by Chris McKinley on Tue May 19, 2009 10:50 pm
Why the assumption that it can a) be formulated into a specific number, and b) that that number will apply equally and universally to everyone? Like you stated, someone may be good at a hook punch and not need to work that one particularly much before he gets the hang of it, though his uppercut might suck and require lots and lots of extra practice.
Instead of codifying your practice into a once-and-for-all-time set policy, why not simply judge based on the individual student and his individual ability with each given movement? After all, even after you've become competent at a given technique, don't you sometimes simply have bad days where that technique is a little off and needs more practice, or where you haven't done it in long enough that it's gotten a bit rusty?
John, I often think you're trying to codify all of combat into a simple formula where if you plug student A into style of training B, and perform set rote pattern drills C, you will get competent fighter D. While that might be a nice formula to stumble upon, I think you know as much as any of us that in reality it just doesn't happen that way. There's too much complexity, too much bad luck, and too many clever idiots for that kind of a formula to be any more than a general guideline at the very best.
Frankly, too much focus on specific numbers of repetitions tends to produce a very inefficient training method and a lot of crappy-to-mediocre fighters. Besides, it's too convenient. If you come up with a set formula with a nice impossibly coincidental and convenient number of required drill sets like exactly 100, you never have to actually use your brain and think again. You can always simply refer back to the one-size-fits-all formula and blame the student if the training doesn't produce the desired results rather than develop the skills of a teacher and learn how to tailor the training to the individual student to meet him where he is. It's a copout, IMO.
People aren't ants, they aren't clones, and they aren't drones. Individuals start with differing levels of talents and skills and they learn at individual paces and in individual ways. What one guy takes 5 years to learn can take another guy 6 months...you just never know. Bottom line: stop trying to find the holy grail of one-size-fits-all training formulas and treat people like the individual students and learners that they are. You'll get a lot further in producing people who can actually fight that way.
P.S. I'm sorry that was so harsh, John. I re-read that and it's awfully blunt. I still think it would be beneficial to you and perhaps others to consider all I wrote so I'm not removing it, but I do want to at least acknowledge that I understand you put the thread up in good faith and on topic. I know you mean well, but it sometimes seems like you're just banging your head in frustration looking for a perfect inorganic formula to capture all that is combat training when that formula just doesn't exist that way in reality. Anyway, best of luck and I hope you gain some new insights out of the thread.
Last edited by Chris McKinley on Tue May 19, 2009 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.