Random thought

Here's a random thought I keep coming back to (so I suppose it's not that random at this point): We have endless debates about what to do in X situation, who would beat whom in what kind of fight, whether style Y prepares you for multiple attackers better than style Z, etc.

You don't see this kind of debate with a lot of other hobbies, ways of life, or whatever you want to call this. And I'm pretty sure that it's because of the reality disparity, for lack of a better term. (And it's difficult to believe I couldn't think of a better term than that unwieldy donkey right there.)

In rock climbing, there doesn't seem to be a lot of debate over how best to traverse a certain type of rock face. In kayaking, the best way to use a paddle doesn't seem open to that much interpretation. And so on. I suspect that's because of the simple fact that the topic is addressed so directly. To answer the question "what would it be like to climb that rock?" somebody goes over and climbs that rock. No vicariousness. No theory. Question and answer straight from direct experience.

We don't have that "luxury" (and yes, I'm using that term sarcastically). I'm always amused when I hear the term "knife fighting expert," for example. What makes you a knife fighting expert, save for getting into an awful lot of knife fights?

There are certainly martial artists out there whose experience has been hard earned in reality. But there's also a lot of us whose experience is less direct and more an abstracted attempt to triangulate reality. And that's where all the debate comes in. We can all look at each other's training methods and say "sparring isn't real," "forms are unrealistic," "scenario training is like LARPing." But really, few of us are on particularly solid ground there.

Training methods invariably have some measure of abstraction to them. Doesn't address multiple attackers. Doesn't take how much broken glass is on the ground into account. Doesn't take weapons into consideration. Isn't "fully resistant." And so on.

There are those of us (not me, for the record) who have extensive experience working doors, law enforcement, the military, misspent youth, etc. They have more direct and less abstract experience. But even then, the various factors that go into a physical conflict change a lot. We can talk about "fighting" as one distinct phenomenon. But really, is it?

As far as I can figure, there are really two options open to us: 1) use various training methods to try and triangulate an answer to our questions or 2) change the questions we're asking.

In the first case, we might decide that heavy-contact sparring, progressive drills, and scenario training, taken together, answer the questions. (Recognizing that none of these things, taken in isolation, are real.) Or some other mix of training methods.

In the second case (and I have to say I'm beginning to lean toward this one), you change the question. You see this with MMA practitioners, maybe taijiquan done specifically for health reasons, etc. An MMA practitioner might not be asking of himself or herself, "could I take on multiple armed attackers using submission grappling and muay thai?" They're instead asking whether they could take on other competitors in a given format. But the answer they get isn't going to be theoretical at all. Either they do or they don't succeed. But either way, they will have answered that admittedly more limited question, in a way that's direct and nonvicarious.

A quick word about that idea of vicariousness: We're all capable of it. And we get different versions of it depending on our chosen arts. Whether we settle for saying "Chuck Liddell did X" or "my style was used on the battlefields of civilization Y," there's some appeal to having that question answered for us, without our direct involvement.

So, at the end of the day, I guess my appeal (mostly to myself) is to avoid that. Regardless of the question I'm asking, or the methods I employ to try and answer it, the trick--I think--is to make sure that I'm directly involved in the process and not foisting it off on my ancestors, media personalities, or that one badarse in the gym or dojo that trains much harder than I do.

I'm the one with the questions. I need to be the one getting the answers.

Or something.


Stuart

 

Truly excellent post Stuart.

To add my 2.0, the only question I ever ask is, "Can I kick that guy in the head?" It's all I care about in my training.

 

I had a random thought about making a makiwara in the shape of a cow, so you could train for fighting bulls like Mas Oyama. I guess yours is more interesting.

 

I would attempt to seize the initiative as soon as possible rather hysterically with no idea of what technique I was using.

I hate real fights.

 

Blackadder and a bull-shaped makiwara. This thread was so worth it.

 

Same here. Though I suppose there's an element of unsportsmanlike conduct, given that it's a pilates class.

 

If I could kick him in the head then I should be able to win cos he would have to be three feet tall at the most.

