The Myth of Training

[Black Knife]

Realistic training is important and one can't expect to be able to fight and survive without it. To get through the fear aLL one has to do is treat every encounter, no matter how insignificant it seems, as if it is a life or death situation with the intent of surviving and not winning . You get that mindset then you will be properly prepared for any type of situation.

[HeavyHanded]

Not surprising a number of respondents have "troubled" pasts. I don't consider my upbringing abusive, but with a bunch of brothers we all fought quite a bit amongst ourselves. Was once thrown thru a glass storm window, and (with a bit of family pride) can say I've never been hit as hard as the lick my older brother applied to my solar plexus once as I flew at him in a blind rage - if sheer malice could have kept me animated, I surely would have killed him. Instead I sunk slowly to the floor as my legs couldn't hold me up no matter how hard I willed otherwise.

In any event I've had to work thru my own anger issues (I'm not going to elaborate on any of my other young adult BS fights and such) - once stopped at a gas station because the guy in front of me cut me off. Walked up, spit right between his shoes and waited for any response that would justify me laying into him. Decided this wasn't healthy. I started doing some meditation and it helped a lot. Also improved my MA considerably. I came to realize many of my past experiences that I used to consider helpful in a tension filled/physical encounter were actually harmful, they were tying my hands as to how best I might respond. There are better ways to become competent without conditioning your mind too narrowly, inserting an artificial filter between your perception of things and how they really are. If your mindset compromises or defines your view of the world too much, it becomes as dangerous to one's enjoyment of life as any physical adversary. As Bruce Lee implies throughout his teaching, you should strive toward a more true expression of yourself - in combat or otherwise.

Just a thought...

[killgar]

It goes without saying that not all "training" is equal. As I stated in post #18, PROPER, QUALITY training from a truly QUALIFIED instructor is of value. And depending on the individual it can be of great value. Imagine for example two guys who show up for the exact same training seminar- One guy has absolutely no experience in street fighting and is naturally afraid of violence, the other guy has extensive streetfighting experience and isn't the least bit afraid of violence, which guy do you think is going to benefit more, or at all, from the training. Imagine if right after the seminar each guy were attacked by the same type of guy with the same type of weapon, which guy would be more likely to walk away.

My point is, training isn't everything. I believe that training can enhance SOME peoples fighting abilities, but whether or not a person benefits from training may have more to do with the individual being trained, rather than just the training itself. I believe that a "tiger" can become a more dangerous "tiger", but a "lamb" cannot be turned into a "tiger". A point that I keep stressing is that individuals who are not knowledgeable and/or experienced in real streetfighting should not believe, or be led to believe, that training, ANY TRAINING, will turn them into a skilled and effective street fighter.

I also disagree strongly with the idea that a person cannot be a highly effective fighter without training. I've known several people in my life who never took a single lesson, never read a how-to book, and never watched a how-to DVD, yet their lifes experiences forged them into very fierce and formidable streetfighters. I'm talking about guys who spent their misguided youths on the streets, guys who got into lots of fights, hard-core gangbangers, and guys who have spent a lot of time behind bars. These are guys who learned the HARD way, they learned from actual experience. They learned how to fight not because they were interested in self-defense but because their lives depended on it. They learned how to deal with an oncoming knife attack not from a sparing partner with a rubber knife but from actuall attackers with real knives, and they often got stabbed in the process.

Of course, I have spent a lot of time around a lot of rough, nefarious individuals, and I've seen some of them in action, so it's no surprise that this would have an influence on my perceptions.

[SeaxyBeast]

Imagine for example two guys who show up for the exact same training seminar- One guy has absolutely no experience in street fighting and is naturally afraid of violence, the other guy has extensive streetfighting experience and isn't the least bit afraid of violence, which guy do you think is going to benefit more, or at all, from the training. Imagine if right after the seminar each guy were attacked by the same type of guy with the same type of weapon, which guy would be more likely to walk away.

