Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

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?

So first I'll answer your questions. 1: Can Frank cook? Assuming he somehow managed to learn everything without the food in hand, then probably. His first few attempts will probably suck, but then once he gets used to holding food, barring any lack of talent, there's no reason he shouldn't be able to cook, improvise his menu/recipes, all that jazz. 2: I honestly don't know. My guess would be not entirely. He could probably help someone learn the basic stuff, but then would obviously need someone else to help if they chose to apply it and were having difficulties.

Now to address your overall point. What your talking about would be if, imagining Jane/Frank were martial artists, that she not only does not have her students compete, and/or bodyguard and/or fight, but also does not teach them how to spar. Which from your past posts isn't what I think you're getting at here.

I think a better comparison would be if Frank wants to be a chef, and Jane teaches him all the stuff, along with actually using food, but then never has him/he never works in an actual kitchen for a restaurant before 'graduating'. So he doesn't experience the high pressure environment, and there are no stakes to the food he makes in her kitchen (beyond whatever food he has to cook in front of Chef Jane for rank testing).

 

[Buka]

Living in a later time zone than most of you, over coffee every morning I go to the internet places I frequent and read about what's transpired in the rest of the world whilst moi was getting some much needed beauty sleep.

A lot of times, like today, I had to go back several pages on the forum to see what the hell everybody was arguing about.

Still drowsy, the coffee yet to kick in, I saw a lot of "so if A taught B, and then B goes on to teach C, who can't cook worth a squat, but he teaches D, whose mother was a hampster..."

Then I finally got it.

I'm all caught up. Carry on. You bunch of pussies.

Whoa! Them's fighting words! Let's have an online, quarantined, virtual free for all!

I'll be B. And I'll even cook.

 

[isshinryuronin]

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.

Your observations are valid. The source of the confusion with me using the term "gradual" results from the fact that I was trying to cover two time frames simultaneously: historical (centuries) and recent (years, covering one teacher to the next.) This was meant to cover gradual change in the style as a whole, as well as "progressive" change in individual instruction from one teacher to the next. I thought about explaining this in more detail in the post, but figured that would make it too long.

I bolded the part of your response re: my "questionable" conclusion. You're right - not knowing the problem is the problem. That's why all should be encouraged to read these posts. I guess the suggestion is that good instructors should be proactive enough to learn more about their art and become aware of possible lapses in their teaching. I think there is a growing awareness of this in recent years so knowledge will spread over time. For those too close minded or uncaring, there is little to do to help.

As far as actual real combat is concerned, the proof is in the pudding. But short of going out and looking for fights (as Motobu Choki famously did) competition, physical preparation and diligent partner practice in the dojo will have to suffice. With this, keeping it simple, and proper attitude, while not guaranteed, a good chance for victory in the real deal exists.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

the majority of practitioners receiving flawed instruction don't know that it's flawed.

How can that be possible?

If your instructor tells you that a front kick is to use your toes to kick on the target, when you use it on heavy bag and it hurts your toes. You will ask your teacher to get the right answer.

A flawed technique is easily to find out through testing. If a person doesn't care about testing, he deserves to learn flawed technique.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

How can that be possible?

If your instructor tells you that a front kick is to use your toes to kick on the target, when you use it on heavy bag and it hurts your toes. You will ask your teacher to get the right answer.

A flawed technique is easily to find out through testing. If a person doesn't care about testing, he deserves to learn flawed technique.

What if you're never taught about testing?

 

[Steve]

So first I'll answer your questions. 1: Can Frank cook? Assuming he somehow managed to learn everything without the food in hand, then probably. His first few attempts will probably suck, but then once he gets used to holding food, barring any lack of talent, there's no reason he shouldn't be able to cook, improvise his menu/recipes, all that jazz.

Yeah, I agree. Maybe so... but let's consider that. 10 years this guy's been training to be a chef. 10 years. Now, put Frank in a kitchen next to a person who's been working in a real kitchen, cooking real food for 1 year. Who's going to be the more proficient chef? I'd say the person with real experience. Why? Because if you're trying to learn to do something, training is optional, but experience is essential. Good, bad, or indifferent, we know what the second person can and can't do. He or she has done it for a year in a kitchen, cooking real food that people have actually eaten. Frank has trained Jane-Cook-Do.

Point is, there is a transfer of knowledge that has not yet taken place. Frank could train like this for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, and the answer to the first question would be, "Maybe... probably. His first few attempts will probably suck." He might be able to do some non-cooking related tasks, though, like planning a menu.

