Performance evolution

[origami_itto]

Stumbled across this clip of Olympic swimmers from 1932 compared side by side with swimmers from 2016.

https://digg.com/video/a-side-by-side-c ... 32-vs-2016

SPOILER ALERT The modern swimmers finish the track a full ten seconds ahead of their predecessors. In each case the difference between first and last is probably less than a second

You can see similar improvements in every single event. Records are shattered and then shattered again. Nadia Comăneci wouldn't stand a chance against Simone Biles.

And that's just the Olympics! Could you imagine the 1947 Lakers playing today's teams? Forget about it. Football teams? Not even.

Sports combat follows suit. I don't think the Titans of yesteryear at their peak performance would stand a chance against today's champions.

It only makes sense, as we know more about sports medicine and methods to coax performance out of human bodies informing our training. We've got expanded catalogs of techniques and strategies to draw from to better accomplish the goals of the sport. We know more about nutrition and have access to whatever supplements we need to build our bodies.

So why are traditional martial arts apparently moving in the completely opposite direction?

If green comes from blue, then why, even as far back as Yang LU Chan and his sons, has every subsequent generation become weaker and more diluted?

Where do you think your own practice fits in?

[everything]

those popular sports have
1. far more participation (to generate "big data" to analyze)
2. far more money invested in making improvements
3. so far more applied science research
4. far more video and other analytics
5. for stopwatch type sports, there is really only one KPI to focus on vs. for MA (let's narrow to MMA), there are so many.

most combat sports can't hit this "big data" threshold. let alone the tiny niche of TMA. none of us just on RSF ever agree on anything, lol. forget having some kind of good analysis on the sports (aside from the excellent matchup prep etc. ---- but not the same in the aggregate).

[Steve James]

I think it's true about data, but more about the fact that records are kept of a series of competitions. So, we know how fast the fastest runners have run since records have been kept. The first marathoner's time wouldn't beat the fastest time today. Otoh, if Pheidippides were able to train using the same techniques and equipment as today's elite runners, he'd beat his old time easily --and wouldn't even have to die.

Martial arts and fighting are a whole different subject, but I'd argue that the physical aspect is similar. The thing is that YLC fought against people of his own time, and imo we can't compare him to a modern fighter. The question isn't how good he was then, but how good he'd be now. The quetion of whether he was better then than fighters are now is essentially moot. Pick the answer you like best because there's no way to prove it one way or the other.

One negative aspect of some tcma is that it is expected that no one will ever be as good as the founder of the art.

[Doc Stier]

Very few of the comments posted on this thread reflect a classical IMA perspective, imo, primarily because they focus almost exclusively on external physical factors, which are typically dependent upon age, athletic condition, speed and power development, and the tactical application of strategic techniques. Do you imagine that it has ever been otherwise in any era?

Thus, whenever or wherever we choose to directly contest any of the factors mentioned above, we risk losing in direct comparison to our opponent. Is this how you imagine that someone like Yang Lu-chan or Sun Lu-tang fought? Really? You think they contested external power with larger, stronger adversaries? Or direct comparisons of physical speed with smaller, more agile opponents?

The old masters knew better than that, and they typically trained more hours daily than many people nowadays do in a week, with far superior quality and efficiency of movement. To consistently train for many hours everyday in this way changes everything.

Anyone can train hard, but not all train smartly. Likewise, there's a big difference between fighting hard and fighting smart. In the end, we all fight the same as we train.

[everything]

with you in spirit, but, well in this specific framework, you can do any qualitative thing you want ... if it improves your ultimate quantitative KPI (which again, there isn't necessarily just one in MA).

if you think running all day helps you beat usain bolt or michael phelps, you should do it. if you think an "internal" thing influences that KPI, do it. if you think it should follow 80/20 rules (most things do) due to limited time, you need to figure out that mix for yourself or the athletes you coach.

personally i'm not really interested in "internal" or even any MA for the above, but I'd use that more objective approach if I were, say, an MMA coach.

[origami_itto]

Very few of the comments posted on this thread reflect a classical IMA perspective, imo, primarily because they focus almost exclusively on external physical factors, which are typically dependent upon age, athletic condition, speed and power development, and the tactical application of strategic techniques. Do you imagine that it has ever been otherwise in any era?

Thus, whenever or wherever we choose to directly contest any of the factors mentioned above, we risk losing in direct comparison to our opponent. Is this how you imagine that someone like Yang Lu-chan or Sun Lu-tang fought? Really? You think they contested external power with larger, stronger adversaries? Or direct comparisons of physical speed with smaller, more agile opponents?

The old masters knew better than that, and they typically trained more hours daily than many people nowadays do in a week, with far superior quality and efficiency of movement. To consistently train for many hours everyday in this way changes everything.

Anyone can train hard, but not all train smartly. Likewise, there's a big difference between fighting hard and fighting smart. In the end, we all fight the same as we train.

