Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[Kung Fu Wang]

The thing with wrestling is competition won't kill you. It is not like you are getting kicked in the head.

 

[Steve]

It mostly comes down to their level of commitment. There are a lot of folks who just don't want to train that hard and/or aren't interested in competition. They can still learn and improve, and will gain some % increase in their probability of defending. Can't make people have more "want". This is the self-selection process I've discussed before.

Honestly, it's the highlighted part that is very concerning to me. If the stakes were lower, sure, no big deal. Knock yourself out (which you literally could do if you're not training with competent instruction). There is simply zero evidence that a little self defense training will help a person become a little bit safer.

This is where you get really close to making the point I keep wishing you'd put effort into making so folks could listen. There is a problem with a lot of SD instructors who actually talk down about competition as something less. Guys who were taught by those folks often believe they have capacity that doesn't exist, because they believe their "secret sauce" moves would easily handle a middling MMAer, boxer, etc.

I think competition's a good idea. I don't think it's necessary for everyone to get into it, but I think it's good if at least some of the folks in a school are competing, using some of the skills they're being taught. I don't think it's strictly necessary, but man it seems like a good idea, and I'd have sorted out some stuff much earlier if I'd understood that back when I was training hard.

Errr.... okay.

What is it about competition you think is good? How do you think folks who don't compete compensate for that?

Let's back up. What do you think are the minimum qualifications for someone to say they are a "self defense expert?"

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In BJJ you pretty much can't grade if you don't compete. (Unless you are Ashton Kutcher)

So some styles are a lot better at creating commitment while also having a better standard of application.

Now if you choose to set the bar. Then that is on you. Not your students.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're confounding your variables. Folks who don't want to compete don't go somepleace where they'll be required to. Selection bias looks a lot like an efffect of training.

 

[Steve]

I think the problem goes both ways. People who don't compete look down on competitions, but people who compete look down on those who don't. A whole lot of judgement and not a lot of understanding in either group.

I don't have any problem with people who don't compete. Competition is a great way to use your skills and get some genuine feedback on what you can and cannot do. You can also get that on the job, as a cop, a bouncer, or whatever. If you aren't getting that feedback, who knows what you're actually learning to do? As long as you know that, and your instructor knows that, and you're not buying a product that doesn't function as designed, great.

The advantage that cardio-kickboxing has over a non-competitive self defense art is that it doesn't claim to teach self defense. It's honest about it.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

If you are a self defense school. I would think equipping people for self defense would be a minimum standard though.

Regardless what else people get out of training.

It's the same as if I went to a basketball camp as a kid. I learning some level of basketball. But the amount that I learn depends on the amount of work I put in to it. If I went to it to learn basketball, then I'll probably put in effort, and that means I'll get better at basketball. If I'm just there because my friend is there, I'll learn a bit, I'll have the basic rules down and probably know how to dribble and do a bounce pass or chest pass, I'll learn the fundamentals of how to shoot, but I probably won't be able to beat too many people in a one on one. If I'm there because my dad's making me go, and I'm resenting being there, then I probably won't even learn that much. I might not even learn the rules. And there's nothing in either situation that a coach can really do to change that, besides try to make me more interested in the game. He could be Lebron James, and invest all his time into teaching us, but that doesn't mean I'm going to work at it or get any better.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This issue can be solved very easily. In the beginner of my class, I used sparring to warm up. I made 2 circles. The person in the inside circle had to spar against the person in the outside circle. After 1 minute, the inside circle rotate, everybody will get a new sparring partner. After 10 minutes (every student had sparred with 10 opponents), the regular class started.

The moment that a student came into my class, he only had 2 options, do whatever that I told him to do, or leave and never come back.

Drills like that don't really seem to change the level of intensity of folks. Some folks will put more into that 10-minute drill than others.

 

[skribs]

In BJJ you pretty much can't grade if you don't compete. (Unless you are Ashton Kutcher)

That goes against everything I've read from local schools and from people on BJJ forums.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're confounding your variables. Folks who don't want to compete don't go somepleace where they'll be required to. Selection bias looks a lot like an efffect of training.

So when someone says I train cops and get real world feedback that is also selection bias?

 

[skribs]

Sounds like the Martial world in a nutshell, Skribs. Darn good sum up.

To quote the ape from the Mark Wahlberg reboot..."can't we all just...get along?"

 

[Steve]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're confounding your variables. Folks who don't want to compete don't go somepleace where they'll be required to. Selection bias looks a lot like an efffect of training.

In BJJ, absent any significant physical or mental barriers, if you go 3 times per week every week, you will reliably develop solid skills regardless of your aptitude or native athletic ability. In 2 years or less, you will be proficient enough to earn a blue belt. That's reliable skill that you can demonstrate. Does it mean you've learned all there is to learn? No, but you will certainly be a more capable grappler than most.

 

[drop bear]

That goes against everything I've read from local schools and from people on BJJ forums.

Mabye they were all Ashton Kutcher.

 

[drop bear]

In BJJ, absent any significant physical or mental barriers, if you go 3 times per week every week, you will reliably develop solid skills regardless of your aptitude or native athletic ability. In 2 years or less, you will be proficient enough to earn a blue belt. That's reliable skill that you can demonstrate. Does it mean you've learned all there is to learn? No, but you will certainly be a more capable grappler than most.

Rokus aikido journey is a very good example of that. Same guy different systems different results.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Honestly, it's the highlighted part that is very concerning to me. If the stakes were lower, sure, no big deal. Knock yourself out (which you literally could do if you're not training with competent instruction). There is simply zero evidence that a little self defense training will help a person become a little bit safer.