2: I honestly don't know. My guess would be not entirely. He could probably help someone learn the basic stuff, but then would obviously need someone else to help if they chose to apply it and were having difficulties.

The answer is no. He wouldn't be competent to teach someone to cook. Come on, man. The guy's never cooked anything. How's he going to teach someone else to cook?

HOWEVER, he could teach someone Jane-Cook-Do. He will have mastered that. Is this cooking? No. Will it help someone prepare to learn to cook? Maybe... depends... you really can't know until someone gets ahold of some food.

Now to address your overall point. What your talking about would be if, imagining Jane/Frank were martial artists, that she not only does not have her students compete, and/or bodyguard and/or fight, but also does not teach them how to spar. Which from your past posts isn't what I think you're getting at here.

I don't know. What I'm trying to do is make three things very clear. First, that training is inherently artificial, and being realistic and honest about what is and isn't training is crucial to building expertise.

Simply put, you can't train yourself to expertise. Consider that people learn to do things all the time without training. However, nobody has ever learned to do something without doing that thing. If we pare back how people build expertise in a skill, it can be broken down into four stages: training, performance, expertise, innovation.

Training: You learn HOW to do it.
Performance: You do it until you are proficient.
Expertise: You can do it at a high level, independently, every time.
Innovation: You have a deep understanding of the skill and are able to put your own spin on it.​

In our chef example, this could be learning to make an omelette. You learn how to do it. You do it until you can do it well, and then you start to mix it up a little. If you never make an omelette, you are stuck at the training step. When you finally get an egg in your hand, you are only then beginning to perform... much less innovate.

Second thing is that, while skill development is linear and predictable, skill sets aren't, particularly when you start getting into complimentary skills sets. Building a skill set involves learning and mastering some things in order to understand and begin to master other things. It's a series of dependencies. If you never progress out of the training stage of the first skill, you're not learning what you think you're learning.

So, in our chef analogy, you aren't learning to cook. You're not building mastery of cooking. You're building mastery of Jane-Cook-Do. And after some period of time, you might... might... be able to transfer those skills to real cooking... maybe.

Third, if you have never cooked anything, you have no business teaching someone how to cook. It's dishonest (to the customer, if not also to yourself) to try to do so. And even worse, you train someone who trains someone else, and you're now two full generations away from real food. That's what many martial arts schools look like.

I think a better comparison would be if Frank wants to be a chef, and Jane teaches him all the stuff, along with actually using food, but then never has him/he never works in an actual kitchen for a restaurant before 'graduating'. So he doesn't experience the high pressure environment, and there are no stakes to the food he makes in her kitchen (beyond whatever food he has to cook in front of Chef Jane for rank testing).

This would be like going to the cordon bleu and training alongside professional chefs who intend to work in a professional kitchen, cooking and developing skills with them. This is precisely the advantage a combat sport has over styles like ninjutsu or aikido.

In a ninjutsu school, you aren't doing this. There is no food to cook with.

Excuse the mixed metaphor here, but learning self defense from a ninja is like learning to fly a plane from a guy who never flew a plane, who learned from a guy who never flew a plane, who learned from a guy who opened a school in 1935 after flying bi-planes in WWI.

 

[Steve]

I'll be B. And I'll even cook.

I would love to eat your cooking!

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What if you're never taught about testing?

I'll ask my teacher how to test my skill if he hasn't shown me how. If he can't answer my question, I'll find myself another teacher.

My 1st teacher (when I was 7) was a Taiji for health person. I used the Taiji he taught me in fighting without good result. I asked him how to use Taiji in fighting. He could not answer my question. I left him.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Yeah, I agree. Maybe so... but let's consider that. 10 years this guy's been training to be a chef. 10 years. Now, put Frank in a kitchen next to a person who's been working in a real kitchen, cooking real food for 1 year. Who's going to be the more proficient chef? I'd say the person with real experience. Why? Because if you're trying to learn to do something, training is optional, but experience is essential. Good, bad, or indifferent, we know what the second person can and can't do. He or she has done it for a year in a kitchen, cooking real food that people have actually eaten. Frank has trained Jane-Cook-Do.

