Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[drop bear]

You seem to be trying really hard to argue with me on this, as you've done a LOT of lately. I was really just pointing out a bit of nuance worth noting, because ignoring it weakens the argument. You have a good point.

It is a nuance that is deception. Sparring is as undefined as competition (provided nobody ever mentions the very freely available information regarding the sort of competition engaged in)

And fat people weigh as much as skinny people. (Provided we weigh them on the moon)

You are leaving important elements out that alter the nature of the statement.

 

[Steve]

You keep trying to make this a blame game. That’s a waste.

We're not going to play the blame game here. But if we were.... if we were... I'd blame @Buka.

Did I win?

 

[Steve]

There are so many sets of rules for competition I find it very hard to grossly say competition is definable as you intend. You could get a good gauge on people within a competing body's label (boxing, wrestling, UFC, MMA, etc....) I would think.
If this is what you are already saying, I understand. But not knowing the scale (white to UFC) I did not recognize it.

This is no different than understanding any other context. People casually throw out things like, "I am/was a cop for 10 years." That MIGHT be very relevant to a discussion about self defense training, but you'd need to ask a few more questions. "I am/was in the military." Okay. It doesn't change the intrinsic value.

But how would you react to someone who said, "I attended training at the police academy for 10 years, and now I'm going to open my own police academy?"

 

[skribs]

This is no different than understanding any other context. People casually throw out things like, "I am/was a cop for 10 years." That MIGHT be very relevant to a discussion about self defense training, but you'd need to ask a few more questions. "I am/was in the military." Okay. It doesn't change the intrinsic value.

But how would you react to someone who said, "I attended training at the police academy for 10 years, and now I'm going to open my own police academy?"

I don't think that analogy exactly fits. Someone who trains martial arts will train for 10 years regardless of whether they're competing or not. It is not the norm for police officers to be at the academy for 10 years. Now we're kind of getting into the line from Tommy Boy:
Tommy: "Lots of people go to college for 8 years."
Richard: "Yeah. They're called doctors."

That said, if there was someone who trained for 10 years at the academy, chances are they know a thing or two that the street cop doesn't. They might have a better understanding of fitness and fitness training. They may have much better marksmanship and knowledge of the firearms than a cop who goes to the range once a year to qualify. They might have better understanding of teaching and learning than someone with more practical experience. They might be better equipped to teach the book knowledge to a new cadet.

Someone who spent 10 years studying and training is going to have different skills than someone who is out on the job. They're going to be able to bring different things to the table.

 

[Steve]

I don't think that analogy exactly fits. Someone who trains martial arts will train for 10 years regardless of whether they're competing or not. It is not the norm for police officers to be at the academy for 10 years. Now we're kind of getting into the line from Tommy Boy:
Tommy: "Lots of people go to college for 8 years."
Richard: "Yeah. They're called doctors."

I disagree. I think the analogy fits perfectly, and what you're reacting to is how obviously absurd the martial arts training model is when you apply it to literally any other skill set.

That said, if there was someone who trained for 10 years at the academy, chances are they know a thing or two that the street cop doesn't. They might have a better understanding of fitness and fitness training. They may have much better marksmanship and knowledge of the firearms than a cop who goes to the range once a year to qualify. They might have better understanding of teaching and learning than someone with more practical experience. They might be better equipped to teach the book knowledge to a new cadet.

Someone who spent 10 years studying and training is going to have different skills than someone who is out on the job. They're going to be able to bring different things to the table.

I completely agree. What are those "different things?" And what are they not?

They might be the things you mention. What they are not is experience working as a cop.

Here's a question, and I have no idea what the answer is. Do all of the instructors at a police academy have experience working as cops? Or, said the other way, are there any instructors at a typical police academy who have never applied the skills they're teaching professionally?

 

[dvcochran]

This is no different than understanding any other context. People casually throw out things like, "I am/was a cop for 10 years." That MIGHT be very relevant to a discussion about self defense training, but you'd need to ask a few more questions. "I am/was in the military." Okay. It doesn't change the intrinsic value.

