Confidence in your art

[sensei8]

Predictibility in the martial arts? Well, as a saying goes..."It's not over until the fat lady sings"!! The only certain thing about the martial arts is the spelling of martial arts.

[JiuJitsuNation]

The problem I have with strikes is simple. No matter what the target is, the outcome is rather unpredictable. As a science geek, I love predictability. That's why I love grappling so much. It doesn't matter if they guy has a tough chin, high pain tolerance, is really strong ect... when I choke him...he sleeps. When I heel hook, their knee and/or ankle give out. When i take away their base, they fall over.

Just for the sake of presenting the obvious flip side (after which we're back to the old arguments and intangibles and the discussion won't go anywhere new in a hurry)...

Fighting's too complex for certainties. You might well know that from a certain position you have it in the bag and can predict and control the fight. Sounds like in your experience people have let you attain that controlling position and you've come to take it for granted. It's like saying "I can always win at chess (but before we play the opponent has to move their king four rows forwards of normal). Even if say a striker had only a 70% chance of ending the fight with _their_ favoured technique, if they can get a 70% chance of striking you with it as you come in for your show-stopper, then the odds are almost exactly back to 50/50. Having a 100% winning technique that you've got to get past a 70%/70% to apply doesn't mean you're not gambling... that's a fallacy of perception. Everybody gambles in a fight. You just have to shore up the odds at each stage of engagement to make it diminishingly unlikely that a whole chain of things can go wrong and culminate in a fight-stopping technique being used effectively against you. The individual gambles can have a multiplicative effect just as the more small bets you make in a casino, the surer you are to loose. The weight of small-risk, small-commitment, uncertain outcome attacks can overwhelm an all-in commitment-required coffin-filler (though you obviously want to seize on bigger mistakes with more commitment). And that goes on both sides... grappling and striking. Don't get too smug or you'll loose touch with the very real dangers of other styles.

Moreover, with large amounts of training on the mat, you can predict the outcome of even small movements. A black belt in BJJ has an average of 2000 hours of training. The average Black Belt in other arts has about 500. 4 times the training will equal 4 times the ability to predict.

A logical fallacy. If people train 4 times more hours _they can be expected to be better fighters_, all other things being equal. It proves absolutely nothing about which style or school is better if the students have put in the same amount of hours (in this case, it just reflects on what a black belt means to each school). And even that's too simplistic because some styles focus on ambitious long-term results (e.g. tai chi), where others focus on short-term results (e.g. a lot of kickboxing schools), so you can't work out which school or style is better by just drawing a line and saying "we'll compare after 500 hours", nor "2000 hours", nor "black belt", unless you actively define that as the end-goal of the students training: "I want to be as good as possible after 500 hours (but don't care if I've a solid foundation to keep getting better quickly after that)". Not much point.

Sadly, nothing's easy to measure, and it all goes round in little circles... (at least for Wally Jay) :-/.

I'm pretty sure what ps1 was saying is that you are certain to go to sleep there is no theory to the techniques. I look at jiu jitsu much like I do the any animal expert that catches and works with them hands on in the wild. While there is risk involved you can greatly reduce that risk by understanding body mechanics, body type, and what you are most likely to run into. Even in competition where jiu jitsu is forever evolving you can still predict a response the vast majority of the time. In self defense this is still true. I always hear talk of so many variables and on and on. Truth is human beings are extremely predictable. We are creatures of habit who have a real disdain for change, as with most living things. Everyones reality is different. Some people are weak and passive. Some are strong athletic and aggressive. Take either one and train them up and they will both be better for it but the playing field will NEVER be level. I truly believe ones ability and perception are the root of disagreement in discussions.

[ps1]

Fighting's too complex for certainties.

Wrong. There are many certainties in an altercation. For example: When defending, you MUST always create space between you and your opponent/opponent's weapon. When attacking, you MUST always eliminate space between you and your opponent.

Fighting is no more complex than the human body and the levers that govern its movement. Quite complex, but totally predictable.

You might well know that from a certain position you have it in the bag and can predict and control the fight. Sounds like in your experience people have let you attain that controlling position and you've come to take it for granted.

Certainly I feel like when I get into certain positions I know i have the fight won. But what's most important is learning how to get to those positions from everywhere else. That's what training is about. I let people start standing, mounted on me, clinched with me, in cross body on me and so on. My goal is always to learn to get to a position where I can win. Sometimes I am successful, others I am not. That's how we train. However, in the course of this training, you start to become good at other positions too. Eventually, you're comfortable (or at least confident) in nearly every position. Nobody "lets" me get anywhere. I learn to find the paths that lead me to salvation.

It's like saying "I can always win at chess."

