Originally Posted by
taai gihk yahn
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...