 

I kinda liked, "I can't be bothered to hit you Baldrick so just run into my fist and be done with it."

Now if only everyone else was that compliant.


But back to the fray, good topic Stuart. One balance I need to strike though, how does one decide if he hasn't done enough effort to "make his style work" or that he's actually practicing rubbish and try something else?

 

Good observation. However, we also have many more variables to deal with leading to apples to oranges, green apples, grapes, pears, kiwi etc... comparisons. In the rock climbing example you either make it to the top or you don't. In a self-defense situation victory means survival, whereas victory in a competitive fight means a knockout, submission or more points scored. In the same vein, the same two fighters could fight multiple bouts with different results each time. Fighting is like chess with actual physical consequences.

 

Personal responsibility, if you're like me and you feel that your style is looked down on by the martial arts world unfairly, don't look to others to prove that it "works".

Take it into your own hands and train your art so that maybe someday you can prove to those people that it does "work".

Great post

 

2 things I am reasonably sure of as regards the effectiveness of the martial art i study,or really the martial art anyone studies - number one i'm pretty sure i am at least a little better prepared to handle a "situation" than if i didn't study at all and sat home eating and drinking on my couch,watching other people do stuff on t.v.(even more than i do now,that is...)...number two,it ain't so much the arrow as it is the indian shootin' it..

 

I love that show. 'Nuff said.

Well, I suppose that rather depends on who "one" is. Everyone is going to need to come to a question-answer that satisfies THEM. Because it sure as hell isn't going to satisfy the community at large. And you'll drive yourself totally around the bend trying.

The only concrete solution I can come up with is NOT to start with the style. Start with the objective measure. What's your goal? What's the yardstick by which to determine whether what you're doing is working or not?

I think, if you start the other way around, you're always going to find what you're looking for in a sense. If you want to reinforce your earlier decision of a style, then you'll be tempted to set goals that validate the choice. And, as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing inherently wrong with that; some people want to dedicate themselves to a particular style, and I don't believe that's a wrong answer. The real trick is to be honest with yourself about whether your training is properly addressing that nagging voice in your skull. If that nagging voice is asking, "am I a good hung gar practitioner?" then your tests should obviously focus on style. If it's asking, "could I persevere in a knife fight?" then your objective measure is going to be different (and more difficult to simulate, at that).

I guess it comes down to regular old research. Lay out your research question, conduct your experiments, synthesize the results, and be ready to reconsider as new information comes available.


Stuart

 

Yeah exactly! I think that idea is buried in here somewhere as well. Proficiency in a more targeted activity is easier to determine. Martial arts are a broad and variable field of study. And it's difficult to determine whether you're succeeding without knowing what you're aiming for. I think I need to spend some time setting more specific goals versus the more nebulous concept of being "good."

 

I tend to believe that you need never question the art but ALWAYS question yourself.

I always come up with the same answer..crosstrain.

Luckily I have good friends in numerous arts and they are more than "pleased" to accomodate me.

 

Agreed. My first art was taekwondo. And I was young when I decided that the art had failed me and it was time to move on. I have no regrets about moving onto FMA. Nor about any of the crosstraining I've done since. At the same time, while it might not be obvious to watch me (especially with my flexibility these days), taekwondo did still provide some very useful fundamental skills. So I think it would be inaccurate to say that I abandoned it. It's a contribution, but my first allegiance was to some broader question about whether I could fight. And while taekwondo was a partial answer to that question, my background needed (and still needs) filling out.


Stuart

 

Doesn't this provide the biggest challenge though. Setting goals in martial arts, like that of comparing them, is a much harder task than other activities. How do you quantify being able to defend yourself against a mugger, a drunk, a gang, etc? Being a forms competitor is obviously a much easier goal to quantify, as is training for MMA. You know what attributes you must work on and in what quantity.

 

Precisely

 

This to me is a great post. Bringing it back up to the more recent posts so more read this. *Most respectfully*

 

Who wrote this pseudo-philosophical pile of...


Oh


Embarrassing



Thanks Rivend