The main idea of my original post is that in most areas of human endeavor there is definite and measurable progress over time. Everybody that does a thing, in general, is better at it now than they were 100 years ago. (Aside of course from skills that have atrophied due to modern convenience).

By every objective measure and according to the general consensus of lifetime practitioners, the standard of performance in, let's limit it to IMA, has only ever declined.

That's the thesis, at least. I'd welcome data to contradict it.

If we accept the thesis, then the second part of the discussion is simply "Why is this the case?"

From what I understand the Yang family ranks Yang Lu Chan as a 9 of possible 13. His sons, who he pushed to train so hard they tried to run away and kill themselves to escape, were ranked as 8s. Yang Cheng Fu was a 6. Cheng Man Ching considers himself a 5. (I don't have the actual numbers handy, I just know they decrease each generation, according to a wall at the Yang family home and CMC's own words)

So why is there a drop in quality from generation to generation, while in other sports-like endeavors they only get better? Is it possible to reverse that trend?

[origami_itto]

The family levels (via Liang De Hua's facebook page)

Master Wang (Wang Yongquan) once saw a picture hanging inside Yang Jianhou's bedroom, indicating the Gong Fu levels of three generations of Yang family members. The picture contained a total of 13 levels, and the highest level was the place of Nan Tian Men or the Southen Heaven Gate. The 8th level had the name of the founder Yang Luchan. Jianhou Gong (Yang Jianhou) was at the position of the 6th level, Banhou Gong was at the 5th level, and Shaohou Gong (Yang Shaohou) was at the 4th level.
At that time, Master Wang also asked Yang Jianhou about details regarding each level of Taiji Quan's shown in the picture. Jianghou Gong said, "the 1st level is understanding Jin, the 2nd level is applying Jin...until the last 13th level can achieve the level of Chu Shen Ru Hua (Superb, Perfection, Like a god)". Yang Jianhou also said that in the Yang family, no one had reached the state of the 13th level.
-Yang Shi Taiji Quan Mi Ji Chuan Cheng Yuan Liu Jian Jie-

[Doc Stier]

As current times change, and acceptable social norms also change, the tendency to reveal less through personal demonstration oftentimes changes as well. Perhaps some past practitioners are now viewed as less skilled than their predecessors simply because they were more guarded in showing their skills for a variety of good reasons. It's always a mistake to underestimate anyone.

An old kungfu adage says "I know how to hurt and I know how to heal. I know what to show and what to conceal".

[origami_itto]

Well let's not be confused, I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of IMA folks that could kick my ass, or that there isn't already too much available for me to learn, just that the general trend is towards less skilled practitioners than what came before.

Are you better or worse than your teacher? Are you doing more or less with your art? Developing it further or stagnating? Is innovation possible within the context of your practice?

[Peacedog]

AFA the IMAs are concerned it is a lack of application. No one fights with this stuff. It's not complicated.

AFA Olympic results are concerned sure better nutrition, better genetics, better training, and more money making it attractive as a career vs an amateur endeavor all come to mind. But do not forget the giant gorilla in the room: lots of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs).

Contrary to the beliefs of some, certain PEDs do, in fact, make you stronger and can give you better endurance. They certainly allow you to train harder and more often as well.

[Steve James]

My point is that I think YLC's performance would evolve --or would have evolved if were alive today.

[Graculus]

Are you better or worse than your teacher? Are you doing more or less with your art? Developing it further or stagnating? Is innovation possible within the context of your practice?

On this point, my teacher was better than me, his teacher (also my teacher) was better than him, and his teacher could do things that my teacher couldn't figure out how to do.

I don't think this is so uncommon - given that they were already preselected as the cream of the crop of their own teacher's students (and I am not really in that league), that they started training earlier and thus had more training over their lifetime (or reached their 10,000 hours earlier), and the nature of the teaching that they had, coupled with greater opportunity to put their skills into practice. On top of that, they were more single-minded in their pursuit of the art and naturally very good at it.

I have nothing against the concept of evolution in this context, but I think it's difficult to get a combination of the right factors to develop the base of skills at an early enough age from which to surpass people who spent a great part of their lives learning to fight hand-to hand, often (or primarily) with weapons. Obviously, we can get better at killing.

Graculus
https://ichijoji.blogspot.com

[wayne hansen]

You do realise they are full time professional sportsmen these days not holding down a full time job

[Graculus]

Sure, but if they're sportsmen, that's a different area from MA as means of (non sports) fighting.

[Steve James]

I think that if skills really declined generation after generation, they're either disappeared or they've changed. That is, if the initial premise is true. I tend to doubt it, and I doubt that anything stays the same. So, either they've improved or they've declined.

Of course, it doesn't matter because we are in the generation that we're in. Our "great" might be totally s__t compared to 150 years ago --and if it were 150 years ago, that'd be a shame. But, like the man said, it's not a competition, especially not with the founders of imas.