BJJ Basics class?

I'm going to attempt to explain my position further:

Would you agree that a black belt can both assimilate new technique more rapidly, and also perform new techniques with more refinement, than a white belt?

We should probably define what me mean by "refined technique". I would say that refining technique is to apply more efficient biomechanics in its application.

What is involved in applying more efficient biomechanics? How can MA practitioners assimilate new techniques more rapidly as they become more experienced? I would say that it is because when we say "technique" we are actually referring to a set of attributes that can be developed in the same way as flexibility or muscular power output can. They can be developed by applying the techniques themselves, but they can also be developed in abstracted exercises, just as with those attributes termed "physical attributes".

What are these attributes? I would say the prime ones are proprioception and kinaesthetic sense, but there are a whole set of others that people tend to think of as "mental".

Why do I believe that a dualistic model of attributes and technique is a false dichotomy? Because, in application, the mind is inseparable from the body as a discrete system. If I were to have a severe stroke tomorrow, I could still "know" what good technique was, and even explain it, but I could not apply it. I would have lost the attributes necessary to perform efficient technique.

So my contention is that separating technique from attributes is applying a black box model to a whole host of attributes under the banner of "technique", rather than applying any meaningful distinction between the two.

Again, as a training short-hand it is practical and serviceable, but I don't believe it is an accurate model.

Hopefully that makes my position clearer

 

In non resistant training, a good whitebelts (really blue would be a better marker here) armbar finish, will have mostly all the same markers as a blackbelts, it wont have as good timing, motion or pressure, But the core concepts you can learn in less then an hour intellectually.

It is Important to have good technique, but good technique alone doesn't mean that much.

What makes the blackbelt armbar in rolling better, is -

a) multiple Entries which confuse the opponant
b) keeping the armbar position / stopping positional escapes
c) stopping the armbar finish defences before they even start
d) If the 'finish defenses' do start, (i.e. reinforcing that arm with a grip) having all the options to grip break and finish, whilst stopping the opponent positionaly escaping.

When they are under pressure a less experienced person will make more fundamental mistakes, which is why a white/blue belt rolling can look very different to them drilling technique.

A good example of this is my own armbar technique, i've been trying to keep my hips tight to the shoulder when finishing, in drilling its feels a lot better, but through rolling with it and asking my coach, its been too tight, it was in front of my head, which meant I was more likely to fall backwards and have to finish from the bottom when they bridged, its good to keep your hips tight, but not when it throws out your posture.

In reality its quite a nuanced topic, that watching eddie bravo podcats doesn't really give you help understanding, when you haven't any practical experience with the subject.

Each moment in a roll has a binary outcome, something either works or it doesnt, but then you have to assess it yourself, and think, is this efficient, does it rely on strength and speed (which diminish over time) or can I adjust my fundamentals so its easier for me to get the same (or better) result.

which is why white belts get upset about being tapped, and black belts get upset when the sweep they've been working on, took a bit too much strength to use against the new guy who used to wrestle.

 

How is BJJ is different to any other physical activity?

The nervous system also deteriorates over time.

You also just contradicted yourself about binary outcomes, in mentioning efficiency and "fundamentals" (which is another black box model of a range of attributes).

 

I would say your muddying the water with spurious definitions.

also If your model isnt practical, what use is it?

 

''Each moment in a roll has a binary outcome, something either works or it doesnt, but then you have to assess it yourself, and think, is this efficient, does it rely on strength and speed (which diminish over time) or can I adjust my fundamentals so its easier for me to get the same (or better) result.

which is why white belts get upset about being tapped, and black belts get upset when the sweep they've been working on, took a bit too much strength to use against the new guy who used to wrestle.''

Thats not being contradictory, i'm saying its a mistake to only think in binary terms.

 

UFC 1 to 3 called, and they want there question back!

 

Please list the definitions you feel are spurious.

I didn't say it isn't practical. It's not particularly important for students to have accurate models of practice - they just practice, but I do believe that having more accurate models does benefit teachers, because they can target deficiencies in their students and devise ways to address them more efficiently.

 

Meaningless deflection.

Now who's being spurious?

 

Indeed, however cardio and strength start dropping first!

of course every dies eventually so maybe training at all is a mistake.

Unless one knew of the secret of immortality............. maybe Transylvanian immortality....

 

Yeah, the ad hominem approach isn't adding anything to your argument.

I could at least forgive it if it was witty.

 

Explain again why its an ad hominem, what part of your character did I insult?

 

Now choosing pedantry over debating the points?

 

did I reject your claim due to irrevalent facts?

I think I was quite clear in why I said strength and cardio start to drop before the nervious system.

(obviously not including MS, huntington"s C etc)

 

Quite clear? You didn't say anything about why you said that strength and cardio start to drop before the nervous system.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3940510/

Now your turn!

 

Sorry David but anyone who has fought could tell you that...even without the science Dead pool just posted to back it up

 

I was never contesting that strength and cardio decline faster than the nervous system with ageing.

I was asking DP to explain what that had to do with his argument.

 

You brought up nervous system decline, after I said a skill based focus was good long term, as strength and cardio start to drop with age.

 

Yes, because as a distinction it is arbitrary.

I agree it makes sense as a training maxim, but "technique" is not separate from the body, and it too declines with age, albeit at a slower rate (though the nervous system is also involved in loss of muscle mass through ageing).

 

If one decays at a far faster rate - and strength and cardio do vs technique - then the distinction is pertinent

Helio could still hold his own in his 80's because if technique, and Professor James Hundon hangs in sparring with me because of the same