This reveals a lot about your underlying assumptions, as does your tigers vs. lambs comment. But another way of looking at this is to look not at the absolute survival chances, but at the change in survival chances due to the training. If the inexperienced person comes away with one moderate percentage skill that improves survivability it will have a bigger impact than will the person who is merely refining a large set of skills.

Which leads me to think that there are actually a couple things going on in this discussion that maybe we can tease out. The sort of seminar matters -- for an inexperienced person a training session like a Rory Miller seminar or an Amok! weekend will give them a lot where a more traditional MA seminar will give them less in terms of survivability training. But in the long term the MA training will give the person a chance to refine skills that require repetition to build coordination, muscle memory, condition, and flexibility of approach. Getting material that assumes those things before the inexperienced person is ready for them gives little upside where the experienced person will gain more from that seminar than from yet another reality based seminar that repeats a similar set of high-percentage responses the person has already learned and conditioned.

My other observation is that the inexperienced person will have a much more difficult time separating what is effective from what is ineffective if the material contains a significant percentage of bullshido. The flip side to this is that an experienced person may discard material that is effective (in the appropriate framework) because it conflicts with his or her personal approach, experience, understanding, etc. and either doesn't understand how it fits together or lacks the sort of physical conditioning required to make it work.

I think the best long-term approach is to get practical (Rory Miller/Amok!) training at the start, then find a good long-term training group that will allow you to build long term skills and refine your feel. Just repeat the practical stuff at least once a year and practice it regularly in order to not get too lost in the minutiae of techniques.

It won't make you good at streetfighting, but it will hopefully make you better at surviving without as many negative consequences as usually come from having the sort of intimate relationship with violence that is required in order to 'really get good' at violent response. In other words, aim to maximize long-term happiness and quality of life rather than short-term survival.

Just my 2¢.

[crom]

Mike Tyson said it best: "everybody has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth"

[killgar]

This reveals a lot about your underlying assumptions, as does your tigers vs. lambs comment. But another way of looking at this is to look not at the absolute survival chances, but at the change in survival chances due to the training. If the inexperienced person comes away with one moderate percentage skill that improves survivability it will have a bigger impact than will the person who is merely refining a large set of skills.

Which leads me to think that there are actually a couple things going on in this discussion that maybe we can tease out. The sort of seminar matters -- for an inexperienced person a training session like a Rory Miller seminar or an Amok! weekend will give them a lot where a more traditional MA seminar will give them less in terms of survivability training. But in the long term the MA training will give the person a chance to refine skills that require repetition to build coordination, muscle memory, condition, and flexibility of approach. Getting material that assumes those things before the inexperienced person is ready for them gives little upside where the experienced person will gain more from that seminar than from yet another reality based seminar that repeats a similar set of high-percentage responses the person has already learned and conditioned.

My other observation is that the inexperienced person will have a much more difficult time separating what is effective from what is ineffective if the material contains a significant percentage of bullshido. The flip side to this is that an experienced person may discard material that is effective (in the appropriate framework) because it conflicts with his or her personal approach, experience, understanding, etc. and either doesn't understand how it fits together or lacks the sort of physical conditioning required to make it work.

I think the best long-term approach is to get practical (Rory Miller/Amok!) training at the start, then find a good long-term training group that will allow you to build long term skills and refine your feel. Just repeat the practical stuff at least once a year and practice it regularly in order to not get too lost in the minutiae of techniques.

It won't make you good at streetfighting, but it will hopefully make you better at surviving without as many negative consequences as usually come from having the sort of intimate relationship with violence that is required in order to 'really get good' at violent response. In other words, aim to maximize long-term happiness and quality of life rather than short-term survival.

Just my 2¢.

Good points. And I can see where my hypothetical about the two different guys in the quote you posted was flawed.

