American is not painted as the bestest most awesome thing in the world.

They are just super sensitive about some subjects that the rest of us would take on the chin.

Call someone a liberal and see what happens.

 

[drop bear]

We refer to that as "checking the box" training. That gets back to my earlier comments, which is that being paid to provide training for which there is no expectation of any results is a damn good gig, if you can get it.

See from a security guard point of view. I found these outrageously self serving.

You can literally make up the circumstances that will occur and you don't have to be influenced by any real world issues.

By doing this you can then set policy based on this fake set of circumstances.

You can then pass on responsibility and liability to your most powerless and most at risk.

It is treated people as disposable.

This might be fine when, as I have done, I get trained to blow up a balloon. And it is an irritation.

It is not fine when I am trained to fight a real guy who wants to hurt me.

 

[Steve]

See from a security guard point of view. I found these outrageously self serving.

You can literally make up the circumstances that will occur and you don't have to be influenced by any real world issues.

By doing this you can then set policy based on this fake set of circumstances.

You can then pass on responsibility and liability to your most powerless and most at risk.

It is treated people as disposable.

This might be fine when, as I have done, I get trained to blow up a balloon. And it is an irritation.

It is not fine when I am trained to fight a real guy who wants to hurt me.

This is where that kirkpatrick evaluation model can add a lot of value. When the trainee is expected not just to transfer the training into 'on the job' skills, and the results are measured, there is accountability. The whole point of the Kirkpatrick model is that it combines immediate feedback on the training (levels 1 and 2) with longer term feedback that evaluates whether the training made any difference (levels 3 and 4). If the training isn't effective, or if it doesn't matter whether it's effective, you will see a lot of emphasis on level 1 and 2 feedback and no mention of any longer term evaluation of results.

And to be clear, longer training doesn't necessarily mean more effective training.

 

[Steve]

There is a concept called exeptionalism. Which is this ironic American trait that makes them all offended when American is not painted as the bestest most awesome thing in the world.

You take that back, you son of a... oooh.

They are just super sensitive about some subjects that the rest of us would take on the chin.

Yeah right. You come from the land down under, where the women glow and men chunder (whatever that means).

Call someone a liberal and see what happens.

Liberals don't mind being called liberal or progressive.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Call someone a liberal and see what happens.

Call someone a conservative and see what happens.

 

[drop bear]

This is where that kirkpatrick evaluation model can add a lot of value. When the trainee is expected not just to transfer the training into 'on the job' skills, and the results are measured, there is accountability. The whole point of the Kirkpatrick model is that it combines immediate feedback on the training (levels 1 and 2) with longer term feedback that evaluates whether the training made any difference (levels 3 and 4). If the training isn't effective, or if it doesn't matter whether it's effective, you will see a lot of emphasis on level 1 and 2 feedback and no mention of any longer term evaluation of results.

And to be clear, longer training doesn't necessarily mean more effective training.

I will have a look at the model.

There are things like flying a plane and fighting that have a minimum time limit though.

 

[drop bear]

You take that back, you son of a... oooh. Yeah right. You come from the land down under, where the women glow and men chunder (whatever that means).Liberals don't mind being called liberal or progressive.

It means vomit.

 

[drop bear]

This is where that kirkpatrick evaluation model can add a lot of value.

Very close to scientific method.

 

[Steve]

Very close to scientific method.

Similar, but this is a way to evaluate whether training is doing any good, rather than test a hypothesis. Most training gathers only level 1 feedback. Was the training engaging? Was the instructor well organized? Did he or she appear credible?

More to the point, you can’t gather level 3 or level 4 feedback if the skills are never applied. The data just won’t exist.

 

[Steve]

It means vomit.

Really??? That’s gross.