But how would you react to someone who said, "I attended training at the police academy for 10 years, and now I'm going to open my own police academy?"

Ignoring the totally illogical and unrealistic parts of the question, your same answer would apply. We have no idea what else the person has been doing for the last 10 years. They may have been very active within the LE world and be a business genius who is the best fit to start a police academy.
If just said unsolicited in casual conversation, "I attended the police academy for 10 years" would be one of your red herrings, largely because it is so illogical.
The short answer is what a person says is less important than what they have done.

If you met me in person you would realize I am not one for casual conversation. I am blunt and sift through the BS quickly and want to move on. Put me in a room of engineers with a problem to solve and I am totally comfortable.
So all the analogies you have put up are much the same to me. I am not clear as to why you keep beating the horse. I sincerely hope everyone got your point with the first analogy.
We can "what if" this thing all day long but I think the point has been made and the proof found.

 

[Steve]

Took a quick look, and found a job posting for a Police Academy Instructor in Wyoming. Below is what they're looking for... a pretty exhaustive list. The question here is, does anyone think someone who has attended a police academy training for 5, 10, 20, or any other number of years, would be qualified for this position? I am skeptical.

Qualifications

PREFERENCES:
Preference may be given to applicants who are Wyoming Law Enforcement Academy certified Custody & Control Instructors.
Preference may be given to candidates with a degree in police science/criminal justice plus six years as a law enforcement officer, including four years with responsibility for classroom training or on-the-job instruction.
Preference may be given to applicants who are currently POST Instructor certified.
Preference may be given to applicants who are Peace and/or Detention Officer certifiable.

KNOWLEDGE:
Knowledge of Federal and Wyoming statutes applicable to law enforcement training methods, techniques, and practices
Knowledge of effective techniques of instruction in adult learning principles
Knowledge of division's mission, goals, and policies, and procedures.
Subject matter expert in one or more law enforcement topics
Knowledge of the agency budget process
Skill in instructional techniques, research, and development
Skill in the use of law enforcement equipment necessary to perform the functions of the position.
Skill in oral and written communication
Skill in training, lesson plans, and visual aid preparation.
Skill in interpersonal communications
Skill in organization, planning, and time management
Skill in police procedures and tactics, to include the use of motor vehicles and physical motor skills to demonstrate and actively participate in physical skills such as fitness, custody control, and firearms instruction
Skill in effectively passing on knowledge and skills which are required.
Skill in performing consistently and effectively under pressure
Skill in working with students who have varying abilities and experiences.
Skill in organizing and managing time and resources
Skill in consistently and accurately evaluating programs and personnel/student
Skill in working with common office technology, computers, and communications systems
Skill in the use and understanding of Custody & Control

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education:
Bachelor's Degree (typically in Education)

 

[skribs]

Here's a question, and I have no idea what the answer is. Do all of the instructors at a police academy have experience working as cops? Or, said the other way, are there any instructors at a typical police academy who have never applied the skills they're teaching professionally?

I'm guessing they do, because as I said in my post, you don't have police officers who just hang out at the academy for 10 years and never go on to become a cop.

Let me put this another way. One of my favorite classes in college was History of the Vietnam War. Not because of the class itself, but the professor who taught it was amazing, and that was his passion. I told one of my coworkers a long time ago that I really liked that class, and he was really elitist about it. "Was he a Vietnam Veteran?" He wasn't. "Then how can he teach it if he wasn't there?"

My coworker was downright offended that this person, who wasn't a Vietnam veteran, was teaching a class about the Vietnam war. If he wasn't there, how does he know what it was like? He was really upset by this and gave me a long, angry rant about it.

Now, someone who had their boots on the ground certainly has a unique perspective on the war that no historian will. But at the same time, they lack the perspective of all of the others with boots on the ground. I'm sure that people stationed in different places had different experiences. The snipers had different experiences from the grunts, from the artillery men, from the helicopter and jet pilots. The officers in charge had different experiences as well. Most of the soldiers on the ground probably didn't have anything to do with logistics, didn't have the understanding of the overall flow of the war. A lot of stuff was compiled and learned after the fact by strategists and historians; things we may not have known then, but we've learned over time.

