Is experience really essential?

[Spartacus Maximus]

A common theme in discussions about martial arts is that to be considered "effective" and "legitimate", a person must have experience in the ring or in a actual situations.

Martial artist who have neither or are unable to prove it are instantly dismissed, or labeled as "fake".

Does a lack of experience using martial arts in live situations or full-contact type bouts really disqualify someone from being a knowledgeable and skilled martial artist? How about as an instructor?

A ring fighting record is as easy to verify as it is to hoax. "Real world" experience is impossible to verify with any accuracy because such instances rarely have an audience or witnesses.

[singularity6]

This is an interesting question.

I wouldn't dismiss a martial artist who's never used their craft on the street, or in a ring as "fake." On some level, "art" is the key part of "martial art." I would venture to say that studying any martial art for a couple years would give you a significant advantage over the average person on the street. You may not come out of the scuffle unscathed, but that's never been the goal, as far as I could tell. I'd love to teach martial arts once I've ranked up some. Hopefully I'll never need to use it, and hopefully my students won't hold that against me.

On the flip side, real experience certainly does add some credibility. The master instructor of my school was a sheriff deputy, and eventually a detective before he retired from law enforcement. He's had to use his training many times over (mostly hand-to-hand - sometimes multiple opponents, and on 3 occasions, he had to deal with knives.) His stories certainly sell the product!

The upshot: No, I don't feel that an instructor needs to offer "proof by trial" in order to be deemed legit. Sharing those experiences, if you've lived them, could certainly help your credibility, though.

[Tempest]

Errmkay,

This is a tricky one, because there are always different viewpoints, but I want you to think about something for a moment.

Most legitimate black-belts spend at least as much time, effort, and energy getting that belt as it takes to get a college degree.

Now, if someone has a degree in say, nursing, but they have never worked in nursing or treated a patient before, then are they a nurse? Should I listen to them about matters of health and ongoing care or should I seek the opinion of someone with more experience?

Training is good. Quality training is excellent. But there is no substitute for experience when the consequences are real.

[DWx]

Errmkay,

This is a tricky one, because there are always different viewpoints, but I want you to think about something for a moment.

Most legitimate black-belts spend at least as much time, effort, and energy getting that belt as it takes to get a college degree.

Now, if someone has a degree in say, nursing, but they have never worked in nursing or treated a patient before, then are they a nurse? Should I listen to them about matters of health and ongoing care or should I seek the opinion of someone with more experience?

Training is good. Quality training is excellent. But there is no substitute for experience when the consequences are real.

That's all well and good but what happens if someone hasn't ever had the misfortune to have been attacked or find themselves in that type of situation? Should they actively go out and seek fights to prove themselves? Whilst experience is good, I would also have a problem training under someone who is "testing" their skills on the street on a regular basis. Either they are putting themselves in stupid situations they shouldn't be in or they are going out to start fights. I wouldn't be happy training under someone like that.

[JR 137]

As Tempest said, it is a tricky subject. DWx illustrates the exact counter argument I had in mind.

Here's one for you...

I'm a CPR instructor. I've been fortunate enough to have never needed to perform CPR. I initially learned it from someone who did (he was a retired firefighter). I've co-taught it with many people who did, and picked up a lot of tips from them. Some of the people I've taught CPR to have used it.

Does not having performed CPR mean I shouldn't teach it, nor am I not an expert in it? Does teaching people who've used it give me credibility? I know it's not the same thing, but it's relevant in a way.

I've never asked my teacher if he's ever been in a "real fight." I see what he's teaching. It makes sense to me, and I feel he's great at conveying it.

Michael Jordan is by all credible accounts the best basketball player ever. His coaching career was quite short. The only hall of famer as a player and coach I know of is Dan Gable (HOF collegiate wrestler and HOF collegiate wrestling coach). How many fights did Cus D'Amato win? Angelo Dundee?

[Spartacus Maximus]

This issue is obviously more complicated than it appears at first glance. None of my instructors ever set foot in a ring or engaged in "free sparring". Only two of them had the misfortune of having had to use if "for real". This happened decades ago in different times and in places where violence was quite common. Okinawa is the late 50's to mid 60's was not a nice place.

Those who had the experience see it as a trauma. The one thing they all have in common is their constant reminders for students to avoid all types of fighting and never give in to provocations.

[Alan Armstrong]

The word "Intent" needs to be used more often in martial arts.

Learning martial arts with the intent for self defence.

... intent for sport... intent for combat...intent for fitness...intent for art and recreation...

If the CI is teaching MA for sport, then having live combat experience isn't necessary.