And now this- this is why I come here, to see things in different ways, to see things I may be overlooking. I typed out a series of my thoughts and then I realized the flaw in my thinking. So I deleted what I had typed and here are my new thoughts-

I've been thinking too much in terms of extremes. I've been thinking, perhaps without even realizing it, that if training isn't going to turn you into a skilled fighter, that it likely won't benefit you in a real fight. But I can see that even if training can't make a person SKILLED, that it's still possible for them to aquire some ability or abilities that could help them survive a fight, even if it's just one simple thing. I've been looking at the subject in terms of surviving the fight by DEFEATING the attacker, and overlooking the idea of just plain surviving by opening an avenue for escape. I guess that's a window into my defensive mindset- fight rather than flight, fight to destroy the attacker rather than fight just to get away. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about murdering an attacker, I'm talking about using superior force to put him down and keep him down so I can get away. Like I referenced in a previous post, I was taught since childhood to "knock them down so hard that they can't get back up". What can I say, that's the mindset, right or wrong, that I have developed throughout my life, and it has served me well.

I'm glad that I have recognized the error in my thinking regarding inexperienced people and training. Consider that error corrected.

But I stand 100% by the following (and I apologize for repeating myself)- Not all training is proper, quality training. Not all instructors know what they are doing, no matter how impressive they seem or how many students they have. Do not expect training, ANY training, to turn you into an undefeatable street/knife fighter. When advising people to seek training, be careful not to give the impression that it will turn them into an undefeatable street/knife fighter. Whether it be your weapon, or your training, or your personal skill level, people must recognize the limitations as well as the strengths.

Thanks guys, it's been a good discussion. I'm not saying I'm done with it, just saying thanks.

[djjonny]

One way I look at it, good quality training is a combat/survival tool. How one uses it, makes him/her a fighter or not.
At the end of the day it's up to the person.

[fishface5]

All Training is, is to create the muscle memory needed for actual use.

exactly. Two times I have defended myself based on training without even thinking about it - it was just a reaction, based on training. If I had needed to think about it, I would have been too slow. I did not have prior "streetfighting" experience prior to training, and had (still have) a healthy fear of being hurt in a violent interaction.

[sirahren]

But I stand 100% by the following (and I apologize for repeating myself)- Not all training is proper, quality training. Not all instructors know what they are doing, no matter how impressive they seem or how many students they have. Do not expect training, ANY training, to turn you into an undefeatable street/knife fighter. When advising people to seek training, be careful not to give the impression that it will turn them into an undefeatable street/knife fighter. Whether it be your weapon, or your training, or your personal skill level, people must recognize the limitations as well as the strengths.

I would also point out another possibly flaw in your train of thought. Some of the street fighters you mention do have training. At perhaps one of the oldest and most efficient schools around. Sure its not traditional, but what is? A guy who trained muay thai in Thailand since the age of 6, would probably have no idea what was going on in a Karate class in suburban USA. Some very good fighters I know came up on the streets. You learn speed, and acurate distance, and perhaps subconciously not to telegraph and to read telegraphing. That being said I've seen some of these guys get demolished from people who have never had a fight out of the ring or off the mat. But so much of a fight really is how far youre willing to go to win and how much you have to lose, that a person more naturally inclined to violence is going to have an advantage. Also I think most people who train a lot and roll are going to be ok with violence. Thats my non science opinion based on the fact 90% of my jits class does some stand up and owns guns.

[killgar]

I would also point out another possibly flaw in your train of thought. Some of the street fighters you mention do have training. At perhaps one of the oldest and most efficient schools around. Sure its not traditional, but what is? A guy who trained muay thai in Thailand since the age of 6, would probably have no idea what was going on in a Karate class in suburban USA. Some very good fighters I know came up on the streets. You learn speed, and acurate distance, and perhaps subconciously not to telegraph and to read telegraphing. That being said I've seen some of these guys get demolished from people who have never had a fight out of the ring or off the mat. But so much of a fight really is how far youre willing to go to win and how much you have to lose, that a person more naturally inclined to violence is going to have an advantage. Also I think most people who train a lot and roll are going to be ok with violence. Thats my non science opinion based on the fact 90% of my jits class does some stand up and owns guns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that a guy who learned on the street is invincible, not by any stretch of the imagination. No one is garunteed victory in a fight no matter who they are or what their background is. I'm sure there are plenty of formally trained guys who have never had a street fight that would be devastating in a street fight. But to a great extent I would attribute this more to who that person is psychologically than to their training, though I am not discounting their training. I don't know what the ratio of psychology versus training would need to be to create an effective fighter out of someone who is inexperienced, but I believe that a fierce psychology is the dominant factor.

