BJJ Basics class?

Of course It declines, thats reality,, but its that difference in rate of decline which allows lighter/ older /weaker people to defeat heavier/ younger /stronger people.

 

Yes, that's all fine, but it doesn't address my contention that a dualistic black box approach to "technique" is not helpful in addressing the host of attributes that are encompassed under that banner.

 

when you say helpful, do you mean practically helpful, or something else?

 

As I said before; more accurate models lead to more accurate targeting of instruction.

 

So in which case, what would your hypothesis be?

(I also think whats happening here, is that without shared practical experience, our definitions and terminology differ, which is why your obsessing over a very small and unimportant point, but ill go into greater detail tomorrow when i have time)

also what experience are you basing your hypothesis on?

 

also what indicators would you use for success, outside competition, or something else?

 

All of this was me responding to your point, so I don't know why I get accused of obsessing

I think I made it clear enough here:

 

I don't get the question to be honest. Success of what?

Praxis is in the doing. It should be plain to see, or feel, to anyone who has a clue.

 

It really isnt mate, you sound like someone who has never trained or rolled in contact martial arts trying to make something far more complicated then it actually is.

The question which often arises through training is

"how do I beat someone bigger/stronger/faster/younger then me"

I dont think your answer helps this situation, and it also ignores the practical experience that people who do train have.

What advice/coaching would you give someone who asked the above question?

 

The Success of training paradigm, if a programme isnt working for its intended goal, the programme gets adjusted, this is often measured by competition results for a gym.

for example If everyone is losing to footlocks, then footlocks need to be focused on.

 

What really isn't?

So I don't even train now? Cool.

The answer to "how do I beat someone bigger/stronger/faster/younger than me is different for each case though, isn't it? Though "bigger" and "younger" don't actually give any specific qualities to provide an answer for.

How does the attributes/technique model address specific targeting of elements of technique? How do you address a student wanting to improve their timing, accuracy, hand-speed, posture, footwork etc. etc...?

Why do sport science and rehab medicine address these physical attributes in discreet ways? Should coaches and physios instead just be telling athletes to "get better at technique"?

You still haven't told me why technique acquisition and refinement isn't a linear progression. Why is that?

Maybe you could explain your hypothesis to me. What is the underlying mechanism to "technique"? Where do you find it? Is it a particular area in the brain, or a nebulous function of mind?

 

Sparring is the lab, real world violence is the application.

But I'm not talking about a syllabus of techniques. I'm talking about the best ways to specifically target attributes with appropriate exercises.

 

So wait a second.... do you think that by focusing on technique in class means theres isnt any S and C being done?

 

No, not sure what made you think that. I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at at all to be honest.

Maybe if you answer my questions we'll move the conversation along a bit.

 

ill answer fully tomorrow, but your miss understanding what I mean by good technique.

quick question are your questions specific to bjj or do you mean generally?

 

They are general questions, and so apply to BJJ as well.

Answer them however you wish.

 

Simole question, bear with me - Do you consider strength an attribute?

 

Sure, you could call it an attribute.

I only engage in the attribute/technique jargon to communicate here. To me, "attribute" is as simple as the dictionary definition: a quality or characteristic. So in that sense, yes: the different types of strength are attributes of a person.

 

Are you familiar with the "grease the gtrove" principle?

Strength is certainly an attribute in that is waxes and wanes as the training load does....however when you look at its as a skill you can increase a maximum.number of reps or weight lifted by performing small rep but high frequency exercises throughout the day - Pavel is a big advocate of this

So yes it's an attribute, but it's also a skill

 

I hadn't read Pavel, but I am completely on board with his message after reading an article he wrote on greasing the groove.

But where I'm coming from is that this synaptic plasticity from repeated performance is common to both attributes and technique. Hence why I don't see the distinction as valid. You can't read a book on martial arts and then have good technique, you have to build those neural connections with practice.

Technique can also wax and wane with training loads, unless you work hard for that not to happen. Muscle function can be affected by central nervous system fatigue.