Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[drop bear]

I think you mean "highly ranked" "bjj black belt".

Mr. Rao claims to be a BJJ black belt, He also claims to be a JKD master instructor, a medical doctor, holder of multiple doctorates, a trainer of military commandos, a 9th degree black belt in "unarmed combat", and a bunch of other things. Maybe some portion of those claims have some truth to them. I can pretty much guarantee his claim of BJJ black belt rank is a lie.

Yeah. I am not trying to fraud bust so much as show that we really do need a method to determine truth from fiction.

I mean let's suggest by some miracle he really is a legit bjj black belt. (Hey ashton kutcher is a brown belt) We still need to challenge for ourselves his veracity.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

we really do need a method to determine truth from fiction.

I still remember that Li Ming-Sin from Taiwan (1976?) who claimed he cold throw 5 punches within 1 second. He got knocked down by a tiger claw guy in NY within 8 seconds.

1/2 century ago, when you said that you were good. People would say, "Try me and show how good you are." It just seems to me that this kind of attitude no longer exist in today's environment.

 

[drop bear]

I still remember that Li Ming-Sin from Taiwan (1976?) who claimed he cold throw 5 punches within 1 second. He got knocked down by a tiger claw guy in NY within 8 seconds.

1/2 century ago, when you said that you were good. People would say, "Try me and show how good you are." It just seems to me that this kind of attitude no longer exist in today's environment.

I think it was over cooked as an idea in that they were these prideful death matches. Which made everyone want to avoid them.

 

[dvcochran]

Vehemently defending a position is all fine and good, if you're taking the time to understand folks. Even here, you didn't get it, or maybe didn't want to get what I was saying. The pattern isn't your defense of your opinions. It's that you never seem to accept any accountability when you fail to understand something. The other person just didn't say it right, every time.

I'll take another stab at this in a different way. I hope it works better for you.

1: The difference between lack of knowledge and faith based has two components. The first component is you: how you train and how you apply the training. The second component is the person from whom you are learning. This person needs to have bona fide expertise. If you don't have both components, you're in a faith based situation.

2a: Skill is developed by learning and then doing. Conversely, what you do is what you're developing. So, if you're not fighting, you aren't learning to fight. You're learning something. Just not how to fight. Experience in one context determines how successful you can be transferring those skills to another context. The more experience and the more similar the context, the more likely you are to be successful.

Let's say you have two people. One person watches cooking shows every day, and is a real foodie, but has never actually cooked anything more complex than toast and eggs. The other has never watched cooking shows, but grew up cooking cooking meals every day. If you gave each of them a recipe for Beef Wellington, who do you think is more likely to succeed? My money is on the person with experience actually cooking. The more similar the experience, the easier it will be to transfer the skills.​

2b: Expertise in a practical skill set is compromised in one generation without application. This means that learning a skill set or trade from an experienced person is great, as long as you then apply those skills. This is the difference between theory and practice. Bridging this gap is done all the time, but it can only be done with experience.

So, person one has expertise... just not cooking expertise. This person has a lot of experience mindfully eating food and learning about how it should look and taste, and as a result has a very educated palate. Maybe they'd make a great food blogger. But unless they actually step into a kitchen and start cooking, they will never become a competent cook.​

3: This applies to martial arts and fighting skills, just as it applies to every other skill set. So, when you talk about MMA being derivative, given that skills can be compromised in just a single generation, I think that's a pointless red herring. It only really matters to folks who are clinging to lineage for validation. I personally think the question of whether a technique CAN work is far less important than whether I (or YOU) can use that technique.

I get what you are saying, everybody does. It is a rehash of common knowledge.

