effectivness of technique
 

It seems like some folks have decided that since I find joy in seeing someone do freestyle knowing that every single technique they are doing may not be effective if they did not have an aikido uke, that some how we don't teach real Aikido. :cool:

So here is my question....is every single technique that every single student does in your dojo guaranteed to be martially effective every time they throw?

Earnestly,
Mary

Re: effectivness of technique
 

I wrote a long post where I tried to explain, but then I decided it doesn't matter what I say.

Those who get it, get it. Those that don't, well they don't.

Re: effectivness of technique
 

If you're "earnestly" asking that question, I'll smile and kiss a pig.

Re: effectivness of technique
 

I tend to think of waza in two categories: practical and principle. Some are very practical. Some are designed to teach the principles that often make the other techniques practical.

Re: effectivness of technique
 

lol
better pick your pig..
:)
Mary

Re: effectivness of technique
 

What a great way to sum it all up in a few words :)
Mary

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Mary Eastland wrote:
So here is my question....is every single technique that every single student does in your dojo guaranteed to be martially effective every time they throw?

Earnestly,
Mary

I guess you're saying that the answer is so obviously 'no' that the question can't be asked earnestly. If then the answer to Mary's question is indeed no, it must be that some techniques you learn are martially effective and some aren't. So why bother with the ineffective techniques at all? Why not just concentrate on the techniques you know to be martially effective? After all, isn't the consensus on these boards that 'real' Aikido must work in 'real life' situations all the time or it just isn't real Aikido? Aren't you being cheated by your instructor if you're learning stuff that you can't take out on the street and defend yourself with? And what about those students who, no matter how long they train and how much dedication they exhibit, will never grasp the martial applicability of what they are learning? Is their Aikido any less real than yours? Must Aikido learning be fear based for it to be considered real?

Fact is that Aikido isn't like every other martial art. The whole foundation of the art is based on a contradiction.

From the Aikido Teachings article right here on Aikiweb in the words of the Founder:

'Aikido is not an art to fight with enemies and defeat them. It is a way to lead all human beings to live in harmony with each other as though everyone were one family. The secret of aikido is to make yourself become one with the universe and to go along with its natural movements. One who has attained this secret holds the universe in him/herself and can say, "I am the universe."'

You can spin your interpretation of the above quote any way you like, but the simplest reading remains the literal meaning of the words and therein lies the paradox - what is a martial art that is 'not an art to fight enemies with'? How each of us, as students of Aikido, through our training and study attempts to resolve the paradox determines the form our Aikido takes.

Best,

Ron

Re: effectivness of technique
 

I read a thread about how sport fighting doesn't work in aikido.
I assume your prespective was that you intented to "defend" the validity of your approach. Unfortunately, it came off - to me - a bit more like "attacking" other's people's approaches - specifically the shotokan/tomiki aikido people's approach, and anyone who wanted to up progressive resistance to 100% full MMA as invalid.

If that thread had been something more to the effect of - what you are doing is interesting and joyful and has enough depth in its specific focus to last for lifetimes - the thread would have been about 10 posts long with the 9 replies saying "good for you!" (and one of them would have been from me)

I think the most respectful thing to do is to challenge the quesiton. Is this "question" an arguing technique to wrong foot opposition away from reality into absurdity land? Why ask such an absurd rhetorical question?

Obviously, NO. Not every single technique that every single student does in anyone's dojo is guaranteed to be martially effective every time they throw.

First, because if it were, where would the learning be?!

Second, techniques - as manifestations of the all the principles - will work to some degree on some percent of all attackers in some percent of all situations. If your goal is to manfiest the principles completely you may consider TESTING them more completely so that those percentages get more favorable for nage.

If your goal is not to completely test your manifestation of the principles then it is doubtful that the percentages will increase beyond a certain point. If you intentionally set that limit, then fine - continue to enjoy your training. If you tell others that they are wrong for intenting to surpass that limit how do you expect to convince them to limit themselves?

Rob

Re: effectivness of technique
 

This is where I usually ask for a quote that supports your conclusion, but I need to remember that even if no one said such a thing, your interpretation may still be valid from your point of view.

I can say for myself, I am often keenly aware that not every waza in my own freestyle would work on even a majority of aikido uke providing good strong resistance without also supplying connection. My own level is still so low that for probably 60% of my waza, without uke providing the appropriate connection, I would not be able to throw in anything like the manner I desire. I think my percentage in shite uke keiko is better...maybe I would be sucsessful 60% of the time without uke providing the needed connection (but I would still need some semblence of the proscribed attack).