For the reasons I explained in my first few posts in this thread, I don't believe that training will produce a person with a fierce psychology. It may produce the appearance of ferocity, it may cause a person to think that they are now fierce, but I don't think that any training program is long enough or brutal enough to change ones psychology so dramatically. I don't believe that ferocity is something one can aquire at a weekend seminar, or two or three. I view training as technical know-how and ferocity as ones willingness to never give up and do whatever it takes to survive in the face of violent death. I believe that a ferocious psychology is something that one aquires as the result of experience with, or personal exposure to, real-life violence. I believe that ferocity is the result of experiencing or witnessing firsthand what the consequences of real violence can be.

[will_1400]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that a guy who learned on the street is invincible, not by any stretch of the imagination. No one is garunteed victory in a fight no matter who they are or what their background is. I'm sure there are plenty of formally trained guys who have never had a street fight that would be devastating in a street fight. But to a great extent I would attribute this more to who that person is psychologically than to their training, though I am not discounting their training. I don't know what the ratio of psychology versus training would need to be to create an effective fighter out of someone who is inexperienced, but I believe that a fierce psychology is the dominant factor.

For the reasons I explained in my first few posts in this thread, I don't believe that training will produce a person with a fierce psychology. It may produce the appearance of ferocity, it may cause a person to think that they are now fierce, but I don't think that any training program is long enough or brutal enough to change ones psychology so dramatically. I don't believe that ferocity is something one can aquire at a weekend seminar, or two or three. I view training as technical know-how and ferocity as ones willingness to never give up and do whatever it takes to survive in the face of violent death. I believe that a ferocious psychology is something that one aquires as the result of experience with, or personal exposure to, real-life violence. I believe that ferocity is the result of experiencing or witnessing firsthand what the consequences of real violence can be.

I see what you're getting at. Whenever I worked with a new student in my dojo, I kept having to deal with them hesitating and not wanting to "hurt" someone. Teaching someone ferocity/meanness isn't easy, but it can be done if they want to learn. As an example from my own training... early on, if I was paired with a female student, I'd hold back out of habit (the whole "never strike a woman" bit). This really ticked them off so they responded by wiping the floor with me until I started really fighting back and landed several heavy shots. Lesson learned: one has to learn to be mean to an attacker and use the amount of force needed to stop the threat, regardless of gender (at the time I had no problem lighting up another man so that wasn't an issue).

[philwar]

I don't believe that modern conventional training/sparring can enable a person to become proficient in mortal combat.

You are wrong in not believing that. I know from personal experience, as well as training with people who are exposed to RL violence (which always has the lethal option in it somewhere) that training and conditioning not only works, but is essential in determining the outcome.
I have a personal shortlist of arts and sports that work (all IMHO of course) and people who become skilled in any or all of those seriously increase their chances of coming out on top in a RL unarmed confrontation. Add mindset, and your survival and probable victory are all but ensured, at least against a less skilled opponent.

As for that training gap, it exists, but the way to overcome it (other than by experience, which is the best way) is through training, both physical and mental. Training and conditioning take over.
I train with a group of bouncers. People who get shot at, stabbed, mobbed, attacked with bottles and what have you. They can never respond in kind because they'll be in serious legal trouble after. All these guys stay (relatively) cool under attack, respond with the lowest effective intensity and mostly leave their attackers in one piece, though rendered harmless.