You've said yourself that confidence has an apparent effect in reducing vulnerability. And someone who can stop themselves from getting knocked down is in a better position, even if they can't knock the other person down yet. Someone who can fight reasonably well isn't in as good a position as someone who can fight very well, but better than someone who can't fight effectively. A little better is a little better. In some situations, that little bit won't help. In some situations, nothing will help.

But the point there is folks can only get out what they put in. If someone wants to enjoy the training without putting a lot in, I'm okay with that as long as they know it limits the results.

What is it about competition you think is good? How do you think folks who don't compete compensate for that?

It gives exposure to more people (not just their everyday training partners) and more styles to deal with (excepting those styles that have style-specific competition - they don't get this second benefit from those specific competitions). And it's easy to see the relative (not absolute) levels of folks in those competitions, so you get a bit of a picture of where you stand compared to that peer group, for what that's worth. Of course, it also provides some good resistance from folks who likely don't want to lose and are using (within reason) their full toolbox. The only way I know to compensate for lack of formal competition is some informal work of a similar nature. So, if they get together with a good grappler and try to beat each other under a ruleset similar to NAGA, they get the same kind of benefit they'd get in competition (though it's harder to come by that way - you'd likely get a few in a day at a NAGA tournament).

Let's back up. What do you think are the minimum qualifications for someone to say they are a "self defense expert?"

Dunno. I've never met one. Seems an odd title to claim.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So when someone says I train cops and get real world feedback that is also selection bias?

That's not selection bias, but that feedback can have a selection bias. If you take only the input from cops, that input suffers selection bias, because you'll be much more likely to get certain answers (like, "I had to hancuff a guy yesterday") than with the general population.

But since it's clear you meant that to be snide and a swipe of some sort, it's apparent you don't understand what selection bias is and why it matters. Here's a definition from Wikipedia: "Selection bias is the bias introduced by the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In BJJ, absent any significant physical or mental barriers, if you go 3 times per week every week, you will reliably develop solid skills regardless of your aptitude or native athletic ability. In 2 years or less, you will be proficient enough to earn a blue belt. That's reliable skill that you can demonstrate. Does it mean you've learned all there is to learn? No, but you will certainly be a more capable grappler than most.

I agree with that. What does that have to do with my statement you quoted?

 

[drop bear]

But the point there is folks can only get out what they put in. If someone wants to enjoy the training without putting a lot in, I'm okay

So the students that do put the work in and want the most out of training.

How is their competition progress going?

 

[Steve]

You've said yourself that confidence has an apparent effect in reducing vulnerability.

Sure. Real confidence that comes from actual ability and or fitness. False confidence and an inflated ego is super dangerous for anyone to have. Surely, this is another obvious point that we can all agree on.

And someone who can stop themselves from getting knocked down is in a better position, even if they can't knock the other person down yet. Someone who can fight reasonably well isn't in as good a position as someone who can fight very well, but better than someone who can't fight effectively. A little better is a little better. In some situations, that little bit won't help. In some situations, nothing will help.

But the point there is folks can only get out what they put in. If someone wants to enjoy the training without putting a lot in, I'm okay with that as long as they know it limits the results.

Sure, you have to do the hard work. But you can't get more out of it than is there to get. The framework for the instruction and the depth of expertise have to be there, too.

It gives exposure to more people (not just their everyday training partners) and more styles to deal with (excepting those styles that have style-specific competition - they don't get this second benefit from those specific competitions). And it's easy to see the relative (not absolute) levels of folks in those competitions, so you get a bit of a picture of where you stand compared to that peer group, for what that's worth. Of course, it also provides some good resistance from folks who likely don't want to lose and are using (within reason) their full toolbox. The only way I know to compensate for lack of formal competition is some informal work of a similar nature. So, if they get together with a good grappler and try to beat each other under a ruleset similar to NAGA, they get the same kind of benefit they'd get in competition (though it's harder to come by that way - you'd likely get a few in a day at a NAGA tournament).

I agree with this. And when folks don't compensate, what happens? See where this leads?

Dunno. I've never met one. Seems an odd title to claim.

We have several around here, man. You really think it's an odd claim? Come on.

 

[drop bear]

I agree with that. What does that have to do with my statement you quoted?

You are suggesting that ability is natural selection not a product of training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So the students that do put the work in and want the most out of training.

How is their competition progress going?

Haven't had any students interested in competition in a while (not since back at my instructor's school). Remember I train very few people (no marketing to speak of), and mostly folks starting out in their 40's. I had one guy for almost 3 years who worked really hard every class, but had done his competition back in his 30's (he was 50-ish when he started with me).

I'd actually love to get a couple of folks who want to compete and get an answer to that question.

 

[drop bear]

That's not selection bias, but that feedback can have a selection bias. If you take only the input from cops, that input suffers selection bias, because you'll be much more likely to get certain answers (like, "I had to hancuff a guy yesterday") than with the general population.

But since it's clear you meant that to be snide and a swipe of some sort, it's apparent you don't understand what selection bias is and why it matters. Here's a definition from Wikipedia: "Selection bias is the bias introduced by the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect."

Of course it is snide. When it benefits you anecdotes from industry guys are the feedback loop you use to justify your method. When it doesn't it is selection bias.

It is obviously a load of garbage as used here.

BJJ is open to every member of the public. Probably millions of people around the world compete from ages of about 5 to 70 which is a bigger more random sample than you will get anywhere.

And you are calling selection bias.