So, a lot of my focus now is on understanding how to create that connection I need to throw sucsessfully, in myself. So that any uke who comes in contact with me automatically feels that connection if I desire them to feel it. Or doesn't feel it, but is "caught" by it anyway.

This seems a very high bar to me...but one which I feel is necessary to realize the potential of the art.

Like Rob, I am kind of flumaxed by the question...what would be the point of training if this were so? I cannot even imagine a mixed martial art gym where this would be so. Every art/science/way has beginners, intermediate, adepts. So there is no way to meet the bar that your question sets.

Therefore, there must be stages, and each stage has it's goals. How you define those stages and goals is up to you, your teacher, and your fellow training partners. These things may even vary from keiko to keiko, even in the same night.

My goal is to reach the highest percentages in these situations that I am capable of using the methodology provided to me by my teachers and fellow students. While I myself am not interested in true competitive training models long term, I see no reason to limit them from my experience simply because I train in aikido. I would want to be carefull how I apply that type of training, and carefull about my mindset during such training.

Best,
Ron

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Use the force, Mary...:hypno:

Seriously? NO.

Re: effectivness of technique
 

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7322

Well, maybe you can't take the Founder's words "literal meaning" without context.

Re: effectivness of technique
 

As usual, I really like Lynn's remarks. I'd like to add that different people have different proclivities: different people will internalize different techniques at different rates. That said, I think the answer is, "of course not."
"Every" is a big concept. I don't think any school of martial arts has 100% effectiveness. If effectiveness is the central issue then i suppose it's a matter of how likely those different students on average will be able to perform technique in some random situation...and that has a lot of variables.
Regarding the idea of freestyle movement exercises (assuming I'm picturing the idea correctly), i think Don said it best: some will get it, some won't. Some folks see these movements and think "that's not sparring!" and are incredulous or indignant; others simply recognize them as an exercise to be included as part of a whole system of training methods. Feeling how a connection changes has been pretty valuable to me. You don't get much time to feel through your partner when they're tense and fighting against you. Of course a danger with training this way is that potentially a student will get too used to all the slack in the system. I think that if there is a problem with the Aikido world in general, as so many folks have so diligently asserted, I think it must have to do with the slack we allow our partners to play with.
...my two bits anyway:D
Cheers folks.

Re: effectivness of technique
 

I think I bother with waza that I would not use in a "live" situation because they allow me to work on principles of movement and interaction that are isolated and distilled. Kind of like certain physical exercises isolate certain muscles so that those particular muscles get a specific workout to prepare them for use in a larger context. Doshinkan aikido has many sets of waza/dosa (technique/movements) that are used in this way, in my opinion. Everything from the basic movements to basic movements with partner, to 10 pivots with partner and related technique.

I think I answered this above, but if it's not clear, please question me on it some more. In my mind, the goal of working the things I mentioned above is to isolate certain aspects of martial interaction...by strengthening those, I hope to strengthen my overall ability. Personally, I see no inconsistancy in that, with setting a high bar in terms of my ability to handle non-cooperative partners to varying extents.

I'm sorry to say it, but I feel that you are asking a question that contains some foregone conclusions that I cannot accept.

A) I am not sure there is a consensus on this board regarding much of anything, except that most of us enjoy training in various forms of aikido.

B) I have not much clue how to define "Real" Aikido. I enjoy the style of training in my home school...and I enjoy the style of training in at least two other distinct schools on a regular basis in my area as well. All are very different, and very satisfying for different reasons.

C) The kind of "real" situations you mention can vary widely. So again, it's a hard nut to crack. Self defense can be very slippery...maybe in a given situation I can get my odds to 52% sucsess against 48% failure. The balance can literally be that small. And if I slip on a banana peel on the sidewalk, even smaller. :D Personally, I find a more realistic goal is that in training, I want to work on specific things. And on upping the odds of sucsess with those things against increasing difficult odds.

So that if I must put the entire package together sometime, in a non-cooperative situation, there is a realistic opportunity to tip the scales by that one or two percent in my favor. In my experience so far, that's all you get in those situations. You zig instead of zag...you die. Or get hurt. Or someone you love get's killed...

But that is hopefully a by product of good training...I don't find it to be one of my primary goals at this time.

As long as my instructor is clear about what is being taught, no, I'm not being cheated.

There are some of those in every school/gym. I think they do the best they can, and for themthat is enough.