If your instructor is not always telling you what will and will not work 'on the street' he is doing you a disservice. The awareness that what you are training and practicing may be put to deadly use is critical, it's never just a sport.

I don't want this thread to degenerate into what art 'works' and which don't but unfortunately, many arts are taught the way you describe. So stay the hell away from those. There are a few that you really don't need anyone's recommendation for to know they are effective in any one-on-one confrontation.

[philwar]

But I stand 100% by the following (and I apologize for repeating myself)- Not all training is proper, quality training. Not all instructors know what they are doing, no matter how impressive they seem or how many students they have. Do not expect training, ANY training, to turn you into an undefeatable street/knife fighter. When advising people to seek training, be careful not to give the impression that it will turn them into an undefeatable street/knife fighter. Whether it be your weapon, or your training, or your personal skill level, people must recognize the limitations as well as the strengths.

You have no argument with me here, the bold part I already touched upon. Extremely important. Many people choose an art or sport based on criteria that either have nothing to do with effectiveness against any unarmed opponent, or that effectiveness is wildly overrated. The latter is hard to counter because how will a newbie know? But often the choice is based on what looks good, what my buddy does, what I saw in a movie. And that's fine, as long as you don't expect it to work the same way in a bar or a street.

[HeavyHanded]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that a guy who learned on the street is invincible, not by any stretch of the imagination. No one is garunteed victory in a fight no matter who they are or what their background is. I'm sure there are plenty of formally trained guys who have never had a street fight that would be devastating in a street fight. But to a great extent I would attribute this more to who that person is psychologically than to their training, though I am not discounting their training. I don't know what the ratio of psychology versus training would need to be to create an effective fighter out of someone who is inexperienced, but I believe that a fierce psychology is the dominant factor.

For the reasons I explained in my first few posts in this thread, I don't believe that training will produce a person with a fierce psychology. It may produce the appearance of ferocity, it may cause a person to think that they are now fierce, but I don't think that any training program is long enough or brutal enough to change ones psychology so dramatically. I don't believe that ferocity is something one can acquire at a weekend seminar, or two or three. I view training as technical know-how and ferocity as ones willingness to never give up and do whatever it takes to survive in the face of violent death. I believe that a ferocious psychology is something that one aquires as the result of experience with, or personal exposure to, real-life violence. I believe that ferocity is the result of experiencing or witnessing firsthand what the consequences of real violence can be.

Ferocity is relative, not absolute. Inexperienced individuals can get plenty ferocious, sometimes snapping into extreme levels of violence with no prior indication. Also, ferocity can't keep you conscious, restore wind following a hard shot, keep a limb functioning that's been creamed. In any event, ferocity isn't the best trait for preforming well physically. I don't lift more weight when I'm angry, run faster, hit the bag faster. As Bruce say - one should display no emotion when fighting, become like a doll made of wood and react as you've trained. At least this is what I strive for and practice every time I spar. I don't want my mind to explode into rage, I want it to be empty. No massive adrenaline dump, no war-face, just execution as best I possibly can with the max awareness, speed, timing, and leverage. I cannot imagine having this quality without good instruction.

My first instructor (much of which was informal, general MA) told me - if you train with a quality teacher - what he referred to as a "Bad Man", you'll become one too. These are the kinds of teachers that don't let up when sparring, they push you into a corner and you aren't getting out without executing or taking some serious lumps. These are the teachers that might continue on unexpectedly in the middle of a set piece drill and press you hard to make sure your awareness and reflexes don't get lazy.

No argument, there are a lot of poor teachers out there, and even more individuals that are good martial artists, but cannot convey the qualities they possess to others. And some students just don't seem to get it either, tho many stop taking classes before they can learn the mental aspects. So absolutely a seminar, few weeks of instruction etc are not going to give most students any new mental qualities and I have no issue with much of what you believe. I do, however, feel that any training if done with a good attitude will pay huge dividends. Street experience is one way to gain confidence, lots of training interaction with a variety of styles and individuals is another. I've luckily been exposed to some very well trained (traditional MA) people, so learned very early what a good man or woman might be capable of. Some of them have had to perform on the street without an extensive real world history. So - poor training = not much help. Quality training = priceless.