Ahh, MMA skills being a derivative, now I get your rub.
I have never seen or read someone who tries to put words (your words) in someone else's mouth so much. I Never said anything about skills being compromised in a single generation. You came up with that one on your own. I would agree that is a pointless red herring that was never said, by me anyway. It seems clear who is clinging here.
Obviously, the question is whether a technique can work for the individual. Your 'theory vs. application' in a nutshell.
Still, there are a great many who have all the information, all the knowledge and still cannot apply it. It has zero to do with faith based nor a lack of knowledge. That is just reality. Inherited traits and common sense seem to be lost on you.
Are you a college professor by chance? You seem to be having a hard time with this real world thing.

 

[Steve]

I get what you are saying, everybody does. It is a rehash of common knowledge.

Ahh, MMA skills being a derivative, now I get your rub.
I have never seen or read someone who tries to put words (your words) in someone else's mouth so much. I Never said anything about skills being compromised in a single generation. You came up with that one on your own. I would agree that is a pointless red herring that was never said, by me anyway. It seems clear who is clinging here.
Obviously, the question is whether a technique can work for the individual. Your 'theory vs. application' in a nutshell.
Still, there are a great many who have all the information, all the knowledge and still cannot apply it. It has zero to do with faith based nor a lack of knowledge. That is just reality. Inherited traits and common sense seem to be lost on you.
Are you a college professor by chance? You seem to be having a hard time with this real world thing.

You're still missing the point. I mean, completely. But I guess when ad hominem is the best you have, it's pointless to continue. Maybe at some point you'll reread the posts and we can have a reasonable discussion.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I Never said anything about skills being compromised in a single generation. You came up with that one on your own.

Yes, that's exactly what Steve was saying. He wasn't trying to attribute the idea to you. It's pretty much the foundation of everything he's been saying in this thread.

Personally I think there's a fair amount of truth in it.

Suppose A is an experienced master in some field - unarmed fighting, cooking, police work, fixing cars, whatever. Assuming they also have a talent for teaching, then they should be hopefully able to pass on their knowledge in a useful way.

Now suppose B learns from A, studies all the material, passes all the tests, but never actually gets into a fight/cooks a meal/works in law enforcement/fixes a car/whatever. They may have the potential to do well in the field, but they haven't really tested their ability or discovered the limitations of what they've learned.

Now suppose C learns from B. B may do their best to pass on the curriculum they learned from A, but they don't know what they don't know. Details, context, limitations of techniques and understanding, can all be lost in translation. When C asks a question, B can either repeat what they were told by A or else come up with an answer based on theory rather than experience.

Now suppose C also never gets into a fight/cooks a meal/works in law enforcement/fixes a car/whatever. D learns from C. How much confidence do you have that D will be well prepared to succeed in the field. How about if D never gets into a fight/cooks a meal/works in law enforcement/fixes a car/whatever, but goes on to teach E. How prepared will E be?

That's the situation a large percentage of martial arts schools are in. It's not that they don't necessarily have anything of value in the curriculum. It's that students are learning techniques from teachers who have never used them in a fight and who learned them from other teachers who never used them in a fight and those teachers in turn learned from other teachers who had never used them in a fight and so on. This can easily result, as Steve points out, in skills and knowledge being compromised.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think it was over cooked as an idea in that they were these prideful death matches. Which made everyone want to avoid them.

Many challenge fights are very simple.

A guy challenged preying mantis master Brendan Lai. Brendan said, "I'll just throw one punch at you. If you can block it, you win, otherwise, you lose."

A guy challenged a Chinese wrestling master David C. K. Lin. David said, "I'll attack you 3 times, if in any one of my attacks, you can stand on your feet for more than 3 seconds, you win, otherwise, you lose."

In both challenges, Brendan leaded to his strong point - fast punch. David leaded to his strong point - take down skill.

 

[dvcochran]

Yes, that's exactly what Steve was saying. He wasn't trying to attribute the idea to you. It's pretty much the foundation of everything he's been saying in this thread.

Personally I think there's a fair amount of truth in it.

Suppose A is an experienced master in some field - unarmed fighting, cooking, police work, fixing cars, whatever. Assuming they also have a talent for teaching, then they should be hopefully able to pass on their knowledge in a useful way.