Point is, there is a transfer of knowledge that has not yet taken place. Frank could train like this for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, and the answer to the first question would be, "Maybe... probably. His first few attempts will probably suck." He might be able to do some non-cooking related tasks, though, like planning a menu. The answer is no. He wouldn't be competent to teach someone to cook. Come on, man. The guy's never cooked anything. How's he going to teach someone else to cook?

HOWEVER, he could teach someone Jane-Cook-Do. He will have mastered that. Is this cooking? No. Will it help someone prepare to learn to cook? Maybe... depends... you really can't know until someone gets ahold of some food.I don't know. What I'm trying to do is make three things very clear. First, that training is inherently artificial, and being realistic and honest about what is and isn't training is crucial to building expertise.

Simply put, you can't train yourself to expertise. Consider that people learn to do things all the time without training. However, nobody has ever learned to do something without doing that thing. If we pare back how people build expertise in a skill, it can be broken down into four stages: training, performance, expertise, innovation.

Training: You learn HOW to do it.
Performance: You do it until you are proficient.
Expertise: You can do it at a high level, independently, every time.
Innovation: You have a deep understanding of the skill and are able to put your own spin on it.​

In our chef example, this could be learning to make an omelette. You learn how to do it. You do it until you can do it well, and then you start to mix it up a little. If you never make an omelette, you are stuck at the training step. When you finally get an egg in your hand, you are only then beginning to perform... much less innovate.

Second thing is that, while skill development is linear and predictable, skill sets aren't, particularly when you start getting into complimentary skills sets. Building a skill set involves learning and mastering some things in order to understand and begin to master other things. It's a series of dependencies. If you never progress out of the training stage of the first skill, you're not learning what you think you're learning.

So, in our chef analogy, you aren't learning to cook. You're not building mastery of cooking. You're building mastery of Jane-Cook-Do. And after some period of time, you might... might... be able to transfer those skills to real cooking... maybe.

Third, if you have never cooked anything, you have no business teaching someone how to cook. It's dishonest (to the customer, if not also to yourself) to try to do so. And even worse, you train someone who trains someone else, and you're now two full generations away from real food. That's what many martial arts schools look like.
This would be like going to the cordon bleu and training alongside professional chefs who intend to work in a professional kitchen, cooking and developing skills with them. This is precisely the advantage a combat sport has over styles like ninjutsu or aikido.

In a ninjutsu school, you aren't doing this. There is no food to cook with.

Excuse the mixed metaphor here, but learning self defense from a ninja is like learning to fly a plane from a guy who never flew a plane, who learned from a guy who never flew a plane, who learned from a guy who opened a school in 1935 after flying bi-planes in WWI.

So first, I agree with the first part. Frank would be worse in a kitchen, having never worked with food, then the guy who worked in a kitchen for a year. But I'd argue that they

I agree it'd be dishonest, but only if you don't tell the person you've never cooked anything. If you're upfront about that, it's the persons choice to learn from you or not.

As for the bottom, it gets a bit confusing going between metaphor and the actual topic so apologies if this gets confusing. And I'm going to not focus on the plane part because that just complicates it further with an added metaphors. But basically you can go to a combat sport and still not actually compete. But you learn through sparring. That would be like learning how to cook with actual food, but not cooking in a professional kitchen. Even if other people you're learning with and from are all professional chefs.

The ninjutsu school would be like learning from someone who's not a professional chef, but does cook food. And doesn't really have any way of verifying that their food is actually good, besides giving it to the people in the class and letting them judge (ie: sparring with the students). Which being mediocre could still seem really impressive to people who have never cooked food or experienced good food, but probably wouldn't get you anywhere as a professional. Which is fine, if you're goal is just to learn some basics and have fun with friends, but not fine if it's being marketed as career education/improvement.

And we're also assuming in this scenario that the ninjutsu guy isn't actually a fighter. If the guy is a professional kickboxer or MMA fighter who just happens to be teaching ninjutsu (and he used ninjutsu in the above), then that's fine. We could replace ninjutsu with muay thai, if the muay thai guy in question has also never competed, and his teacher also never competed. Which does happen.

My reasoning is also assuming that they're still doing sparring in their dojo. If they aren't then that would be akin to learning to cook without touching food.

 

[Steve]

Okay. Here's another stab at demonstrating the importance of application. Real world example here. Let's take cops. Cops carry a firearm pretty much all the time. Right? They train a lot and are required to demonstrate proficiency periodically. But many cops, I'm led to believe, never even draw their firearm. My point here is to highlight that being a cop entails a lot of other things besides shooting people, even though they spend time training and practicing... so that if they ever DO need to shoot someone, they can do it. Further, LEO have a vested, professional interest in being skilled in the use of their sidearm.