Again, I see a premise here that I cannot agree with. You presuppose that a wish for a higher percentage of sucsess is fear based. There are many reasons that have nothing to do with fear for a person to push the percentages higher in their favor. To label this desire as fear based seems to be a negative way of viewing someone else's choices. Which is perhaps what is inspiring Mary's threads of late...others have done the same.

Best,
Ron

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Personally, I use the phrase "martial art" pretty loosely. Technically speaking, i'd describe Aikido as a "pax art." There is a huge overlap between the two concepts, but to me the difference seems to fix the paradox you describe. It's not an art to fight enemies with: it's an art of reconciliation with people.

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Well chacun à son gout as we say in France.
That being said, there is difference with pedagogic tools and martial effectiveness.

The idea being the martial side is to make it as hard as it is humanly possible for your opponent to get away from the technique.
No matter how good and how careful, you are cock ups are going to happens.
Since we are all have to go to work the morning after….

As well I think that the "soft stuff" is usually very good to decompose and made apparent bits of the technique. So there is martial value there, even if only in pure pedagogic form and not practical form.

For example to put ki/good bio-mechanics in evidence, you need to get rid of every thing else so by definition that will not be martial any more.
Is that still aikido, yes it is but the parallels can be drawn to almost anything from medieval fencing to horse riding.

I see aikido more along the line of make it work then make it flow (To paraphrase one Sensei)

Phil

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Well said Mr. Tisdale!

Re: effectivness of technique
 

I apologize for coming back once more, but I also feel something else might help to clarify my opinions on the overall topic.

I have had the opportunity to train with three of the main proponents of "internal training" so far; Dan, Akuzawa, and Mike. In none of those settings was uncooperative training stressed. What was stressed was:

A) various solo positions and exercises to build internal connections within the body

B) various breathing exercises (some focus more on breath than others)

C) various cooperative partner exercises for testing and building the internal strength componants.

None of these experiences highlighted non-cooperative training. Dan Hardin did use some non-cooperative situations to highlight the efficacy of his methods. He was able to do the things he did in cooperative sessions in non-cooperative environments. His own personal bent seems to be non-cooperative training along with the things a listed above. But he did not force that bent on me, or any of the people there.

My overall feeling is that these skills are in fact foundational skills if I want my Aikido to reach the highest levels *I* can reach. And my experience is that we as aikidoka for the most part do not spend enough focused, intelligent time on these skills, because they are so poorly understood. I think the response to the posts about this show that lack of understanding.

One way of testing these skills is to use varying non-cooperative settings. My own personal experience has been that aikido partners (myself included) have a trained, almost pavlovian, conditioned response to cooperate or even resist in inappropriate ways for this type of training. Now that I am realizing this, I find it necessary to watch my own responses in training both as shite and uke VERY carefully. I also must be carefull in how I assess my progress in this area.

I don't have it all figured out, and probably never will...but I'm happy at least working on it, and in finding others who also want to honestly strive to improve.

Best,
Ron

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Well, no, that doesn't follow at all. The question was stated in terms of absolutes: 'every single technique, "every single student...in your dojo", "guaranteed to be martially effective", "every time". There is no technique, in any style, that meets that standard.

Re: effectivness of technique
 

And here is my question:

If every single technique that every single student does in your dojo is guaranteed to be martially ineffective every time they throw, then you're teaching the real Aikido, isn't it?

Re: effectivness of technique
 

I see where you were going but I disagree with it. How about:

If the resistance never progresses past a certain point then HOW DO YOU KNOW if what you are doing in aikido is REAL?

I trust experience. I choose to learn how to NOT FIGHT while remaining safe and effective while someone is trying to FIGHT ME. In that way there can be no fighting in aikido (the attacker is trying to fight, but I'm not fighting back). I have to say just having the ability to be like that in general STILL wouldn't be my definition of "real aikido". I want to manifest such principles so that I can really learn the spiritual aspects of aikido - and approach them from real (and well tested) understanding.

Rob

P.S. In one thread, someone told me I was delusional for wanting comic book hero like powers! (Oh that made me laugh. I would be delusion to NOT want comic book hero like powers.)

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Then again, maybe you can.

Best,

Ron

Re: effectivness of technique
 

This is reminding me of getting into literalist tradition of our aiki religion.

As I understand it, the word aiki was borrowed from the okuden level of a sword system (where okugy means DEPTH). I would imagine surface level explanations of anything about aikido are GENERALLY not going to cut it.