Now suppose B learns from A, studies all the material, passes all the tests, but never actually gets into a fight/cooks a meal/works in law enforcement/fixes a car/whatever. They may have the potential to do well in the field, but they haven't really tested their ability or discovered the limitations of what they've learned.

Now suppose C learns from B. B may do their best to pass on the curriculum they learned from A, but they don't know what they don't know. Details, context, limitations of techniques and understanding, can all be lost in translation. When C asks a question, B can either repeat what they were told by A or else come up with an answer based on theory rather than experience.

Now suppose C also never gets into a fight/cooks a meal/works in law enforcement/fixes a car/whatever. D learns from C. How much confidence do you have that D will be well prepared to succeed in the field. How about if D never gets into a fight/cooks a meal/works in law enforcement/fixes a car/whatever, but goes on to teach E. How prepared will E be?

That's the situation a large percentage of martial arts schools are in. It's not that they don't necessarily have anything of value in the curriculum. It's that students are learning techniques from teachers who have never used them in a fight and who learned them from other teachers who never used them in a fight and those teachers in turn learned from other teachers who had never used them in a fight and so on. This can easily result, as Steve points out, in skills and knowledge being compromised.

I agree, but it still precludes the groups/individuals (letter?) that is never going to find competency no matter what precedents they have. Whether it is the originator who had a really great idea but never brought if fully to fruition or the 2nd, 3rd, 6th generation who have just been 'passing it on', there are variables in there that are never going to be competent. Because of the open format nature of practicing MA they will never be factored out.

I believe there are little to no styles/systems/schools that are pure to all original teachings. There has just been way too much new information integrated and refinement along the way. They have been made better.
I cannot think of any one thing that this has not happened to. Take the laptop I am writing this on for example.

I have gotten the idea of saturation, loss of quality over time through the entire thread. But is this not 'old thinking' in today's instant information availability? And is this not essentially what MMA touts; that they have refined everything 'back to' or to a level of near perfection? As much as I dislike the overtness sometimes, this is not a bad thing.

And it is the American way is it not? To take a thing or group of things and parse out the best parts to create a 'better' unit. Again, not a bad thing but goes against the traditional grain for some folks. And to be fair, MMA is a product, not so much a system. One hell of a marketing tool.
A lot of folks on the forum were not around to ride the wave of popularity martials arts had in the late 60's through the 80's. I would say it was just as overt and marketed as MMA is doing today. Good times.

 

[dvcochran]

You're still missing the point. I mean, completely. But I guess when ad hominem is the best you have, it's pointless to continue. Maybe at some point you'll reread the posts and we can have a reasonable discussion.

Like I said, I have gotten it from the beginning. Again, you are making the narrative (that I do not understand) what You want it to be. Read my response to Tony's post.
I can debate with you all day long. You do not grow up in my family without being able to stand your ground. I did not make it personal, you did. I simply countered. You want to debate, let's debate. You want to attack, let's attack.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I believe there are little to no styles/systems/schools that are pure to all original teachings. There has just been way too much new information integrated and refinement along the way. They have been made better.
I cannot think of any one thing that this has not happened to. Take the laptop I am writing this on for example.

I have gotten the idea of saturation, loss of quality over time through the entire thread. But is this not 'old thinking' in today's instant information availability? And is this not essentially what MMA touts; that they have refined everything 'back to' or to a level of near perfection? As much as I dislike the overtness sometimes, this is not a bad thing.

You're missing part of the point.

I agree that martial arts can (and should) improve over time rather than deteriorate. I think Steve does as well. The point is that for that to happen there has to be actual application experience by teachers and practitioners at each point along the way. If A has application experience and then teaches B, who has their own application experience and who then teaches C, who has more application experience, and so on, then the art will probably end up improved and refined over the years, just as you say. The problem comes when you have instructors teaching techniques they've never used in a fight which they learned from instructors who never used them in a fight who in turn learned from previous instructors who never used them in a fight. That's where things get lost.

