What's the purpose of training?

**Black 6** · Posted On: 8/06/2011 1:45am

I've been away from the forums for a LONG time, and I figured that I should return, especially since I've gotten back into training, and it's always good to share ideas. This is more of a post on something that I'd like others' perspective on.

Standing around thinking to myself about some idea on martial arts, I've came up with the hypothesis that the goal of training is to be able to consistently mitigate and/or reproduce the effects of luck in a confrontation. Those two terms seem contradictory, but let me explain, since it's really a matter of perspective.

Put two untrained individuals in a fight and let them slug it out. Most likely, you will see wild swings, some weak kicks, probably some biting, and most likely it will end with one person too tired/hurt to continue, or a luck hit that ends the fight. Targeting will probably be terrible: punches that hit the chest, hooking punches that go to far and make the forearm hit, etc. In this case, the luck is your opponent not being able to continue or you landing the strike that ends the fight.

Let's focus on the strike. Wild swings can be very ineffective. Punch someone in the pectoral and you're not going to get much of a reaction out of them, unless you know koshijutsu and understand where to hit (this is one of my favorite ways of screwing with my friends). Similar for strikes to the skull, especially if you hit with the wrong part of your hand. However, a properly aligned strike to a proper part of the jaw can cause a knockout, and one to the nose can incapicitate.

So you take the wild swinger and train them in some form of punching, like boxing. By teaching them how to strike and where to hit, you increase their chances of reproducing that hit that will damage their opponent. They train to the point where they can reproduce the technique on command. Now, as MMA has shown us, there's no guarantee to the hit knocking the person out every time. However, if when the person started, it was a 1 in 50 chance, training has reduced that to maybe a 1 in 5 chance. So, that's the reproduction of luck.

From a defender standpoint, you are attempting to mitigate their luck. If someone is punching you, you are attempting to lower their chance of hurting you.

However, this is really just a reproduction of luck all over again. Assume the attacker has some level of skill, and throws a punch. If our untrained defender happens to get out of the way, that was luck. If the attacker knows what they are doing, the defender will eventually be beaten up, yet somewhere in there, the defender will be lucky enough to avoid some punches, and maybe get a lucky, fight-ending punch in there.

Training is to reproduce this. Instead of getting hit 50 times in a fight, training to reproduce a valid defense may reduce this to 5, with the hopes of it being zero (although that may just be another level of luck). In fact, good training should give the defender the ability to have some control over the fight such that they do not find themselves in range of so many punches to begin with.

**cualltaigh** · Posted On: 8/06/2011 10:02am

As a chartered accountant I'm loathe to express it in purely numeral terms. However, you need to account for the defensive capability of the defender at zero stress, then reduce this as stress continues, as well as the attacker. both defensive and offensive capabilities have a strong correlation to cardiovascular fitness and this is a primary focus of training.

**Black 6** · Posted On: 8/06/2011 10:48am

Cualltaigh,

I guess I should be a bit more specific, and it's going to get into a semantics issue on terms, but this is not to define the terms, but simply to border the discussion. For "training" in my statement, I'm talking about the learning of techniques in an art, as opposed to training such as cardio and weight training. This is also separate from "practice" in that we'll say that practice is the learning of the execution of the techniques, and is something done during training.

I see where you are coming from on two points. First that training increases the ability of the individual to remain in the fight. We could even say that part of this is due to an increased efficiency in fighting ability. Jujitsu can be painfully tiring if you have bad technique. Not to say that it won't be tiring if you're good, you'll just do a lot more jujitsu in the same span of time.

The other thing you mentioned is stress. So training could lessen the effect of stress on the individual, or reduce the stress caused on the individual during a confrontation. So, now we have an increased clarity within the fight.

Also, the numbers were just there for the point of example, and should in no way reflect actual results or expectations. I more started this discussion to get other opinions and points of view. One comment in, and it's turning out nicely.

I don't want to limit the idea of "training" to a dojo or formalized setting. I think it's quite rare that someone on their first fight (maybe this is the thought that I should have used) comes out with a solid ability for to throw a jab-cross combination. However, an individual with street fighting capability would develop a certain skillset over time.

**cualltaigh** · Posted On: 8/06/2011 11:44am

Originally Posted by Black 6

Cualltaigh,

I see where you are coming from on two points. First that training increases the ability of the individual to remain in the fight. We could even say that part of this is due to an increased efficiency in fighting ability. Jujitsu can be painfully tiring if you have bad technique. Not to say that it won't be tiring if you're good, you'll just do a lot more jujitsu in The firstthe same span of time.

