Sorry, but you basically support my point and then conclude that only the progressive or fight training is needed. One of the most important points to remember about learning is the yerkes-dodson law applied to learning. YDL says that optimal performance occurs at moderate levels of arousal. Similarly, moderate arousal best facilitates learning. Solid traditional training provides this. Hard sparring is a high arousal situation and is not an appropriate time to learn large amounts of new material.
Last edited by HumbleWCGuy; 02-02-2010 at 12:43 PM.
This is (of course) a gross overgeneralisation. If you think all "progressive" schools are like this, you need to go to a few more.In progressive arts people enter into the practitioner phase too early. That's is too much heavy sparring and competition before developing a full skill set which leads to relying on very basic and limited skills just to survive.
The most progressive MAist and MA instructor I've met, John Will, does not advocate hard sparring straight away (or even that often). There is a progression to be followed in sparring along with everything else. He does a lot of moderate speed rolling and sparring with varying degrees of cooperation. There is full on rolling and sparring, which is essential to some degree for physical and mental conditioning, but this would probably max out at a couple of rounds a night. Black belts smashing white belts round after round doesn't help either group progress.
John's also a "technician", as you describe it, from hell. As KF said, BJJ is WAY more complex than WC. Technique is almost all. You don't have decent technique, you aren't going to become good at BJJ or enjoy it much.
No one can go balls to the wall all the time anyway. Too many injuries. Also a "hard, tough" culture gets counterproductive, because no one is prepared to experiment because the consequences of mistakes are too high. So the improvement rate is slower.
Another coach I respect won't let his guys train MMA until they've done a minimum six months each of kickboxing, wrestling, and BJJ classes. My coach doesn't do that, but he does expect six months of technique before he allows anyone in the ring even at training.
Your labels and categories don't really match reality. I've met many "technicians" in "progressive" schools (at 55, I've had to become one myself), and LOTS of "progressives" in TMA's.
Last edited by anerlich; 02-02-2010 at 03:10 PM.
"Once you reject experience, and begin looking for the mysterious, then you are caught!" - Krishnamurti
"We are all one" - Genki Sudo
"We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion" - Tool, Parabol/Parabola
"Bro, you f***ed up a long time ago" - Kurt Osiander
WC Academy BJJ/MMA Academy Surviving Violent Crime TCM Info
Don't like my posts? Challenge me!
Truth. I had a girl who was a relative beginner jack me in the mouth with her foot from the bottom because she was flailing all over the place instead of controlling and using position to gain the advantage during a roll at the local MMA gym.
So I can definitly attest to that.
To the original post however, I think a more succinct way of putting things is that those who have spent an appropriate amount of time learning / drilling their techniques will have an easier time transitioning to the application part of things against resistant opponents. Why? Because they will not have to concentrate as hard on the literal movement and focus more on things like the strategy, tactics, timing, and conditioning of fighting.
"I don't know if anyone is known with the art of "sitting on your couch" here, but in my eyes it is also to be a martial art.
It is the art of avoiding dangerous situations. It helps you to avoid a dangerous situation by not actually being there. So lets say there is a dangerous situation going on somewhere other than your couch. You are safely seated on your couch so you have in a nutshell "difused" the situation."
I don't know what your point was in the first place, i wasn't trying to either support it or refute it; I was simply posting in a general sense;
I don't "conclude" anything; I presented what the research in the field of ML has indicated in regards to optimal motor skill acquisition; if we examine the research, it would seem that, in general, skill acquisition in TMA's do not coincide with the findings, since many TMA's devote disproportionate time to relatively abstract practice of technique (form) out of context of application (fighting);
your counter-argument does not address my point; I said nothing about arousal level, nor even about sparring per se; I was talking about things in a general principle sense; and what I presented in no way advocates "learning large amounts of new material" in a "high arousal" situation; you either misread my post or are deliberately attempting t mischaracterize it; so here's what I said, in a nutshell: at the very beginning of motor skill acquisition, breaking things down and repeating them in a controlled situation is preferable; however, one should then start to introduce randomness into practice at a relatively early stage, increasing the level of contextual interference to a point where the task is not too hard, but not too easy (how one determines this, the criteria for this happy medium, is a subject for further discussion, of course, and tends to be highly skill and context specific); the goal is to make the practice context as close to ultimate performance context as much as possible, as quickly as possible; however, within this context, there are other parameters that can be adjusted so as not to overwhelm the student (e.g. - intensity / duration of practice, knowledge of results and feedback ratios, etc.);
Generalization... Of course... "Overgeneralized" only in that all generalizations are overgeneralizations. I am not going to spend an hour typing out qualifications because people can't get their mind around the short version. What makes you think that all traditional schools are a certain way either? Anyone with any sense knows that there are schools at the extreme and a gamut of schools on the continuum between those extremes.
Last edited by HumbleWCGuy; 02-02-2010 at 04:32 PM.
It would be difficult to find such evidence because boxing versus kickboxing isn't done. Boxing in a kickboxing match is bringing a gun to a knife fight. Full rules MT fighter easily capitalize on the mistakes made in boxing. Basic boxing defenses turn into dangerous mistakes in full rules MT. If you trained in MT, I should not have to explain it to you. You should already know this.
Actually, if you had trained the way you have claimed, you wouldn't be making such stupid generalizations.
BTW, sparring when done regularly is not a high arousal state after a relatively short amount of time. It quickly becomes the norm. You would know this if you had the background you claim.
Dude, you can't fight at all so you really need to just stop. You are almost always wrong. Your techniques is sloppy and in in mma you are easily defeated by blue belt BJJ players with decent striking. If you see boxers beating kickboxers then you are kickboxing with the worst kickboxers on the planet.
Really now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLDJ6GeRRh4
http://www.fighttips.com/videos/othe...-200812111465/
Thanks for proving your stupidity once again.
Absolutely not! I am saying that boxing is a subset of MT. In FULL RULES MT, much of boxing is irrelevant. A person trained in boxing who just has a leg check will get destroyed in a full rules MT match. Conventional boxing in a full rules MT setting amounts to a lot of mistakes from a MT stand point.