 

[dvcochran]

You're missing part of the point.

I agree that martial arts can (and should) improve over time rather than deteriorate. I think Steve does as well. The point is that for that to happen there has to be actual application experience by teachers and practitioners at each point along the way. If A has application experience and then teaches B, who has their own application experience and who then teaches C, who has more application experience, and so on, then the art will probably end up improved and refined over the years, just as you say. The problem comes when you have instructors teaching techniques they've never used in a fight which they learned from instructors who never used them in a fight who in turn learned from previous instructors who never used them in a fight. That's where things get lost.

Agree. I still do not see what part of the point you feel I am missing.

Do I think this is a real occurrence? Yes, in MA and many other things. I said in one of my earlier posts that at least 50% of the learning equation is on the person learning. Some, not all can take 'flawed' information like you describe and process it into creditable, quality, applicable material. It certainly is not the best case scenario but it does happen. Naturally, this is not the preferred teaching lineage but how does the layperson even know they are in this scenario? I suppose this would be the 'ignorance is bliss' scenario.
You and Steve are speaking from a position of experience that understands this anomaly. I think the bulk of practitioners do not know and many do not care. These fall into the casual martial artist, doing it more for exercise and social interaction than anything else.
It would be a hard thing to chart but it would be interesting to breakdown the people practicing for purely fighting purposes, self defense, competition, and casual/exercise.

 

[Steve]

I agree, but it still precludes the groups/individuals (letter?) that is never going to find competency no matter what precedents they have. Whether it is the originator who had a really great idea but never brought if fully to fruition or the 2nd, 3rd, 6th generation who have just been 'passing it on', there are variables in there that are never going to be competent. Because of the open format nature of practicing MA they will never be factored out.

This is completely irrelevant. Some folks will never be a surgeon. They lack some essential element, whether it's native intelligence, aptitude, desire, self-discipline, organizational skills, stamina, or maybe they aren't attractive enough to work in Seattle Grace Hospital. Who knows? But that's a red herring, completely beside the point.

I believe there are little to no styles/systems/schools that are pure to all original teachings. There has just been way too much new information integrated and refinement along the way. They have been made better.

Undoubtedly changed. Better though? Well, that depends entirely on what you mean by that. More practical? More effective? More artistic? Different isn't always better.

Another possibility is that, in our more civilized world, the opportunity to apply technique is largely lost for most people. So arts that would otherwise have died out can perpetuate because they have a lot of fancy, pseudo-scientific rationale that sounds really, really cool. And because there is no application (and in fact,, the lack of application is part of the pseudo-scientific rationale), these styles thrive while effective fighting styles fade significantly or die out because often what works isn't as sexy as something that is engineered to look cool.

I cannot think of any one thing that this has not happened to. Take the laptop I am writing this on for example.

Many things are better. Many things are not better. I think it's a little misleading to compare a skill set to a product. That said, improvements to products can lead to atrophy of skills. For example, cars have come a long way over the last 30 years. But as a result, cars are so complex that very few people work on their own cars anymore. I've never been a gear head, but it was considered essential for me to know how to change my oil, do a brake job and a basic tune up, or change a tire. Nowadays, I don't think these skills are common outside of a small group of enthusiasts.

I have gotten the idea of saturation, loss of quality over time through the entire thread. But is this not 'old thinking' in today's instant information availability? And is this not essentially what MMA touts; that they have refined everything 'back to' or to a level of near perfection? As much as I dislike the overtness sometimes, this is not a bad thing.

I don't understand this point. I've never heard MMA described as near perfection.

And it is the American way is it not? To take a thing or group of things and parse out the best parts to create a 'better' unit. Again, not a bad thing but goes against the traditional grain for some folks. And to be fair, MMA is a product, not so much a system. One hell of a marketing tool.
A lot of folks on the forum were not around to ride the wave of popularity martials arts had in the late 60's through the 80's. I would say it was just as overt and marketed as MMA is doing today. Good times.

