Scenario Specificity
Submitted by MostlyGenius on Wed, 04/09/2008 - 15:29
If you read enough of the books, forums, and websites you will find that different definitions of a scenario is a common problem. The reason this becomes a problem is that people will find and latch on to some small theoretical detail and use that as the solution to the scenario. In the software field this would be called a 'hack.'
For training purposes I am not really interested in a solution that only solves a corner-case. I am interested in broad, robust solutions. Simple procedures that solve a broad range of problems have a much better chance of being useful that a some gimmick that is particular to a single instance. The single instance that one has a connection to, tends to loom large in our thinking. It is an individual example of fighting the last war.
If we survived because of some clever trick then the tendency is to want to make that doctrine. This is the do "what works" mindset. Because something worked once I would want to do a bit of thinking about it before I decided that was going to be my response to similar situations in the future.
MMA shows us the power of taking opponents to the ground, and finishing them there. It is certainly effective as long as you can guarantee that there is only one assailant. As soon as there are multiple attackers tying up with one is going to give the other attackers a golden opportunity to get involved with very little risk to them.
Similarly we can find shooting techniques that might be the perfect answer to some very specific question. The speed rock is about as fast as you can draw and shoot a stationary, contact distance target. The problem with it is that contact distance targets are probably doing something to be a threat and the speed rock will probably end up with the shooter on his back because it is not designed to handle impact.
I don't really need a technique for a scenario, but rather a technique that covers a range of situations. I can accept a technique that has lower performance but broader applicability.
Recommended Blog:
Life In The Great Midwest
Submitted by MostlyGenius on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 08:32
This blog covers a lot of topics: politics, cooking, sports, gun rights, world affairs, you name it.
Link
Comments
If we survived because of some clever trick then the tendency is to want to make that doctrine.
Sometimes, if one is successful due to pure coincidence or luck, this is sometimes attributed that to some pet technique that has nothing at all to do with why someone is still alive. I have witnessed these ergo propter hoc lines of reasoning quite a bit. And it has indeed led to some truly misguided, counterproductive and dangerous changes in doctrine.
MMA shows us the power of taking opponents to the ground, and finishing them there. It is certainly effective as long as you can guarantee that there is only one assailant.
Not quite. What MMA shows us is that you have to be well rounded and train in a dynamic fashion. Specialization is for insects, as Heinlein said, and static training alone is useless in the chaos of a real encounter.
Nobody except the BJJ fanboys would advocate going to the ground as their primary plan in a real combat or SD situation.
So many of the lessons of MMA are really just reinventing the wheel, but that is a topic for another post.
I don't really need a technique for a scenario, but rather a technique that covers a range of situations.
In other words, you need fighting principles, rather than just a jumbled collection of techniques. Which is exactly what Kano did with jujutsu to get Judo.
WT
I have often argued that Judo doesn't have 'techniques' it has illustrations of principle. A technique implies a stimulus-response kind of relationship. However in order to teach timing, power development, and balance you need a something to hang all of that on top of.
The natural progression of set techniques and particular applications will produce something like Renraku-waza, which is pretty good in a Judo on Judo fight, but I don't really need an Uchi-mata counter on the street. This is a case of perfect techniques for specific scenarios.
I would debate the 'well rounded' MMA argument. The trend seems to be guys that are experts in a small range of techniques with enough of a basis in other skills to bring their expertise to play. The strikers might have some ground skills, but these are generally just good enough to escape and get a position to return to striking.