Perhaps I can articulate what I mean by stress with an example. The first time my brother's in-law took me surfing it was at the Moruya breakwall in 15 ft swell. my introduction to surfing was launching myself off oyster covered rocks in-between monstrous sets of waves, which didn't seem as bad at the time. however, being a land mammal, once I actually "caught" a wave, I preceded to spend then next 40-60 sec being dragged by my leg rope underwater, followed by a half second breath, to be followed by 40-60 seconds of being dragged underwater by my leg rope. this continued until I was back at the beach.

The point being, if I sat on the bottom of a pool with a weight to "train" such a scenario, I might've lasted 30 sec, but put in a situation where I had not option but to hold my breathe and survive I could double that, under stress. but stress works the other way too. It's a different prospect to someone literally trying to tear you're head off with a punch in a bar and learning a defense against someone throwing a singular haymaker. intent is a killer.

So my point was not about lasting the fight longer, it's more about being able to apply the techniques we've learnt when "**** hits the fan". It's easy to apply a standing shoulder lock against a willing training partner, but when a bikie break a pool cue against the pool table and start swinging at your head, it's a different matter.

having said that I still believe that the techniques I've learnt are effective (including many of the techniques championed by prof. W. J) but I believe you need to understand/train them in a conflict situation for them to work/be effective.

**cualltaigh** · Posted On: 8/06/2011 11:57am

Originally Posted by Black 6

Cualltaigh,

I guess I should be a bit more specific, and it's going to get into a semantics issue on terms, but this is not to define the terms, but simply to border the discussion. For "training" in my statement, I'm talking about the learning of techniques in an art, as opposed to training such as cardio and weight training. This is also separate from "practice" in that we'll say that practice is the learning of the execution of the techniques, and is something done during training.

I disagree, it's not about semantics, all three matter, training technique, cardio and strength all matter. I admit we spend a lot of time training technique, but we do it when we are very fatigued (like after an hour of cardio), to get an understanding of stress.

**Ke?poFist** · Posted On: 8/06/2011 12:31pm

To learn how to kill people

**Eddie Hardon** · Posted On: 8/06/2011 12:36pm

Originally Posted by Ke?poFist

To learn how to kill people

Or to stop them from killing you. Especially if it is clear that you are capable of inflicting a heavy price on them...

**Rzero** · Posted On: 8/06/2011 1:53pm

To harden the **** up.

**Coach Josh** · Posted On: 8/06/2011 3:07pm

Increasing the frequency of luck is quite possibly the most retarded thing I have ever heard when it comes to training. Years of breaking down technique and repetition does not come down to luck. 2+2=4 oh I got it right I was lucky, this time.

Training is done to increase the frequency of correctness not luck. Its not luck that the brain sits in a fluid in the skull, its not luck that joints can't bend in certain directions, its not luck that force is equal to mass times acceleration. It's a science a set of stead fast facts that can be replicated over and over.

Out of humility most guys say that they got "lucky" when they perform a technique. No one counts the 1000's of repetitions that was performed to get it right.

Train to improve yourself and get better physically and mentally. Train to improve the people around you. Train to improve your life.

I have one question for the OP. What causes a knockout from a punch?

**Black 6** · Posted On: 8/06/2011 4:30pm

Josh,

If you want, you can change luck to "increase the frequency of an outcome that was initially unintended because of lack of knowledge of technique." Why belittle the entire idea because you focus on one singe word, even though it may not be the best word in your opinion.

Knockout from a punch is caused by movement of the brain into the cranial wall. It's basically a type of concussion. However, such an outcome is not guaranteed in the hit. Boxing and UFC have shown this (maybe more so with UFC, since the gloves aren't as padded). We've probably seen a punch land that has crumpled one guy, and yet that same punch, on another guy had less or no effect. But that punch is still a skilled punch.

However in a fight, the outcome isn't only up to the individual delivering the technique, but the recipient, also. Larger head means more cranial fluid, which means harder to concuss. These guys have taken hits to the head (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/7...in-mma-history). Why no knockout? Are their opponents unskilled? Or is it that even with a perfectly landed punch, you have to be luck enough to have someone that's susceptible to the strike. Although "luck" in drawing an opponent is different from

So training aims to increase the ability to throw that particular punch, accurately and powerfully, regardless of the recipient's reaction to it. That is, if I hit every individual with that punch they will not all go down. The trick is that training makes that punch reproducible at will. That is, rather than throwing a number of wild punches and happening to throw that punch, I now just throw that punch. I now have a higher chance of producing that concussion.

So after years of training, no, it's not a lucky shot. However, my statement brought up the person that did not have years of training. In the end, we're all trying to mimic the first guy that figured out that if you punch another guy in a certain spot, he stops moving.