# How bad does not sparring effect you in a real street fight situation ?



## suicide (Apr 4, 2009)

%-}


----------



## exile (Apr 4, 2009)

What kind of sparring are you talking about?

Are you talking about sport style sparring, kumite, where the fighting ranges have nothing to do with where street conflicts actually begin? If you train hard-simulation street attack scenarios, then I suspect not doing that kind sparring won't hurt you at _all_. 

But since you apparently prefer exploring the pirate smiley menu to actually making your intentions clear in posing the question, it's very difficult to know just what you're getting at.


----------



## suicide (Apr 4, 2009)

for instance a guy that just trains techniques and katas and really keeps his health and fitness up - but doesnt spar , kumite , etc etc etc maybe in his mind he spars but thats about it :flame:


----------



## searcher (Apr 4, 2009)

Not sparring hard will not prepare you for getting hit.    I know, you think you won't get hit.   Thats a nice thought, but it is not a reality.   If you want to be prepared for the street, you need to have some hard sparring against a variety of opponents.   I don't let my students spar with people of similar heighth or weight very often.    I want them to experience a bunch of different body types and skill levels.    And to make it as realistic as possible, we allow almost all techniques when they spar.    You will fight like to train.

IMO, fitness and kata are important, just like SD techniques and basics, but you need to spar.    And not tippy-tappy point style.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 4, 2009)

To my aging mind, this type of question is symptomatic of the schizophrenic society we seem to live in today, where physical violence is something that young people often see in media but very rarely are allowed to experience (at a non-lethal level).

When I was young {and no it's not all *that* long ago :lol:}, people did not need sparring in their martial arts training to know what taking and giving a 'hit' in the real world felt like.  We got an awful lot of that from schoolyard fights and the punishments that usually devolved from same .

It would appear that our youth are now so wrapped up in cotton wool that the only violence they encounter in daily life is shooting each other; not a lot of help in unarmed martial arts .

Sparring in any empty-hand art is a quick way of getting students to appreciate timing and distance so that their 'solo' training visualisation has something to found itself upon.  Other than that it's just plain fun - or at least it was for me in my empty-hand days.


----------



## dnovice (Apr 4, 2009)

suicide said:


> for instance a guy that just trains techniques and katas and really keeps his health and fitness up - but doesnt spar , kumite , etc etc etc maybe in his mind he spars but thats about it :flame:


 

He might do fine. However, what is likely to happen is he will freeze up or not be be able to take hits since he's not conditioned for it.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 4, 2009)

I am a very plain and simple kind of guy. You throw something at me and I block, and hit back. Sparring has some value, and I have done it for the better part of 40 years. But, please dont tell me I have to spare to prepare for street battle. I would take any pro football player that is retired, and put him up against a high school jock and he will shine. I dont have to get hit to see what it feels like, or if I can take it. I have been hit, and dont need to reinforce it over and over again. If you are a newbie, than take your lumps, and survive the best you can, and after many years, work your strikes, do your drills with a partner for timing, and stay in shape. That is it, plain and simple.


----------



## Aniela13 (Apr 4, 2009)

I've never been in a street fight, so my comments are coming from that perspective...I do, however, know that I put great value in my time spent sparring. When I'm doing my techniques/katas/drills, my mind works differently than it does when I'm sparring an instructor or fellow student. During techniques/etc, my mind is focused on practicing and making sure I'm doing things correctly. During sparring, I'm focused on not getting hit, and putting forth my best effort to "win" the match (we do free sparring, so there are no points, but most matches end with us knowing who would have won in a real fight!)

~Ani


----------



## seasoned (Apr 4, 2009)

Aniela13 said:


> I've never been in a street fight, so my comments are coming from that perspective...I do, however, know that I put great value in my time spent sparring. When I'm doing my techniques/katas/drills, my mind works differently than it does when I'm sparring an instructor or fellow student. During techniques/etc, my mind is focused on practicing and making sure I'm doing things correctly. During sparring, I'm focused on not getting hit, and putting forth my best effort to "win" the match (we do free sparring, so there are no points, but most matches end with us knowing who would have won in a real fight!)
> 
> ~Ani


 
Sounds like a winner, this type of training will more then prepare you for a confrontation.


----------



## rhn_kenpo (Apr 4, 2009)

No question that for me, practice in freestyle sparring would come in handy if I ever found myself in a 'real street fight'.  

When we train techniques under real world conditions, i.e., no awareness of which attack is coming, things get a bit messy.  I do my best to react quickly and respond, but my form is always less than ideal and I improvise a lot. 

A bigger question for me is which is more valuable, SD techniques practiced under real world conditions, or sparring to be ready for a 'real street fight'.  By far the SD training.  I'm not looking to fight anyone and the odds of me squaring off against an opponent are very very low unless I know that is the only way to escape safely.  Much more likely that if I'm challenged, I'll just walk/run away.  But if I'm attacked, that is another story and there will be a response.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 5, 2009)

Hi,

I think Exile was right on when he asked what type of sparring you are refering to. Let's take this apart a bit, shall we?