Your a romantic. I would never have guessed.

"MMA" is a combat sport with, currently, the most expansive ruleset around, that allow for grappling, striking, clinching. It is a style that developed to support a specific application. That application has evolved over time, but remains intrinsic to the style. And so, we have seen the skills involved refined toward that application. Like all combat sports, this leads to specialization, but it also leads to a high level of performance and expertise. A high degree of skill, reliable expertise within the context of application, but the downside can be specialization which needs to be considered when transferring the skills to a different context.

The marketing of the sport is interesting, but not relevant to this discussion. People who train and compete in MMA are learning and applying skills in that context. A grappler, like a wrestler or a Judoka, who train and compete, are learning and applying skills in that context. In fact, to circle this back to the first point I made above, in a time when regular folks (e.g., teachers, office workers, computer programmers) don't routinely find themselves fighting other people, there is a huge opportunity for marketing to convince them that they are learning things that they aren't actually learning. This is why we have folks who fall for the sales pitch from ninja schools and such, where the training is "too deadly" for sport.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Agree. I still do not see what part of the point you feel I am missing.

Well, since you agree with my post and I was making the same point that Steve was making in the posts you were berating him for, then I guess you missed the point that you actually agree with Steve,

I said in one of my earlier posts that at least 50% of the learning equation is on the person learning. Some, not all can take 'flawed' information like you describe and process it into creditable, quality, applicable material. It certainly is not the best case scenario but it does happen.

Yeah, some people can start out with bad instruction and through practical experience learn to find the gems hidden in the dross. (Heck, some people can start out with no instruction and through practical experience develop a solid system.) However it's not exactly fair to the student to expect them to have to do that. Especially since, as you note, they very likely wouldn't even know that the instruction they're getting is compromised,

I think the bulk of practitioners do not know and many do not care. These fall into the casual martial artist, doing it more for exercise and social interaction than anything else.

I agree that the majority of practitioners receiving flawed instruction don't know that it's flawed. I'm not so sure about not caring. A solid majority of instructors I've met over the years have touted self-defense/fighting ability as a benefit of what they teach and a solid majority of students I've met seem to regard that as an important aspect of their training as well.

 

[Steve]

Like I said, I have gotten it from the beginning. Again, you are making the narrative (that I do not understand) what You want it to be. Read my response to Tony's post.
I can debate with you all day long. You do not grow up in my family without being able to stand your ground. I did not make it personal, you did. I simply countered. You want to debate, let's debate. You want to attack, let's attack.

Yeah. Okay. Until you accept that you don't get it, you won't get it. I don't think you're a very good listener.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

@dvcochran and @Steve have you guys figured out yet that you're arguing two entirely different points, that aren't necessarily exclusive?

 

[Steve]

@dvcochran and @Steve have you guys figured out yet that you're arguing two entirely different points, that aren't necessarily exclusive?

that's what I've been saying. He doesn't believe me when I tell him, though.

 

[isshinryuronin]

You're missing part of the point.

I agree that martial arts can (and should) improve over time rather than deteriorate. I think Steve does as well. The point is that for that to happen there has to be actual application experience by teachers and practitioners at each point along the way. If A has application experience and then teaches B, who has their own application experience and who then teaches C, who has more application experience, and so on, then the art will probably end up improved and refined over the years, just as you say. The problem comes when you have instructors teaching techniques they've never used in a fight which they learned from instructors who never used them in a fight who in learned from previous instructors who never used them in a fight. That's where things get lost.

This is a complex issue involving the gradual deterioration of application thru generations of "combat virgin" instructors as well as the value of TMA in general. To begin with the latter, the values of TMA (mentally, spiritually and physically) are many and exist independently of pure fighting ability. I hope we can all agree with that.