In spite of all of this, according to a 2008 Rand study of the NYPD over almost 10 years (98 to 06), cops missed their target more than 2/3rds of the time, even when they weren't being fired upon. In a fire fight, when being fired upon, the hit rate was 18%. And even at close range, under 7 yards, cops miss their target about 63% of the time. I mean, knowing this makes it so much easier to understand why stormtroopers are such bad shots! After this study came out, the NYPD refreshed their training programs, and you know what? It hasn't made a difference.

And if you're interested, it looks like 25 to 45% is pretty much how it looks where the data is available. Simply put, when a cop pull the trigger, they are probably going to hit something other than what they intend to hit, whether it's a car, a building, or a person trying to eat a cheeseburger in the next parking lot. Why do you think this is? I think it's one of two things. Either that's as good as it can get and guns just aren't accurate enough to hit the target more than 1/3rd of the time, or it's because cops don't apply this skill often enough to hone that skill. I personally think it's the latter. They are adept at doing the things they do professionally every day. I'd bet dollars to donuts (haha, cops and donuts... am I right?) that a cop is much more likely to be highly skilled at the kind of grappling involved in restraining people than shooting them (I hear that phone books don't leave bruises... that's a joke). I also think that cops would be much more skilled at shooting people if they did it more often (which, they don't, thankfully).

 

[drop bear]

So first, I agree with the first part. Frank would be worse in a kitchen, having never worked with food, then the guy who worked in a kitchen for a year. But I'd argue that they

I agree it'd be dishonest, but only if you don't tell the person you've never cooked anything. If you're upfront about that, it's the persons choice to learn from you or not.

As for the bottom, it gets a bit confusing going between metaphor and the actual topic so apologies if this gets confusing. And I'm going to not focus on the plane part because that just complicates it further with an added metaphors. But basically you can go to a combat sport and still not actually compete. But you learn through sparring. That would be like learning how to cook with actual food, but not cooking in a professional kitchen. Even if other people you're learning with and from are all professional chefs.

The ninjutsu school would be like learning from someone who's not a professional chef, but does cook food. And doesn't really have any way of verifying that their food is actually good, besides giving it to the people in the class and letting them judge (ie: sparring with the students). Which being mediocre could still seem really impressive to people who have never cooked food or experienced good food, but probably wouldn't get you anywhere as a professional. Which is fine, if you're goal is just to learn some basics and have fun with friends, but not fine if it's being marketed as career education/improvement.

And we're also assuming in this scenario that the ninjutsu guy isn't actually a fighter. If the guy is a professional kickboxer or MMA fighter who just happens to be teaching ninjutsu (and he used ninjutsu in the above), then that's fine. We could replace ninjutsu with muay thai, if the muay thai guy in question has also never competed, and his teacher also never competed. Which does happen.

My reasoning is also assuming that they're still doing sparring in their dojo. If they aren't then that would be akin to learning to cook without touching food.

You would build up a bunch of pros vs a bunch of cons. And an I don't know would be a con.

So legitimate school would be a pro.
Legitimate wins in a competition would be a pro.
Training legitimate fighters would be a pro
References from legitimate fighters would be a pro.
Video of sparring would be a pro.

And if you were to look at it logically the pros would have to agree with each other.

So an 80 year old trainer may not have a MMA career but has decent fighters, look likes he knows his buisness on video, has decent references.

We can see a bad instructor if we can see them being bad. That is an easy spot.

It is the big areas of I don't knows that I think are the red flags we have to watch because they are much more subtle and much easier to work around.

So instructor was in special forces. But because of secrecy can't tell you where or when or provide evidence. This would become an I don't know and a red flag.

Just like in martial arts the truth is in the details.

 

[drop bear]

Okay. Here's another stab at demonstrating the importance of application. Real world example here. Let's take cops. Cops carry a firearm pretty much all the time. Right? They train a lot and are required to demonstrate proficiency periodically. But many cops, I'm led to believe, never even draw their firearm. My point here is to highlight that being a cop entails a lot of other things besides shooting people, even though they spend time training and practicing... so that if they ever DO need to shoot someone, they can do it. Further, LEO have a vested, professional interest in being skilled in the use of their sidearm.

