Traditonal Versus Progressive Arts

[HumbleWCGuy]

It doesn't. You will also find that just as many (probably more) second and third rate fighters also have traditional backgrounds.

It doesn't change the fact that the best strikers have traditional backgrounds. We can always find strikers with no traditional training who are better than those who had traditional training. The important point is that fighters are generally better off by starting out with traditional training. As evidence to that, the best upright fighters almost categorically had traditional training prior to their full-contact careers.

[m1k3]

If you are an advanced BJJ practioner and are getting injured by beginners, you aren't really advanced after all.

Never said I was advanced but I have moved beyond the spaz phase. Maybe one shouldn't read too much into people's posts.

[Knifefighter]

I am not advocating that people stop competing and sparring in upright to become better fighters. I am just suggesting that a slower process of developing fighters is a better one.
Jumping straight into sparring and fighting will create a competent fighters more quickly but it does not produce great fighters with complete skill sets.

Sure it does. Muay Thai and boxing start sparring early and those systems produces the best standup fighters in the world.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Why do many of those guys have traditional backgrounds? Because if you started off as a kid, those were the types of programs your parents put you in. Most fighters, cr@ppy and good, had some kind of karate or kung fu training as kids.

Very true, no argument there.

[Knifefighter]

It doesn't change the fact that the best strikers have traditional backgrounds. We can always find strikers with no traditional training who are better than those who had traditional training. The important point is that fighters are generally better off by starting out with traditional training. As evidence to that, the best upright fighters almost categorically had traditional training prior to their full-contact careers.

The worst fighters also had traditional training as a base. Since there are more bad and mediocre fighters in the world, by using your reasoning, one would have to assume that the traditional training is a hindrance.

[uki]

The worst fighters also had traditional training as a base. Since there are more bad and mediocre fighters in the world, by using your reasoning, one would have to assume that the traditional training is a hindrance.

best and worst defined by rules and regulations... LOL... you're funny.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Sure it does. Muay Thai and boxing start sparring early and those systems produces the best standup fighters in the world.

boxing does not produce the best standup fighters in the world. Boxing is incomplete as an upright art. Any fighter with a plumb can shut a boxer down. The best upright fighters in the world typically have trained in Muay Thai but it isn't their base art as my list shows.

[HumbleWCGuy]

The worst fighters also had traditional training as a base. Since there are more bad and mediocre fighters in the world, by using your reasoning, one would have to assume that the traditional training is a hindrance.

The worst fighters do ONLY traditional training which is not what I am advocating. I am speaking to the interaction between the traditional and progressive.

[Knifefighter]

boxing does not produce the best standup fighters in the world. Boxing is incomplete as an upright art. Any fighter with a plumb can shut a boxer down. The best upright fighters in the world typically have trained in Muay Thai but it isn't their base art as my list shows.

Boxers have shut down MT fighters just as often as MT guys have shut down boxers. Both are the best at producing fighters.

"Base art" just means they started it as kids. Has nothing to do with them being good now.

There has been a much bigger percentage of MMA champs over the years whose base art was wrestling. Again, by your reasoning, anyone who wants to be a good fighter should start with wrestling first.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Boxers have shut down MT fighters just as often as MT guys have shut down boxers. Both are the best at producing fighters.

"Base art" just means they started it as kids. Has nothing to do with them being good now.

There has been a much bigger percentage of MMA champs over the years whose base art was wrestling. Again, by your reasoning, anyone who wants to be a good fighter should start with wrestling first.

In Full Rules MT guys with good boxing skills can shut down a traditional MT fighter but no one who is a strick boxer will shutdown a MT fighter in Full Rules (even matching assumed).

There is some truth to the fact that wrestling is an important determinant in who will be a UFC champion. Takedown defense and positional dominance on the ground cannot be underestimated.

[Knifefighter]

The worst fighters do ONLY traditional training which is not what I am advocating. I am speaking to the interaction between the traditional and progressive.

OK, let's follow your route of reasoning...

Karate is clearly better than WC as a base art for producing good fighters since none of the fighters you listed have WC backgrounds, but most of them have karate backgrounds.

[Knifefighter]

In Full Rules MT guys with good boxing skills can shut down a traditional MT fighter but no one who is a strick boxer will shutdown a MT fighter in Full Rules (even matching assumed)..

Please site the evidence where this has happened.