It's funny you say this because in BJJ we view fighting as a chess match. There are no prerequisites however.

Even if say a striker had only a 70% chance of ending the fight with _their_ favoured technique, if they can get a 70% chance of striking you with it as you come in for your show-stopper, then the odds are almost exactly back to 50/50. Having a 100% winning technique that you've got to get past a 70%/70% to apply doesn't mean you're not gambling... that's a fallacy of perception.

The fallacy of perception is to assume that because I do not feel striking is predictable means that I feel striking is useless. As a person with a 2nd degree black belt in Shotokan, 3rd degree in chuan fa, and training in boxing and kickboxing and traditional weaponry, I feel it's certainly useful. I simply don't want to depend on a strike that may or may not render my opponent unconscious when i can depend on a choke that certainly will.

Everybody gambles in a fight.

TRUE!

You just have to shore up the odds at each stage of engagement to make it diminishingly unlikely that a whole chain of things can go wrong and culminate in a fight-stopping technique being used effectively against you.

Also true...and a great point that even Renzo Gracie makes in his book, Mastering Jujitsu.

Don't get too smug or you'll loose touch with the very real dangers of other styles.

Kinda harsh. Clearly I offended you with my post. That was not my point. It's important, however, not to confuse confidence with smugness. I have trained martial arts for 25 years now. Only the past 7 have been in BJJ. However, in those 7 years, I feel I've learned more about combat and fighting than ever in the past. That's my experience, and I am very proud of it and have a great amount of confidence in it. Again, I apologize if that confidence comes off as smug, but do not apologize for the confidence its self.

Moreover, with large amounts of training on the mat, you can predict the outcome of even small movements. A black belt in BJJ has an average of 2000 hours of training. The average Black Belt in other arts has about 500. 4 times the training will equal 4 times the ability to predict.

A logical fallacy. If people train 4 times more hours _they can be expected to be better fighters_, all other things being equal. It proves absolutely nothing about which style or school is better if the students have put in the same amount of hours (in this case, it just reflects on what a black belt means to each school).

You're right here. It wasn't a fair comparison. I guess i was trying to point out how time on the mat leads to a great ability to predict the way an opponent will react.

And even that's too simplistic because some styles focus on ambitious long-term results (e.g. tai chi), where others focus on short-term results (e.g. a lot of kickboxing schools), so you can't work out which school or style is better by just drawing a line and saying "we'll compare after 500 hours", nor "2000 hours", nor "black belt", unless you actively define that as the end-goal of the students training: "I want to be as good as possible after 500 hours (but don't care if I've a solid foundation to keep getting better quickly after that)". Not much point.

I understand your point, and do not totally disagree. I do believe that many arts, BJJ included, require long term training to become good at it. I also see this as a good thing. In those arts, it is not uncommon to see people training well into their 70s, 80s, and if they live long enough, 90s.

It's clear to me, however, that you don't have a clear understanding of what BJJ is about. I don't mean that as a derogatory remark. Simply that you have likely met the wrong people in the art (assuming you've met any). Here is a vid of Master Pedro Sauer speaking after awarding someone a brown belt. Perhaps it will enlighten you. He is certainly more capable and qualified to explain the beauty of the art. He's done it for over 40 years under Helio and Rickson Gracie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkYFoCAwn8s&feature=related

Enjoy the link and sorry again if I came off as offensive.

[bushido_man96]

Moreover, with large amounts of training on the mat, you can predict the outcome of even small movements. A black belt in BJJ has an average of 2000 hours of training. The average Black Belt in other arts has about 500. 4 times the training will equal 4 times the ability to predict.

A logical fallacy. If people train 4 times more hours _they can be expected to be better fighters_, all other things being equal. It proves absolutely nothing about which style or school is better if the students have put in the same amount of hours (in this case, it just reflects on what a black belt means to each school).

One also has to consider what one is being exposed to in those four hours of training. Four hours of TKD and four hours of BJJ are learning four hours of very different things. Likely in TKD kicking combinations, counters, paddle/clapper pad drills, etc, are the norm (along with basics and forms, if thats your bag) and hopefully sparring. Four hours of BJJ are going to be very different, with likely lots of rolling and learning transitions to techniques, etc. Different exposures, to be sure.

[bushido_man96]

"I want to be as good as possible after 500 hours (but don't care if I've a solid foundation to keep getting better quickly after that)".

I don't understand this really. One could still have a good foundation after that time, and still get better after that.

My school has a problem. That problem is, to be honest, too much basics/forms. Good foundation is stressed a lot, so we nail basics and forms before anything else in class. The result of this is the fact that my sparring pretty much sucks in my eyes. After a while, basics need to be weeded out some (not completely), and things like two man reactionary drills need to take form so that applications can begin.