In spite of all of this, according to a 2008 Rand study of the NYPD over almost 10 years (98 to 06), cops missed their target more than 2/3rds of the time, even when they weren't being fired upon. In a fire fight, when being fired upon, the hit rate was 18%. And even at close range, under 7 yards, cops miss their target about 63% of the time. I mean, knowing this makes it so much easier to understand why stormtroopers are such bad shots! After this study came out, the NYPD refreshed their training programs, and you know what? It hasn't made a difference.

And if you're interested, it looks like 25 to 45% is pretty much how it looks where the data is available. Simply put, when a cop pull the trigger, they are probably going to hit something other than what they intend to hit, whether it's a car, a building, or a person trying to eat a cheeseburger in the next parking lot. Why do you think this is? I think it's one of two things. Either that's as good as it can get and guns just aren't accurate enough to hit the target more than 1/3rd of the time, or it's because cops don't apply this skill often enough to hone that skill. I personally think it's the latter. They are adept at doing the things they do professionally every day. I'd bet dollars to donuts (haha, cops and donuts... am I right?) that a cop is much more likely to be highly skilled at the kind of grappling involved in restraining people than shooting them (I hear that phone books don't leave bruises... that's a joke). I also think that cops would be much more skilled at shooting people if they did it more often (which, they don't, thankfully).

Cops are tricky though. As there is so much bullcrap surrounding their training and procedures as to never get a clear picture.

It is industry training which is quite often designed to protect against liability and compromised with time and budget restrictions rather than teach a usable skill. And is quite often just ignored.

 

[Steve]

So first, I agree with the first part. Frank would be worse in a kitchen, having never worked with food, then the guy who worked in a kitchen for a year. But I'd argue that they

I agree it'd be dishonest, but only if you don't tell the person you've never cooked anything. If you're upfront about that, it's the persons choice to learn from you or not.

As for the bottom, it gets a bit confusing going between metaphor and the actual topic so apologies if this gets confusing. And I'm going to not focus on the plane part because that just complicates it further with an added metaphors. But basically you can go to a combat sport and still not actually compete. But you learn through sparring. That would be like learning how to cook with actual food, but not cooking in a professional kitchen. Even if other people you're learning with and from are all professional chefs.

The ninjutsu school would be like learning from someone who's not a professional chef, but does cook food. And doesn't really have any way of verifying that their food is actually good, besides giving it to the people in the class and letting them judge (ie: sparring with the students). Which being mediocre could still seem really impressive to people who have never cooked food or experienced good food, but probably wouldn't get you anywhere as a professional. Which is fine, if you're goal is just to learn some basics and have fun with friends, but not fine if it's being marketed as career education/improvement.

And we're also assuming in this scenario that the ninjutsu guy isn't actually a fighter. If the guy is a professional kickboxer or MMA fighter who just happens to be teaching ninjutsu (and he used ninjutsu in the above), then that's fine. We could replace ninjutsu with muay thai, if the muay thai guy in question has also never competed, and his teacher also never competed. Which does happen.

My reasoning is also assuming that they're still doing sparring in their dojo. If they aren't then that would be akin to learning to cook without touching food.

I love analogies, so I'm sticking with this cooking thing.

The Cordon Bleu teaches the art of French cuisine, which is a specific style. Professional chefs start their careers here, and in the Cordon Bleu, you actually cook French food. The instructor cooks food in front of you, and you see your fellow students cooking beside you. Some, probably most, are working and plan to work in professional kitchens. This is MMA, or BJJ, or boxing, or Judo.

The Gordon Blue school of cookery arts is down the street. Gordon caters to people who have no interest in being a professional. He got his "Chef" certificate from Jane-Cook-Do several years ago, and teaches the art of cooking without cooking, because fire and knives are too dangerous to use in training. That's other styles.

And to be clear, this applies to every school, regardless of style. A BJJ school that discourages competition would quickly atrophy because there's no application. It will have become a training loop, just like the ninja school next door. It's just that some styles promote this and others, such as MMA, are structured to avoid this.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

You would build up a bunch of pros vs a bunch of cons. And an I don't know would be a con.

So legitimate school would be a pro.
Legitimate wins in a competition would be a pro.
Training legitimate fighters would be a pro
References from legitimate fighters would be a pro.
Video of sparring would be a pro.

And if you were to look at it logically the pros would have to agree with each other.

So an 80 year old trainer may not have a MMA career but has decent fighters, look likes he knows his buisness on video, has decent references.