But if a CI is teaching live combat and only has a sports background then the students will suffer the consequences.

I've learned knife attacking and defence techniques, from a historical and reference perspective, not for live military use but just for the understanding of what it feels like, but to not actually do it for real.

The CI explained that, even though what he was teaching is reality based, it isn't even close to the real thing, as those that do use knives for real in the military, are far more skilled than himself.

It is too easy to sell virtual for reality or sports fighting for street self defense, when they might look similar, better to know their limitations beforehand; something your CI should explain the difference to you, otherwise it will be a learning experience the hard way.

Be clear to teach what you know and know what you teach, without misrepresentation.

[sensei8]

Great topic, great responses all; thanks for starting the topic, Spartacus Maximus!!

I'm always spouting out...Knowledge and experience; these are the paramount things of importance to any level of MAist. Knowledge and experience are different as well as tangible, if, diligently sought after.

If I know something, whether it be acquired formally or informally, it's of value to me, and if I'm capable of sharing it, and then teach it to someone who deems what I've to offer valuable to that person, then both my knowledge and experience of the subject at hand, can be achieved as well as acquired in time.

My knowledge AND my experience are the two-edged sword of the CI. I've, at times, both the knowledge and experience of Shindokan; Shindokan is the core working model that I tap into across the board.

My experience of Shindokan is that I've the knowledge to expel its effectiveness. My knowledge of Shindokan is that I've the experience to expel its effectiveness.

Repetitious drilling aren't the empty vessels found within the Dojo!! Hardly!! These never ending drills are the building blocks of the MAist that's being built by that students CI, one brick at a time, over time.

Experience at what?? The cruelty of that question is...their opinion(s) means nothing to me.

Who gave/gives them the right to pass judgment on me??

Because they're the potential student of mine?? NO!! That's not enough...nothing will ever be enough. That potential student sought me out; I didn't seek that potential student.

If someone else believes that I've the knowledge and experience, then I'm blessed. But on the same note, I'm still blessed if someone else believes that I've not the knowledge and experience. Both to me, are the same thing!! And life is way to short for me to worry about receiving their blessing's!!

I've earned every tiny bit of scrape of tangibility that I've ever earned!!

If I can teach it, then by golly, I can use it; it's not a far gone illusion. I can back up what I can teach!! Proof is on the floor, and that floor isn't always found in a school of the MA.

Knowledge and/or experience are a beautiful thing. However, they both can be quite a dangerous thing; be careful how you use either!!

Imho!!

[bushido_man96]

Experience is important for an instructor. However, it doesn't have to be fight experience. As long as an instructor can vet what they are passing along, then teach it with confidence.

This is the path I take. I've not been in a ton of fights, but I feel that I can teach someone to defend themselves if need be, because of the concepts, strategies, tactics I teach with are sound and proven.

This is how I approach DT training classes. I trust the people who put it together, and I trust my ability to pass it along.

[MatsuShinshii]

I would say that experience is important for any instructor. If you do not know how you will react in a real situation how do you teach others what they will face? From what do you draw from?

Having said that knowledge can not be down played and is equally important and honestly I think it pretty much goes hand in hand with experience.

Does an instructor need ring time to instruct? I would say no. If they have never stood toe to toe with an adversary and fought for their life does that mean they can not instruct. I would say no again.

That is not to say that all instructors should go out and get into a fight but it definitely adds credence as to first hand knowledge when instructing others.

I have known very good instructors of the art that have never lifted a hand in anger and they produce very good MA'ists. I guess it depends on the perspective of the student and what they are looking for. Some students see this as a benefit and others don't care.

I would say experience (Ring or Streets) lends a bit more legitimacy if you are teaching someone to defend themselves on the street or in the ring. Nothing trumps actual experience. You can't read it in a book or watch a video and understand what it's like or how you will react and what you will face, both physically and emotionally, unless you've been there.

In my opinion this would be akin to being a shooting instructor having never live fired a gun. Dry shooting has it's purpose but it doesn't actually teach you how to hit the target, what the feel of recoil is like, and how to adjust for windage, etc. You know the theory and nomenclature and can teach the principles but can't draw on actual experience. It's just not quite the same.

Can you teach others to shoot? Sure you can. But is it the best instruction one can get? I'll leave that up to the students to decide.

But I will make a clarification - Fake in terms of those without experience I think has been taken out of context. There is a difference between someone that has spent decades training under legitimate instructors that may never have been in an actual fight and those that take a week end seminar and announce themselves as a Hachikyu. The later is fake. The former is not.