Going back further, how could anyone teach American Civil War History or American Revolutionary War History today? If you had to be there to be qualified to teach it, then nobody is left to teach them. Few people nowadays even knew someone who knew someone who was in the Civil War.

There are a lot of things that you can teach about without having any practical experience in it. Academics are a perfect example of this. A lot of professors have experience. A lot of others only have the education. But they've done enough research through the course of their education to have a thorough understanding of it. And we can go back to arts like HEMA, which have been dissected by historians and martial artists to create the art we have today. None of them have actual experience in medieval warfare.

Someone teaching martial arts without practical experience may be kidding themselves. They may not be able to teach everything someone with that experience can. But they may also have done their research and paid attention. I have a few years of wrestling, a few years of Hapkido, and a lot of years in Taekwondo. I'm quickly approaching the Master degree in Taekwondo, should be only another couple of years. I've never physically taken a boxing class or participated in a boxing match. However, I've done some research on boxing. I'm able to use my understanding of footwork from Taekwondo, and apply it to the rules I see taught for boxing. I'm able to watch the do's and don'ts of boxing punches, and use the meticulous attention to detail in honing my technique that I've learned in Taekwondo, and apply it to boxing. Does this mean I could be a boxing coach? Probably not. Does this mean I'd be as effective at teaching punches as a boxer? No, but the difference isn't going to be as great as you might think, until you get to the upper level.

I am perfectly capable of teaching the techniques and footwork. I'm perfectly capable of teaching the basic combinations, and bad habits to avoid. I'm perfectly comfortable with leading the strength and conditioning routines that a boxer would go through. I am confident in this, because I have good attention to detail, and I've paid attention in my research. Would I claim to get someone ready for a boxing match? No. But I would claim to be able to teach the punches a boxer would know, and how to apply them. I don't think I'd be lying to myself or to my students when I teach them. I may even be better at teaching them than some boxers, not because I claim to know more than the boxers, but because sometimes people are skilled at something but aren't very good teachers.

 

[skribs]

Took a quick look, and found a job posting for a Police Academy Instructor in Wyoming. Below is what they're looking for... a pretty exhaustive list. The question here is, does anyone think someone who has attended a police academy training for 5, 10, 20, or any other number of years, would be qualified for this position? I am skeptical.

Qualifications

PREFERENCES:
Preference may be given to applicants who are Wyoming Law Enforcement Academy certified Custody & Control Instructors.
Preference may be given to candidates with a degree in police science/criminal justice plus six years as a law enforcement officer, including four years with responsibility for classroom training or on-the-job instruction.
Preference may be given to applicants who are currently POST Instructor certified.
Preference may be given to applicants who are Peace and/or Detention Officer certifiable.

KNOWLEDGE:
Knowledge of Federal and Wyoming statutes applicable to law enforcement training methods, techniques, and practices
Knowledge of effective techniques of instruction in adult learning principles
Knowledge of division's mission, goals, and policies, and procedures.
Subject matter expert in one or more law enforcement topics
Knowledge of the agency budget process
Skill in instructional techniques, research, and development
Skill in the use of law enforcement equipment necessary to perform the functions of the position.
Skill in oral and written communication
Skill in training, lesson plans, and visual aid preparation.
Skill in interpersonal communications
Skill in organization, planning, and time management
Skill in police procedures and tactics, to include the use of motor vehicles and physical motor skills to demonstrate and actively participate in physical skills such as fitness, custody control, and firearms instruction
Skill in effectively passing on knowledge and skills which are required.
Skill in performing consistently and effectively under pressure
Skill in working with students who have varying abilities and experiences.
Skill in organizing and managing time and resources
Skill in consistently and accurately evaluating programs and personnel/student
Skill in working with common office technology, computers, and communications systems
Skill in the use and understanding of Custody & Control

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education:
Bachelor's Degree (typically in Education)

In the quote, I colored in Red anything that doesn't require you to be a police officer. Knowledge in statutes, teaching skills, etc. The vast majority of those qualifications have nothing at all to do with being a police officer. In fact, someone with a degree in education, but no experience is far closer to meeting the requirements than someone who has experience, but no degree or teaching skills.