We can see a bad instructor if we can see them being bad. That is an easy spot.

It is the big areas of I don't knows that I think are the red flags we have to watch because they are much more subtle and much easier to work around.

So instructor was in special forces. But because of secrecy can't tell you where or when or provide evidence. This would become an I don't know and a red flag.

Just like in martial arts the truth is in the details.

I agree with all of this, but only if the goal is to learn how to fight/compete. If that's your goal, then you want as many pros as you can, accepting that some pros would outweigh some cons (a local pro boxer from my area might meet all of those, but if I could have someone like cuz d'amaco in the 80s, I'd rather go with him).

If your goal isn't to be a competitive fighter, or to learn how to effectively defend yourself/fight, but instead is to find a motivating teacher, or to hang out with your friends, or to connect with your culture, or basically anything else, then you have a different pro/con list. You still have one (if my goal is to connect with my culture, being a part of my cultures heritage would be a pro, and the school being focused on modernization would be a con).

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I love analogies, so I'm sticking with this cooking thing.

The Cordon Bleu teaches the art of French cuisine, which is a specific style. Professional chefs start their careers here, and in the Cordon Bleu, you actually cook French food. The instructor cooks food in front of you, and you see your fellow students cooking beside you. Some, probably most, are working and plan to work in professional kitchens. This is MMA, or BJJ, or boxing, or Judo.

The Gordon Blue school of cookery arts is down the street. Gordon caters to people who have no interest in being a professional. He got his "Chef" certificate from Jane-Cook-Do several years ago, and teaches the art of cooking without cooking, because fire and knives are too dangerous to use in training. That's other styles.

And to be clear, this applies to every school, regardless of style. A BJJ school that discourages competition would quickly atrophy because there's no application. It will have become a training loop, just like the ninja school next door. It's just that some styles promote this and others, such as MMA, are structured to avoid this.

Again, I'd argue that the better analogy would be in cooking without cooking in a restaurant. Because if we focus on those that don't cook/spar at all, I 100% agree that isn't helping anyone. Unless there goal isn't learning to fight/cook.

Outside of that, I agree with your overall point. With one new caveat-going to drop bears pros/cons list. The style shouldn't necessarily be listed as a pro or a con. If it's a boxing dojo where no one does any sparring, or any competition, that's worse than the TKD dojo where half the people going there are competing in kickboxing.

 

[dvcochran]

Living in a later time zone than most of you, over coffee every morning I go to the internet places I frequent and read about what's transpired in the rest of the world whilst moi was getting some much needed beauty sleep.

A lot of times, like today, I had to go back several pages on the forum to see what the hell everybody was arguing about.

Still drowsy, the coffee yet to kick in, I saw a lot of "so if A taught B, and then B goes on to teach C, who can't cook worth a squat, but he teaches D, whose mother was a hampster..."

Then I finally got it.

I'm all caught up. Carry on. You bunch of pussies.

Whoa! Them's fighting words! Let's have an online, quarantined, virtual free for all!

I'll be B. And I'll even cook.

I cannot tell you how much I agree with this post.

 

[dvcochran]

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.

Swinging door there, swinging door.

 

[dvcochran]

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,


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 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.

I was speaking of the portion of people who are practicing for exercise/social interaction.

 

[drop bear]

I agree with all of this, but only if the goal is to learn how to fight/compete. If that's your goal, then you want as many pros as you can, accepting that some pros would outweigh some cons (a local pro boxer from my area might meet all of those, but if I could have someone like cuz d'amaco in the 80s, I'd rather go with him).

If your goal isn't to be a competitive fighter, or to learn how to effectively defend yourself/fight, but instead is to find a motivating teacher, or to hang out with your friends, or to connect with your culture, or basically anything else, then you have a different pro/con list. You still have one (if my goal is to connect with my culture, being a part of my cultures heritage would be a pro, and the school being focused on modernization would be a con).

They are not mutually exclusive and so the water gets muddied there.

Quite often an art that teaches heritage uses that heritage to support its effectiveness.

So I may do krav maga because I think Israelis are cool. But I don't do krav maga because if the Israelis do it it has to work.

 

[drop bear]

I was speaking of the portion of people who are practicing for exercise/social interaction.

What martial arts are you specifically describing? I was having a think about it and I can see the argument that say boxersise doesn't need any real martial value and shouldn't claim it. And say that would be fine.