Sparring can be a great benefit, or a great hindrance. On the benefit side, you get used to the pace, speed, aggression, distance, and timing af a real person in front of you trying to hit/kick/throw/choke/arm-bar you (or hit with a weapon even, eg kendo, naginatado, arnis/kali, AMOK knife skills etc). You get a feel for the way you need to respond to an opponent, and can improve your speed, reflexes, and ability to "read" an opponents body and predict what they may come in with.

But there is a downside which can actually harm your ability to defend yourself. Sparring is a controlled way to experience a free-form of training, often with particular rules and restrictions. These rules and restrictions can develop into very dangerous habits which can leave you in (unsuspectingly) open to previously unconsidered attacks. 

For example, I know of a particular karate system which has as part of it's rules the requirement of the combatants to "allow" their opponent the chance to answer any strike they throw, rather than get in, hit, and get out. As I'm sure you can understand, if you develop the habit of "I hit you, you hit me", eventually, you will find someone who hits harder than you. This same system also teaches the habit that if you get knocked down, the opponent will let you get up. That doesn't really happen too often in real violent encounters.

You also have the idea of non- or light-contact sparring. To highlight this issue, and to counter those who will say "yes, but if it's real, I won't worry about the rules....", under stress, you will respond the way you have trained, and the way you believe (unconsciously) generates the most success. If you train for non-contact tournaments, and engage in non-contact tournaments, and experience success in such tournaments (even if you don't win the trophy), that will create a belief that it is powerful. Then, when you need it, you will do exactly as you have trained, and react in a non-contact manner. One of the wierdest things I have seen in the Martial Arts is a non-contact karate tournament (in France, if memory serves), in which a number of the participating groups had some bad blood between them. The tension erupted into a nearly 10 minute long brawl, in which there were almost no injuries at all. All the non-contact tournament fighters, very fast and accurate in their techniques, also trained ot pull their strikes. So, under pressure, they were very fast and accurate, and pulled their strikes. Try that when someone is attacking, and see how long it stops them.

That said, sparring in systems such as boxing, kick-boxing, muay thai, and others, can certainly help get you prepared for two of the most uncomfortable experiences for a martial artist: getting hit, and being able to give a hit. For that reason, if I am asked to recommend something to someone in order to get prepared to defend themselves in a hurry, I will often recommend boxing over pretty much anything else.

The last thing to remember in regard to sparring is that in sparring, you have no clear-cut attacker and defender, instead you have two aggressive opponents both trying to attack each other at the same time. You also have only one opponent, who is in front of you, and who will attack with recognizable, familiar techniques, rhythms, and combinations. There are constraints (referees, strikes with no grappling, grappling with no kicks, all-in unarmed [MMA] with no weapons etc). This is completely different to a real attack, where there is a clear attacker and defender, there may be more than one, they may attack from any side or direction, they may attack with anything from any range, they may or may not have a weapon, and there is no referee to stop anything. In fact those watching may be the opponents friends, watching to see if you are gaining the upper hand, and may join in if you do. Very different from sparring in most ways.

There are some training methods that cover this ground, though. Go along to most Krav Maga schools, and a lot of RBSD seminars, and you will see it. Check out Geoff Thompsons DVDs, especially Animal Day. But really, it is just another expression of traditional martial art free-expression training, randori as seen in arts like Aikido, Classical Jujutsu, and Ninjutsu schools around the world (note, not randori as understood by Judoka, nor rolling as understood by BJJ practitioners, which is essentially the same thing).

So how much does it help, and how much does it hinder? It does both, and it is up to the schools, art, instructor, and student as to whether you want it as part of your training.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 5, 2009)

Sparring is ONE method of practicing the learned techniques against an opponent.  It's not the only  -- and it's not the most realistic or essential.  There are inherent flaws in any training method, or we'd run out of training partners real fast.  Sparring can build a "duel" mentality which can serve you poorly in the real deal.  But sparring does teach you to hit & get hit, to keep going when someone's coming at you, and is a way to develop the senses of rhythm and timing, and to develop a feel for some of the unpredictability of the opponent's movement.

Remember, also, that there are different ways to spar.  Free sparring, where you and your partner face off and move back and forth whatever the level of force, is only one.  One-steps are another form of sparring, when done properly.  They're a way to focus on the principle of a movement or reaction, with control.  Done with the proper focus and intensity, one-steps and similar movements or two person kata practice is another form of sparring practice.  All of them play a role -- and you should do all of them.


----------



## teekin (Apr 5, 2009)

seasoned said:


> I am a very plain and simple kind of guy. You throw something at me and I block, and hit back. Sparring has some value, and I have done it for the better part of 40 years. But, please dont tell me I have to spare to prepare for street battle. I would take any pro football player that is retired, and put him up against a high school jock and he will shine. *I dont have to get hit to see what it feels like, or if I can take it*.* I have been hit, and dont need to reinforce it over and over again.* If you are a newbie, than take your lumps, and survive the best you can, and after many years, work your strikes, do your drills with a partner for timing, and stay in shape. That is it, plain and simple.



