Why is it that people here like to argue about what training is best?

Y

Ymarsakar

New member
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Points
1
But they don't ever actually have anything to say when I raise questions that deal with different training methodologies?

People need to get their prejudices and biases fixed, before accusing other people of spreading misinformation, first. Making such accusations is easy and might make you feel better, but it offers no content, no substance.

They get really emotional about what is or isn't "true" about traditional martial arts, like TMA is their personal pet and beloved member of their family, but they have nothing to say about actual training, good or bad.

So why the preference over emotional sensationism vs practical training methods? Why spend so much energy focusing on protecting traditional martial arts turf and far less on thinking about the differences and benefits/detriments of training methodologies?
As for who this concerns, there's nobody in particular. It's just a statistic. Questions here at YA MA, get a lot of answers, even from the regulars about what a technique is or how good/best it is. But the moment it goes into differences in training methodologies, things flat line out.

For example, 10 answers on Reality Based systems and martial arts. 3 answers (only 1.5 serious ones) concerning actual reality based training methodologies that people have done or thought about or analyzed.

Difference? Could be. Looks like it. That's not the only one I have in mind, of course.

When the question is generic and about comparisons between TMA and MMA. It's popular and people like to present their case. When it's about something more specific, especially about training, suddenly things get quiet.




People actually don't argue about training methodology here. I've never seen any martial artist here say "Oh, that adrenaline training system sucks and is wrong, don't use it".

They don't say anything about it at all. Nothing. Nadda. Zip. Maru.
For example, to move away from the RB vs MA genre, we can talk about TMA vs MMA. Only some people talk about the training differences between TMA and MMA. Otherwise, it's mostly about how they don't like MMA attitudes or how they don't like TMA fakery or something personal like that.

Only some people speak about the training differences between a Gojo Ryu kata/bunkai vs the technical proficiency/deficiency of MMA strikes/kicks. But even there, not much is spoken about WHY MMA is deficient.
 
I guess it all depends on a person's training experience. With the exception of some of the seniors here, there are only a few actual practitioners with genuine experience in multiple arts and their different training methods and most of them probably do not frequent this forum. I for one wouldn't dare compare training methodologies between arts I have had no experience with whatsoever. And I assume most traditional practitioners who stick to one or two arts in their lifetime, would find it hard to seriously discuss methodologies of arts they have no experience with too. Same thing with MMA practitioners. Most of those who are eager to argue are mostly people who have a bias to their particular training method so they tend to just argue based on this bias and not from actual in depth training experience in the arts being compared. Which is why we usually hear answers that tell you not to bother training in Tai Chi for example because it is just an exercise in slow motion, which of course reveals his ignorance of the martial applications of the real Tai Chi Chuan style. I can argue and compare training methodologies between Aikido and Karate for example, having trained in both, but can not in all honesty claim to know enough about Savate for example to be able to judge the merits of it's training method's effectivity, having never ever had any formal training in it. Similarly, although I have experience in a watered down version of Wing Chun, I can not truly judge the effectivity of Wing Chun's training methods based on this watered down version alone. To put it more simply, I can judge how good a practitioner's training quality is, based on the practitioners' skill, but not the specifics of his training methods. As for MMA, it's a sport which derives it's training methods from the base art a practitioner had, plus some new ones, so you're never gonna get a clear cut answer on this one, since there will always be an argument over what constitute proper MMA training methodology pretty much like the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" argument.
 
Back
Top