I have to wonder in what universe was Osensei EVER known as a straight talker? My gosh, is there some reputation of Osensei I missed where everything - for that matter ANYTHING - he explained was well known for being crystal clear?! :)

The fact of the matter is that Osensei did have other martial artists attack him and he defeated them without hurting them (in general!). If you can't do that (I can't yet) fine but you're probably not doing Osensei's aikido (yet). If you have no interest in developing such skill then you probably will never be able to do Osensei's aikido. Is the aikido you are doing "real aikido"? I don't know. I just know that wouldn't be my cup of tea for my own path. If you are feeling invalidated by the opinions of others in aikido - you can (1) try to change the majority of their minds, (2) change your own path, or (3) simply not worry about what anyone else thinks. These threads keep coming up looking for option 1. I think that's a tall order. These "please validate my training methods/belief system" threads are ALWAYS going to be met with the same responses.

Rob

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Everytime they've thrown for real it's been martially effective.

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Don't forget that Shioda did the same. Tomiki did the same. Tohei. Mochizuki. So, that covers four of the big names in Aikido. If you aren't working towards developing that kind of skill, just *what* kind of aikido are you doing? This is a serious question.

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Hi Rob -

Just curious, how would you define "real aikido"?

Do you also want the comic book hero responsibilities that go along with those powers? ;)

Best,

Ron

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Well I alluded to it in the next sentence but I'll be happy to further elaborate. My opinion is that the spiritual study of aikido is vitally important. Otherwise, aikido would simply be "Ueshiba-ha Daite Ryu" _at best_ where the throws have been mainly converted to "out and away" from "in and down". It is also my opinion that to understand the spiritual principles Osensei found so valuable, it would be best to manifest the principles physically so there would be a better basis of understanding. To do that, I believe internal training combined with level appropriate progressive resistance is also very important.

And you, what do you believe is "real aikido"? Do you believe that the spiritual aspects are important? What is your approach towards "getting there"?

As far as what I want - I suppose in terms of my ego, I would prefer power without responsibility for myself, and for everyone else with power to have responsibility! From a place of spiritual generousity, I suppose I would want commensurate responsbility for myself.

Rob

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Hi Rob -

I don't have a formal definition but here's one way I view Aikido (from Being, Essence & Motion: Aikido as a Way of Understanding, a blog I have been working on for some time):

"We are all composed of the same stuff. Yet we're all so different. We come in all manner of shapes, sizes and colors. Our temperaments are as varied as we are many. Humans are so complex. So individual but capable of coming together to perform works of building and manufacturing that any of us alone would be incapable of. We create and grow large bodies of knowledge in myriad subject areas; again working in collaborative groups.

Aikido is just another body of knowledge. Aikido didn't spring from nowhere. It began as the inspiration of one man, O-Sensei, who built his system on the edifice of prior learning, molding his knowledge into something new and beautiful. He began to teach his system to others who, in turn, added to the body of knowledge called Aikido as they passed beyond being taught into learning. Aikido has grown beyond the original art conceived by O-Sensei. One need only observe practitioners from a variety of schools to see that Aikido is anything but linear in its form and execution. Indeed, within the same school there will be noticeable variations of technique. To expect otherwise is not realistic.

Aikido is, perhaps, the most mutable of all the martial arts. Because the techniques of Aikido are based on serendipitous interaction of uke and nage and, as has been stated above, we are all so different, the possibilities of variation of technique are manifold."

You and I quite agree on the importance of internal training (Ki development) and the role of progressive resistance as a tool facilitating the growth of internal strength. At our dojo we practice one while employing the other although mostly within the carefully defined structure of our Ki development syllabus.

Regarding your question as to whether I consider the spiritual aspects of Aikido important, I'll say yes and that the study of Aikido has helped me discover the spiritual side of myself that remained repressed for many years. And since I view spiritual development as a private personal matter I'll leave it at that.

Best,

Ron

Re: effectivness of technique
 

The truth is techniques are neither effective or ineffective. People....individual people are effective or ineffective. IMO, a far more insightful question is how does your are teach/train/prepare individuals to be effective?

Some related and interesting follow up questions:

- Does your art help a student identify fear and stress in him/herself?

- How does your art teach/train/prepare the student to deal with fear and stress?

- What is the mechanism in your training method that allows and encourages each student to self examine and find his/her Aikido (or other idealism)? Is it simply; do it this way because this was someone's path and it must lead somewhere?

- Does your training method encourage self exploration or teacher worship and emulation?