As to what's left, we have:

• Preference to candidates with a degree in police science + 6 years as LEO. This is just a preference, and half of that preference is a degree in police science. Just having the experience as a police officer isn't enough.
• Skill in the use of law enforcement equipment necessary to perform the functions of the position. This is something that would be evaluated if you continue to train at the academy.
• Skill in police procedures and tactics, to include the use of motor vehicles and physical motor skills to demonstrate and actively participate in physical skills such as fitness, custody control, and firearms instruction. This is also something you would be evaluated on if you continue to train at the academy. Some of these (such as firearm instruction and fitness instruction) are separate skills from being a police officer. In fact, most of the conversations I've had on gun forums regarding police officers is that most of them treat the gun as an extra tool on the belt, and they only use it once a year at a very easy range qualification.
  
• Skill in the use and understanding of Custody and Control. Again, if it's being taught at the academy, they probably qualify at the academy. I'm not 100% sure what this means (whether it's custody of a suspect, custody of minors, custody of evidence, custody of your equipment).

Essentially, it boils down to:

1. 80% of the skills required are educational skills, not police skills.
2. Of those that remain, all of the skills required are things that could be taught, trained, and evaluated at the academy.
3. The only preference for LEO includes additional requirements, that someone who was just a LEO wouldn't get. This is also a preference, not a requirement.

So basically you're proving my point. Someone with the academic training would qualify for that position.

 

[Steve]

I think there's a lot of value in knowing ABOUT things. Academic expertise is expertise. The food critic has a well trained palate, but may or may not also be a chef. One doesn't need to be a samurai to know a lot about them.

But knowing ABOUT things is not the same as being able to DO things. The professor might could very well be an expert on the vietnam war, and be able to speak with authority on that subject, but completely incompetent to carry a rifle as an infantryman.

As long as that is clear, all is well.

 

[Steve]

In the quote, I colored in Red anything that doesn't require you to be a police officer. Knowledge in statutes, teaching skills, etc. The vast majority of those qualifications have nothing at all to do with being a police officer. In fact, someone with a degree in education, but no experience is far closer to meeting the requirements than someone who has experience, but no degree or teaching skills.

As to what's left, we have:

• Preference to candidates with a degree in police science + 6 years as LEO. This is just a preference, and half of that preference is a degree in police science. Just having the experience as a police officer isn't enough.
• Skill in the use of law enforcement equipment necessary to perform the functions of the position. This is something that would be evaluated if you continue to train at the academy.
• Skill in police procedures and tactics, to include the use of motor vehicles and physical motor skills to demonstrate and actively participate in physical skills such as fitness, custody control, and firearms instruction. This is also something you would be evaluated on if you continue to train at the academy. Some of these (such as firearm instruction and fitness instruction) are separate skills from being a police officer. In fact, most of the conversations I've had on gun forums regarding police officers is that most of them treat the gun as an extra tool on the belt, and they only use it once a year at a very easy range qualification.
  
• Skill in the use and understanding of Custody and Control. Again, if it's being taught at the academy, they probably qualify at the academy. I'm not 100% sure what this means (whether it's custody of a suspect, custody of minors, custody of evidence, custody of your equipment).

Essentially, it boils down to:

1. 80% of the skills required are educational skills, not police skills.
2. Of those that remain, all of the skills required are things that could be taught, trained, and evaluated at the academy.
3. The only preference for LEO includes additional requirements, that someone who was just a LEO wouldn't get. This is also a preference, not a requirement.

So basically you're proving my point. Someone with the academic training would qualify for that position.

I'm happy to fill in the gaps, but will just say for now that there is a meaningful difference in postings like this between being technically qualified (which might mean being referred by the HR folks to the selecting official) and being actually qualified. Being actually qualified is all of the criteria used by the selecting offiical to winnow down the list to a few highly qualified candidates, and then eventually select someone for the position. That process, in any government position, has to be very concrete and objective. As such, the preferences aren't just preferences. That's all insight into how the selecting official is going to justify their selection if they end up being sued (e.g., an eeo suit).

