Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hock]

The more thorough and time-consuming effort required to learn the Biddle Method has also hurt its popularity. Many of the modern, so-called “Close Combat” practitioners are simply lazy and lack the discipline to learn more than a bare handful of techniques. What they practice will suffice ninety percent of the time, but the intelligent man is training for the other ten percent.
                                                                                     Dan Trembula

This was the tail end of Dan's Biddle Thread and I would gamble there might be much talk about this, and it would be shame to have it buried at the end of another thread.

Hock

[JimH]

Is it lazy to train in a simplistic systems that takes minimum time to learn and zero to minimum time to upkeep and is effective 90% of the time?
or
Is it overkill to train in more methods that require more time to learn  and must be trained regularly to be maintained to increase ability 10%?

What 10% can not be covered in the simplistic form of Combat(ives)?
If this 10% is joint locks ,pins and pain compliance then most ,who are not Police,do not need this for the street.

If we are talking about Biddle's influence are we talking the Training created and used by tha Marine Corps In their  Individual combat course or what was taught to Police (FBI)?
(as with most things,both teachings were different and done to suit the needs of the user)

When men/women can do these moves and make them work 30-40 years after they were taught,with zero upkeep,if it works 90% of the time that seems like a good method to me.

[Trembula]

One must crawl before one can walk. And one must walk before one can run. Everyone here is familiar with the rule of 10 (percent), but I believe relying on those ten percent of techniques exclusively is a formula for disaster.

Everyone, even champions or consumate professionals has a finite number of "bread and butter" moves that they excell at - high percentage, effective, and reliable techniques. But I think it is folly to learn only those.

Having had a lot of things go wrong on various levels in my limited life experience, it isn't the 90% of the time I am worried about - I'll be fine with those - but that 10% of the time, that's when I want those tools in my toolbox because I am going to need them.

Dan

[Bri Thai]

When I buy something expensive, like a car, I try to take note of the Law of diminishing returns.

Yes, I can go cheap, buy crap and end up having to replace it after only a short time.

I could also spend top dollar and get something that costs more than my house.  If my life and livelihood was all about driving it, 'd go for that.

But it isn't, and there is always an optimum point, an efficient trade off between cost and quality.  This is what I try to find. 

And I try to do this with my training also.  Yes, I do want to plug all the gaps and give mself the best chance possible.  But I want to do it in 2-4 sessions per week.  I'll never be a world champion "100 percenter" and am not an Instructor, but I think I can attain far more than the 90 percenter rating with far less training time.

Yes, train hard.  But train smart, too.

[Hock]

And I try to do this with my training also.  Yes, I do want to plug all the gaps and give mself the best chance possible.  But I want to do it in 2-4 sessions per week.  I'll never be a world champion "100 percenter" and am not an Instructor, but I think I can attain far more than the 90 percenter rating with far less training time.

...and this is the instructor's challenge, trying to invent training ways to accelerate skill and learning. Trying to evolve training methods which spread the most, the quickest, and the most successfully.

I am dead-set against dumbing things down to the dumbest idiot in the crowd, while all other achievers suffer (a gowing curse in our American public school system).

Instead, I believe in pushing each individual's envelope, but with proper, practical  material. It may as simple as assigning the group two things each set to do.  The simple version-for beginners. One advanced version for the vets.

"If you can't do the first one, keep working on that. If you got the first one, try the second." Simple statement.

Some will make the mistake of showing four of five things in a presentation set!
Then saying "do it."

Do what? Which one? What was that? This just confounds the student.

I cannot endorse systems that don't allow for, in their doctrine, individual growth so that they are free to achieve their own highest, personal  level.

This can be done, if the instructor is creative and never stops tinkering with new ideas in education/teaching.

Hock

[Trembula]

...most complicated techniques are just combinations of simple ones...

As I have noted before in various threads, I like the "skill developing drills" and even reference striking patterns like the clock, Presas 12/13, etc because an entire class of varrying skill levels can be doing the same thing at their own skill level.... the beginners doing the basic version, the intermediate folks doing the passing version, the advanced folks dealing with additional layers of attack/defense, etc. All the students stay happy and somewhat challenged and when they are ready, it is very easy for them to conceptually move to the next level.

Most of us will never be 100%, but just because we can't have a jab like Ali doesn't mean we shouldn't practice the technique for example... and practice will eventually pay off. It took me six months to get the hang of the "sankyo" joint crank, but now it is one of my favorites and when training, I use it with considerable success.

To use this thread to segue into a related topic...

Part of the intent of MCMAP was to create something that couldn't be learned in "Eight Easy Lessons" or whatever. General Jones, LtCol. Bristol, MGSgt. Urso, et al wanted a system that Marines would train in over their entire career. Hence the restrictions for enlisted men on MCMAP level and paygrade... (example, must be at least a Cpl. to attend the instructor course, must be at least a Sgt. to attend the Instructor-Trainer course). A talented Martial Artist could probably learn everything in a week or two, but the average Joe or Jane off the street is going to have to put in a minimum of 247-odd hours (if I recollect correctly) to learn everything. The lower level techniques are basic, and the upper level techniques are well, less basic, but taken together with their combat conditioning work, the difficulty is nothing to scoff at for the brown, black, or "dan" (note, they don't refer to it as this) levels. I have also noticed that the naysayers who say MCMAP sucks, generally don't even have even a tan belt in the system. MCMAP will "push the learner's envelope", not to the skill level or varried array of techniques say, of the Congress Material, but there is something in it for every Marine.

[Crazyguywithasword]

Ive met martial artists who know a million moves for different types of grabs, pins, chokes, whatever, that couldnt fight their way out of a wet brown paper bag.  And just because something is functional the first time you use it doesnt mean its not practical. Everyone can throw a jab and go "man, its a really simple tool" but that doesnt mean they shouldnt practice it to make it better.

The point to learning simple things is to learn something applicable for any and all situations, not just 90%.