At the end of the day you can have all of the technique you want, if one cannot identify, understand and deal with the fear the technique is worthless. Getting a true understanding of ourselves is often the scariest action of all, how does your training help with that?

MJ

Re: effectivness of technique
 

So we go from "there is no fight in Aikido" to the above quoted question. It seems that the questions of "fighting", "martial effectiveness" or "self defence value" are causing some stirring in your spirit of late.

I think the following videos will lend some context to your position in this discussion, at least lending some visual assistance to what you are trying to impart in your training method and how it fits within the whole "effectiveness" debate - http://www.miron-enterprises.com/ber...do/videos.html.

Best.
LC

Re: effectivness of technique
 

I too see a difference between elements of training like technique, drill, live-training environments, etc., and even things like prayer, meditation, ritual, etc. Is any one of these things everything? That is a weird question in my mind. However, the question of "real" or "effective" remains relevant for me. I understand it to be a bit different, however. For me, what is real and what is effective is marked by consistency of thought and application. This is how I judge what I'm doing and what I'm not doing and also what I deem to be authentic and effective.

Re: effectivness of technique
 

I disagree. There are definately MANY poor techniques.

Re: effectivness of technique
 

There are no absolutes about anything...I once saw a Grandma defeat a Gangster who was trying to rob her and she used a fly swatter to do it LOL

All I care about is if it's effective for me and I have been there done that and gone through my own loooooong learning curve of experiance with "effective vs ineffective."

William Hazen

Re: effectivness of technique
 

A gangster was using a fly swatter to rob a grandma??? :D

B,
R

Re: effectivness of technique
 

LOL thank god for edit buttons..

"WHAT!!! WHAT AINT NO COUNTRY I EVER HEARD OF!!! DO THEY SPEAK ENGLISH IN WHAT?!?!!" Pulp Fiction

William Hazen

Re: effectivness of technique
 

I love that movie... ;)

Best,
Ron

Oh, and I also think that it is the person, not the technique, in general. Which is not to say that there aren't bad techniques. My own personal struggle is to make aikido techniques work against a larger person who is resisting and trying to really throw you...which, if you don't have the internals together, seems like a chore...

Re: effectivness of technique
 

I disagree with this too. What about the person is working?
Isn't all of the internal training that Dan and Mike and Aukuzawa are teaching structual technique and intention techniques? I would imagine that these are the exact things Tohei sensei and Moriyama sensei were also trying to teach in the best ways they could.

The only difference is to what degree we feel it is valuable to test the abilities we are developing. The idea that testing such skills to the MMA level is "fear-based" is frustratingly inconsistent.
I'm not afraid of MMA popping out randomly in my dojo or my daily life. I've argued this successfully here AND on bullshido.com. It's a stupid idea to think that I'll be standing in line at the bank and someone will go for a double leg take down. I keep thinking I'll make you tube video where I do such things as a joke and call is "MMA in daily life fantasy day". I want to learn these skills and test them as thoroughly as I can because:
1) they are fun
2) they are intersting
3) I have an integrated mind and more ways of looking at things help
4) I want to study the spiritual principles of aikido deeply and having the best basis of comparison in a physical sense will help tremendously - much like it helped Osensei.
5) aikido as it stands typically sucks in terms of protecting loved ones from attackers. I have a 4 year old. I would like to improve my odds of stopping someone from grabbing him in a mall or striking my wife in a parking lot, or whatever.
6) I teach aikido. As a martial art where one expects to learn about self-defence; I have a responsibility to offer the highest level of instruction.

When I read that such endeavors are "fear based" methinks "aiki projection" has multiple meanings.

Rob

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Hi Rob, nice post, the second half anyway. ;)

I say the person, because the skills Mike - Dan - Ark build are specific to one person and one person's body. They are not techniques...they are the engine that should drive techniques. With that particular engine driving, many things are possible.

I tend to agree with Dan here...waza collecting bunnies are going 100 miles an hour...in the wrong direction!

Best,
Ron

Re: effectivness of technique
 

To me, learning the principles more deeply from Dan, I still see myself manifesting those principles while I am learning and to me that is a skill set of body-techniques and intention-techniques. But we are down to semantics and if you are not swayed by my stunning display of logic here, then at least we have an agreement in principle (and that's just a bit ironic :) ).

Rob

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Rob,

This is a big topic in itself and could be a thread. There are many facit of the person that are working. Two of the biggest are the mind and the emotions. If an individual does not/cannot work these two properly any technique he/she chooses will not work and that is not the fault of the technique.