So, if you have two candidates who are both "qualified" and the selection starts to get squishy, you will be able to say, I chose this person over that person for these reasons. And they can't say they were passed over because they are a member of a protected base.

That might be more than you ever wanted to know, but I think it's important to know that "preferences" aren't as subjective as the term implies. It's actually quite the opposite. So, to sum up, being technically qualified might mean making a referral list. But it doesn't mean you have any chance of being selected, or that you are considered to be qualified in a practical sense.

Sorry if posting that confused the issue. I realize now that I interpret those in a way that others may not, having a lot of experience being on both sides of those types of vacancies.

 

[skribs]

That process, in any government position, has to be very concrete and objective.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I could go on, but you get the idea. I've been a government contractor for over a decade, and the thought that there is any objective hiring policy is truly laughable. Saying to go for a government job because of their superb hiring policies would be like saying go to a car wash to get a prescription filled.

Saying the government has good hiring policies? Thanks, man. I really needed a laugh today.

 

[Steve]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I could go on, but you get the idea. I've been a government contractor for over a decade, and the thought that there is any objective hiring policy is truly laughable. Saying to go for a government job because of their superb hiring policies would be like saying go to a car wash to get a prescription filled.

Saying the government has good hiring policies? Thanks, man. I really needed a laugh today.

Hiring is inherently subjective. But you have to have an objective process.

 

[drop bear]

I disagree. I think the analogy fits perfectly, and what you're reacting to is how obviously absurd the martial arts training model is when you apply it to literally an

It aligns with things like faith healing pretty accurately.

I don't have to be a medical professional to understand the healing properties of crystals. And what does a doctor understand about crystals anyway.

And by the way. You can do a course.

Certificate in Crystal Healing Therapy - Nature Care College - Sydney

 

[skribs]

Hiring is inherently subjective. But you have to have an objective process.

Point is, the person with certifications and degrees is just as likely to be hired (if not more so) than someone with actual LEO experience. You're trying to make the point that the LEO experience is important, but it isn't. By the requirements you posted, it isn't.

 

[Steve]

Point is, the person with certifications and degrees is just as likely to be hired (if not more so) than someone with actual LEO experience. You're trying to make the point that the LEO experience is important, but it isn't. By the requirements you posted, it isn't.

That's actually not the point. A person with degrees and certs may be technically qualified but is not actually qualified. That's my point, at least. Look, I get that you're a contractor. But have you ever hired someone? Government or not?

 

[skribs]

That's actually not the point. A person with degrees and certs may be technically qualified but is not actually qualified. That's my point, at least. Look, I get that you're a contractor. But have you ever hired someone? Government or not?

Have I hired someone? No.
Have I seen plenty of people who were hired, who were qualified on paper, but who had no idea how to actually do the job? Plenty of times.

Your question was "The question here is, does anyone think someone who has attended a police academy training for 5, 10, 20, or any other number of years, would be qualified for this position?"

Yes. He would be qualified. You posted the qualifications. Someone who has attended police academy, and has the requisite teaching credentials, but no LEO experience, would be completely qualified based on the qualifications you posted.

And if they have the paper qualifications, my experience is that the government would hire them. Based on other people I've seen hired. In fact, they'd be better than the people I've seen hired, because at least they'd have the teaching skills.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah. But sparring will be a general term. Competition will always be a certain competition or the term becomes meaningless.

That's pretty much what I was getting at.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is not about blame it is about personal accountability. It is how winning is done.

Yeah, except that you want to blame someone for folks simply not being interested in something. Not everyone has your (or my) priorities. That's not the fault of the instructor, not the instructor's responsibility. These are adults.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is a nuance that is deception. Sparring is as undefined as competition (provided nobody ever mentions the very freely available information regarding the sort of competition engaged in)

And fat people weigh as much as skinny people. (Provided we weigh them on the moon)

You are leaving important elements out that alter the nature of the statement.

Again, you're trying really hard to argue on this.