While it is true that over the years/generations of A>B>C teachers with no real application experience, some techniques have lost their effectiveness or even meaning, this does not mean the technique itself is useless. At one time, having most likely been used and incorporated into the system by real fighters in the past, they were effective battlefield or self-defense techniques. So, where did things go wrong with application?

I see two factors leading to the gradual loss of technique effectiveness. First is that the fighting styles of the general public have changed over the decades/centuries. They have gotten more sophisticated with more people having some sense of MA technique. In the past, few of the general public had any concept of fighting. Non-military TMA was developed and used for self defense against common bullies, bandits, or other unsophisticated attackers. Nowadays, there is a good chance an opponent has had some type of training. So many of those original techniques may not be as effective today.

The second factor is that over time the fine points and nuances of the original technique get lost during the transmission by teachers A>B>C. Without actual fighting application, the practitioner is unaware of this loss - The twist of the wrist to make the grab/lock more effective, the rotation of the hip or proper placement of the leg, for example. Shortcuts invariably creep in that degrade effectiveness. The technique may still be valid, but the execution has degraded. This is especially true the more complex the technique once was.

Being aware of these two main factors, we can take them into account and make adjustments to keep MA effective. Personally, I think this can be done while still keeping the "traditional" aspects of TMA, since its value goes beyond simple combat.

 

[Steve]

This is a complex issue involving the gradual deterioration of application thru generations of "combat virgin" instructors as well as the value of TMA in general. To begin with the latter, the values of TMA (mentally, spiritually and physically) are many and exist independently of pure fighting ability. I hope we can all agree with that.

While it is true that over the years/generations of A>B>C teachers with no real application experience, some techniques have lost their effectiveness or even meaning, this does not mean the technique itself is useless. At one time, having most likely been used and incorporated into the system by real fighters in the past, they were effective battlefield or self-defense techniques. So, where did things go wrong with application?

I see two factors leading to the gradual loss of technique effectiveness. First is that the fighting styles of the general public have changed over the decades/centuries. They have gotten more sophisticated with more people having some sense of MA technique. In the past, few of the general public had any concept of fighting. Non-military TMA was developed and used for self defense against common bullies, bandits, or other unsophisticated attackers. Nowadays, there is a good chance an opponent has had some type of training. So many of those original techniques may not be as effective today.

While I generally agree with your points, you keep using the term "gradual." I would put a finer point on that. It's not gradual. There is deterioration the first time someone without real application experience tries to teach someone else. However, I would agree that, while not gradual, it is progressive in that every generation the information is transmitted, it will further from the practical source.

The second factor is that over time the fine points and nuances of the original technique get lost during the transmission by teachers A>B>C. Without actual fighting application, the practitioner is unaware of this loss - The twist of the wrist to make the grab/lock more effective, the rotation of the hip or proper placement of the leg, for example. Shortcuts invariably creep in that degrade effectiveness. The technique may still be valid, but the execution has degraded. This is especially true the more complex the technique once was.

I agree with this completely. I bolded the part that I believe makes your conclusion below very questionable:

Being aware of these two main factors, we can take them into account and make adjustments to keep MA effective. Personally, I think this can be done while still keeping the "traditional" aspects of TMA, since its value goes beyond simple combat.

You can't take into account what you aren't aware of. That's the problem.

Regarding the values inherent to, and the value of, training in a TMA beyond simple combat, couldn't agree more. There is value in doing things that keep you fit mentally and physically, that engage you, and that make you happy. There need be no practical output from these activities. People knit, garden, play musical instruments, sports, make booze... whatever hobbies you want, there is value, even if you're terrible at them.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

While I generally agree with your points, you keep using the term "gradual." I would put a finer point on that. It's not gradual. There is deterioration the first time someone without real application experience tries to teach someone else. However, I would agree that, while not gradual, it is progressive in that every generation the information is transmitted, it will further from the practical source.I agree with this completely. I bolded the part that I believe makes your conclusion below very questionable:You can't take into account what you aren't aware of. That's the problem.