The mind collects information from our senses and makes decisions based on this data. In a perfect situation this collection gathers 100% of all available information and the mind understands exactly what is occurring. In actuality this NEVER happens. Our past experiences and understanding of the world create a giant filter to help us interpret the world more quickly (not more accurately, more quickly). Likewise our emotions in the form of desires, fears, ego, etc., are an even bigger filter that further distorts our perception of the world and alters our decision making process. Training the mind and emotions for the least amount of distortion and the quickest decisions is what the person is working....or trying to work, whether they know it or not.

To get a better understanding of what I am talking about I suggest a book called "Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies and Why" by Laurence Gonzales. It is not the quintessential work on the topic but is an interesting and easy read with loads of good information.

A quick example to further explain:
(Clarification: When I say 'you' in the following section it is the universal 'you' not a specific 'you.')

An attacker grabs forward with his right very quickly and it startles you for a fraction. However you have seen similar situations in your training and you know from experience your favorite technique is X. You are most comfortable doing technique X because you have the most success with this technique. You have a good understanding of technique X and an excellent mental picture of how to apply technique X and a good picture of the end result. Hence you are going to save yourself with technique X and begin to apply it. Now the attackers grab did not exactly match the training grab normally done for technique X but this is your best technique so adapt a little and go for it.

Unfortunately technique X works best off of a rear posture disturbance and the attacker is committed slightly forward. As you attempt to apply technique X you feel things are not right but hey this is your best one and hence your best choice, perhaps a little bit of strength applied just so will help or maybe a slight change in angle will do the trick. Now you feel the attacker resisting and actively moving. You still have this picture in your mind about how technique X looks when it is completed and you are attempting to make reality match that picture, after all this is your best technique. We can go on but you get the picture, I hope.

Our filters of past experience and our desire for a specific result can hinder us and distort our ability to make proper decisions. Clearly technique Y would have been better to start and once the situation changed slightly technique R was better or even technique E would have been good. You were stuck on X because of past experiences and an inability to truly see the situation for what it was instead of what you wanted it to be. I.E. People are effective or ineffective, not techniques. Change the attack a little and X is the way to go.

A technique is neither good nor bad, a person either understands how and WHEN to apply it or not. A person is the one that has the ability to perceive a situation correctly or not and continually adjust or not. The more stressful the situation the more difficult it is to perceive accurately and make proper decisions that match reality. In a very real sense this is can be a limitations of a technique based training system.

What is the mechanism in your training that challenges and develops the student's ability to properly perceive situations? What is the method of training you use to help students identify the emotions that distort perception and lead to poor decisions? Fear and ego have a huge distortion effect, how does your training method explore these effects and prepare the student?

Just some thoughts to chew on.

MJ

Re: effectivness of technique
 

Well all of that is summed up in the old boxing refrain; "Everyone has a plan- until they've been hit."
Since my teenage years- when I would pick on martial artists to show they were full of crap- I have said much the same thing. "If you haven't fought you don't know how to fight." And even then there are skills to learn in fighting. On the whole being booted in the head, stabbed, beaten with furniture, and coming out on top of a room full of bikers will change a persons mindstate, readiness and ability to deliver. Most assuredly the way you respond to threat and where your mental state is when someone decides to screw with you. Being able to "deliver" is best judged after having been pummelled-on and you keep coming.
Also expressed in the phrase "It isn't the size of the dog in the fight-it's the size of the fight in the dog.
Anyway sorry to be contrary but I see it as a far more simple puzzle, best expressed in Chuck Yeagers terms on how best to make an ace pilot. "Experience, experience, experience."
And he didn't mean in a flight " simulator"
For some people this is BTDT. Men who have been in the real shit with their lives in their own hands. For others getting closer to all out doesn't have to be life endangering- you can up the pressure in a safe but full-on and edgier setting, were most waza falls apart, but life-endangering does have lessons all its own.
Another good bet is to at least train with someone who has. Folks may see a different outlook from them VS a more typical teacher or fellow students as to what actually works; and the where and when.
Another Old dog Budo guy once said "The best thing that could ever happen to the present Doshu is to have him dropped penniless in some backwater rough-and-tumble place that hates foreigners. If he makes it back-he'll be a different man."

As for waza? There most certanly techniques that are stupid in any real applicable way. And those will always be hotly debated from the suburban dojo guy who has never been in a fight in his life, to those who love taking people efforts apart. They? Will never agree on what "useless" really means.