After I started to become functionally proficient I used to spar anyone that wanted to come over. Some of these were fairly tough guys naturally that had no formal instruction but were no stranger to beating people up - very dangerous to spar as they have no concept of pulling punches or holding back. I can honestly say I never had much trouble with any of them. Untrained (and trained) people have all manner of tendencies that can be worked on. Feints are almost a waste of time on untrained people unless they have superior hand speed, and when sparring unknown quantities, I never attempt feints or draws initially. Just simple fast strikes, moving to compound ones if that fails and quickly to draws and traps. Untrained individuals are frequently at a serious disadvantage when facing mobile opponents - most untrained individuals have only instinctive foot work and when in a rage they stop moving except straight forward and straight back. They have a tough time tracking individuals using angular or circular footwork. Very few untrained folks have a grasp of these things and as they try to keep in a position to hit you they drop their hands, cross their feet etc. They take you on like a chess player that looks at his opponent instead of the board. Look in my eyes, I'm looking at your centerline. Who's gonna make the best of it? Who will have faster response time when caught unawares?

[Black Knife]

Agree....training hard is right way to go. Not all martial arts schools push training hard. They are looking to make easy money and not really interested in really teaching people to defend themselves. The more you realistically train the better you are off.

[WindyCityKali]

Hard sparring is one way to make a good fighter. I do agree that until your skill level gets to a point where you're fighting against dangerous opponents, you don't understand stress. Until you've been injured and fought thru it, you don't know what that's like. Until you've been hurt and then you get back fighting with more dangerous guys, you won't learn how to control your stress. You don't know what's of primary importance and what stuff can be trained when time allows. You have to be in there with quality guys and find out what works for you. What makes you dangerous to those other guys.

Here's the reality though - you can't go thru life concussed. You can't get knocked out every month and hope to remember how many planets are in our solar system at 55. So your training, sparring and fighting has to be a series of arcs, where you're training, you're sparring, you're fighting - and then you have to bring it back down to allow everything to heal up. then start back up the arc. You simply cannot go full-power, all the time. No one does that. Pros don't do that. You arc up, you fight, then you arc back down.

Lastly - I don't really want to be around street-fighter guys, even if they're great at hurting other humans. Because I like being around guys that know when it's appropriate it turn it on and when to turn it off. I don't want to live around pitbulls - I just don't. Some guys may feel that in order to get to a certain point, they have to jail-house rock it with guys that are just batshit crazy in their aggression. Sweet. Good luck and God bless. I don't. I want to be around guys that understand where I'm at in society and that I don't want to be around people that feel like life is cheap. And if that means I'm not taking something to the umptheenth level, then so be it. But when I'm fighting against someone that actually wants to hurt me and he's unsuccessful in that endevour, I feel like my training is working. I feel better than I was before.

[Dr Heelhook]

Military training usually doesn't contain any real threat to ones safety neither. Does that mean we should get rid of it and send people into war without any training? This is a stupid thread.

[killgar]

Military training usually doesn't contain any real threat to ones safety neither. Does that mean we should get rid of it and send people into war without any training?

Perhaps if you actually read the entire thread, or at least did a decent job of skimming through it, you would have noticed that the subject of military training has been discussed. But you didn't read the entire thread did you? You didn't even bother to give it a good skim. No problem, people often post replys to threads that they didn't bother to read. Sometimes they don't even bother to read the entire post that they're replying to.

Maybe if you try a little harder, next time you might actually be able to contribute something meaningful to the discussion.

This is a stupid thread.

Considering it's length and the number of intelligent responses here, I'd say that many disagree with you. But you wouldn't know because you didn't bother to read them.

Oh well, maybe you'll do better next time.