Regarding the values inherent to, and the value of, training in a TMA beyond simple combat, couldn't agree more. There is value in doing things that keep you fit mentally and physically, that engage you, and that make you happy. There need be no practical output from these activities. People knit, garden, play musical instruments, sports, make booze... whatever hobbies you want, there is value, even if you're terrible at them.

I agree with this completely, with one caveat. I'd agree there is deterioration the first time someone without real application experience tries to teach someone else. However, I'd state that that first generation teacher, the deterioration isn't nearly as much as later generations.

I've got two reasons for this.
1: Most of the time, that guys teacher is still alive. So if A has experience and taught B, who without additional experience is teaching C. If C has a question that B is unsure of, he can go back and ask A. So the actual information isn't being loss. This assumes both that A is still around, and B is willing to ask him what he doesn't know, which isn't a guarantee, but that's a different issue than the deterioration being discussed.
2: All of what B learned is stuff that can be applied. So C is still learning all the actual techniques/knowledge without much loss, just without the practical application. So if C wanted to make it practical, already having the knowledge, it would not take much to turn that into actual practical ability. Which would also be true of B when he was a student of A-even though A had that experience. A could help that transition more than B, but certain things (stamina, how to handle adrenaline, dealing with pain) is stuff that can't be taught, so that transition experience wouldn't be that much different.

 

[Steve]

I agree with this completely, with one caveat. I'd agree there is deterioration the first time someone without real application experience tries to teach someone else. However, I'd state that that first generation teacher, the deterioration isn't nearly as much as later generations.

I've got two reasons for this.
1: Most of the time, that guys teacher is still alive. So if A has experience and taught B, who without additional experience is teaching C. If C has a question that B is unsure of, he can go back and ask A. So the actual information isn't being loss. This assumes both that A is still around, and B is willing to ask him what he doesn't know, which isn't a guarantee, but that's a different issue than the deterioration being discussed.
2: All of what B learned is stuff that can be applied. So C is still learning all the actual techniques/knowledge without much loss, just without the practical application. So if C wanted to make it practical, already having the knowledge, it would not take much to turn that into actual practical ability. Which would also be true of B when he was a student of A-even though A had that experience. A could help that transition more than B, but certain things (stamina, how to handle adrenaline, dealing with pain) is stuff that can't be taught, so that transition experience wouldn't be that much different.

I see your point. It's a bit of semantics, really, "gradual" vs "progressive."

So, let's apply your model here to something outside of martial arts. I mentioned cooking before, so let's stick with that.

Person A is a James Beard award winning, Michelin star rated, classically trained chef. Let's call her Chef Jane. Chef Jane owns two successful restaurants and has worked in the field for over 30 years. She is a bona fide expert in the field, respected even among other successful chefs. She opens a school to teach people to cook, using a system she creates that she has called "Jane-cook-do." She rents a warehouse and sets it up with everything one might need to cook minus the food. She has ovens, bowls, mixers, plates, you name it. No food, though.

She gets a group of people who enroll in her school, and they meet three times per week for about 1 hour, maybe 2. They work through a very thoughtfully crafted curriculum that starts with easy recipes and then works up to progressively more complex recipes. Students are required to practice all of the techniques, from knife skills, to building up their baking muscles by stirring cement, to any other kind of simulation you can think of. Over time, these students gain ranks, until after a period of time (let's say ten years) they attain the rank of "chef." Most students drop out, but Person B, let's call this person Frank, is serious about this. Being a chef is his life's dream. After 10 years, Frank has never touched any food, but he has practiced every technique, and has memorized hundreds of recipes.

I'm trying to go out of my way to say that Chef Jane tried to think of everything. Absent food, she has really tried to deliver a thoughtful, comprehensive culinary education to her students... just without access to any food. Everything else has been taken into consideration.

Two questions:
1: Can Frank cook?

2: Is Frank competent to teach someone else to cook?