[taai gihk yahn]

Getting into sparring and competition early has nothing to do with being sloppy. Being sloppy has to do with bad coaching and or not being "coachable". The guys with sloppy technique would be sloppy even if they didn't compete. While they may be "sloppy", they are better fighters than if they wouldn't have the sparring/competition under their belts.

qft;

if u look at GOOD motor learning research, it's pretty straight forward: the "best" method of acquiring skill involves a short initial period of training where things are broken down and practiced in a simplified, rote manner, but that very quickly gets changed into a relatively random-style of practice; that's because random practice forces you to "relearn" at every given moment; in ML research it's called a higher level of "contextual interference" (CI); the trick is getting just the right amount, not too hard, not too easy...rehab medicine is the same way; which is why the field has spent so much time studying ML; the key is that random training w/higher CI increases the degree of both retention and of transfer (being able to take an existing skill and apply it under a novel circumstance; which is where things get real interesting and where the whole TMA vs. MM argument really arises out of - IOW, what approach wil enable one to function best in "the street" - LOL, we have the same arguments in the world of PT guys, it's nothing new!;

the thing about learning is that if u have too much success at any stage in the game, you are actually degrading your overall degree of skill building! the problem w/most MA training is that it feeds this need for success; so you do your one steps 10,000 times - be honest, after the first 100, you've pretty much got that down; but you get feed some mumbo about "it's never perfect" - well, true, but what is? problem is that it's an artifact; as is most sparring too - at the same time, the "real world" is not the most convenient to train in either; so you go for as close as an approximation as u can, because this is what gives u the best chance of being able to "transfer" the skill; meaning that it is better to go all out but not use certain specific techniques (eye gouges, throat rips, etc.) than it is to practice specific techniques out of context (eye gouges w/compliant opponents); IOW, the CI effect in TMA is usually way lower than in more "live" environments; sorry TMA guys, that's what the research shows (and u can argue that "research" doesn't show what's what, but my next question would be is, how much do u really know about the research method? poo-pooing research w/out knowing what it's really all about would be like denegrating ITCMA w/out having actually studied it, right?)

if u look at any "great" fighter, artist, musician, etc., they will spend more time talking about their failures and frustrations (if they are being honest, that is) then they do about their relative success...that's because they r always training at the edge of their ability, they rarely live in a comfort zone...

[Knifefighter]

qft;

if u look at GOOD motor learning research, it's pretty straight forward: the "best" method of acquiring skill involves a short initial period of training where things are broken down and practiced in a simplified, rote manner, but that very quickly gets changed into a relatively random-style of practice; that's because random practice forces you to "relearn" at every given moment; in ML research it's called a higher level of "contextual interference" (CI); the trick is getting just the right amount, not too hard, not too easy...rehab medicine is the same way; which is why the field has spent so much time studying ML; the key is that random training w/higher CI increases the degree of both retention and of transfer (being able to take an existing skill and apply it under a novel circumstance; which is where things get real interesting and where the whole TMA vs. MM argument really arises out of - IOW, what approach wil enable one to function best in "the street" - LOL, we have the same arguments in the world of PT guys, it's nothing new!;

the thing about learning is that if u have too much success at any stage in the game, you are actually degrading your overall degree of skill building! the problem w/most MA training is that it feeds this need for success; so you do your one steps 10,000 times - be honest, after the first 100, you've pretty much got that down; but you get feed some mumbo about "it's never perfect" - well, true, but what is? problem is that it's an artifact; as is most sparring too - at the same time, the "real world" is not the most convenient to train in either; so you go for as close as an approximation as u can, because this is what gives u the best chance of being able to "transfer" the skill; meaning that it is better to go all out but not use certain specific techniques (eye gouges, throat rips, etc.) than it is to practice specific techniques out of context (eye gouges w/compliant opponents); IOW, the CI effect in TMA is usually way lower than in more "live" environments; sorry TMA guys, that's what the research shows (and u can argue that "research" doesn't show what's what, but my next question would be is, how much do u really know about the research method? poo-pooing research w/out knowing what it's really all about would be like denegrating ITCMA w/out having actually studied it, right?)

if u look at any "great" fighter, artist, musician, etc., they will spend more time talking about their failures and frustrations (if they are being honest, that is) then they do about their relative success...that's because they r always training at the edge of their ability, they rarely live in a comfort zone...

Hey! Quit talking evidence and scientific fact.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Taai has stated the correct.
If we take any physical endevour we see that pattern he states yields the best results.