Well said. I could never quite come up with the right way to convey just that info. Somehow it came across as fear, and that _needed_ to be "knocked" out of me. Perhaps because I am a woman? 
 Because of how and where I grew up I can still tell the difference between sparing and fighting. In sparing I am Not trying to do lasting damage.
lori


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 5, 2009)

Grendel308 said:


> Because of how and where I grew up I can still tell the difference between sparing and fighting. In sparing I am Not trying to do lasting damage.
> lori


This, too, is well said. The little club where I train seems to attract people with quite a bit of real-world experience. Dueling-type sparring would actually be a step back for most, since it would reinforce an inherent safety which is not present in those real SD situations. 

That doesn't mean the guys 'n gals don't go hard. To paraphrase one of our  MA icons, Class doesn't start till the bruises begin to form.


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 5, 2009)

Sparring allows you to see your reaction time and also gets you prepare to take a hit. Not sparring is fine but alot of people will wait until they get hit before they feel the need to defend, this is wrong a threat is when you feel damage and know how to avoid it.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 5, 2009)

I understand both sides of the argument. I have been hit full contact before, during light sparring. 't was an accident. Sensei hit at exactly the same moment I stepped in to do the same. Lights nearly went out.

In those years I got hit / kicked hard by accident. I know what it feels like.
Full contact sparring would perhaps insensitize me some more, just like boxers are able to take more and stay upright.

But the downside to full contact blows to the head is that they cause brain damage. Even at amateur levels, this has been measured. Apparently this can be measured by various markers in the blood / bone marrow.
So it's not like the ability to take headshots doesn't come at a price.

I don't underestimate the usefullness of full contact sparring. And I don't mind it for wrestling and grapling. But I am not going to let myself beat in the head full contact.


----------



## Haze (Apr 5, 2009)

You need to fight to see what fighting is really all about. It is not sparring, it is not controled kumite in the dojo. I'm not saying to go out and get in a fight but your training needs to address the realities of an attack. You need to experience what I refer to as "Controled Chaos". As close to the real deal with out full violent intent. All ranges need to be explored. Stand up to clinch to ground and everything in between


----------



## searcher (Apr 5, 2009)

So let me ask this.    If you don't think you need to spar to better prepare for a street altercation, then what do you all think you need to do?

I guess that I should get out the Wii and use it for my preparation for potential street fights.     I will just throw in some training on basics and then I am prepared.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 5, 2009)

searcher said:


> So let me ask this.    If you don't think you need to spar to better prepare for a street altercation, then what do you all think you need to do?
> 
> I guess that I should get out the Wii and use it for my preparation for potential street fights.     I will just throw in some training on basics and then I am prepared.


That's not what anyone's suggesting, I don't think.

Sparring can be an important tool in preparing for self defense, but it's not the ONLY tool.

One/two/three steps or two person kata practice are easy examples of other tools that can be used to develop functional skills, with the proper methods of training and emphasis.  Lots of people don't have that emphasis; they simply take turns "doing the technique" and never face real resistance or unexpected timing.  They stay at the first stage of this sort of training, where the attack is all but static, and the "attacker" simply permits the defender to do their thing.  Too often, the attackers are never even really in range or give lackadaisical grabs/holds that take no resistance to escape.  Instead -- after the basic technique is understood, the attacker needs to vary the pace, actually be in range and actually put the defender in danger of being hit.  Finally, the attack itself should be varied, so that the defense can be tried against a range of attacks.  For example, if the initial technique is a defense against a lunge punch... it should be tried against the opposite hand, against a punch from the same side as the step (more like a jab), kicks, and anything else you can think of.  Some things won't work; some will.  Try it in training so that you are prepared for things that aren't quite the same.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 5, 2009)

You can talk all you want about sparring not being the same as a 'street fight', but those who spar defend themselves better on the street than those who don't, period. Now, if you want to throw in some uncontrolled 'street' defense scenarios to round out your practice as well, that's ideal, but if you aren't sparring or haven't sparred, you are missing out on skill refinement that you don't get any other way. There's a reason boxers do well for themselves on the street.


----------



## K-man (Apr 5, 2009)

About 25 years ago we had a big issue with sports insurance. Karate had to change to limited contact to enable any form of indemnity insurance. Boxing, kickboxing and other such full contact styles had to pay excessive premiums. As such we had to limit our full on sparring to a much more controlled form of softer sparring. As you become more proficient the sparring does tend to become harder and faster and many strikes do hit the body at close to full force. Although we don't strike hard to the unprotected head, the occassional unexpected contact does occur. We tend to think of such blows as 'conditioning'. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Other training we do is based on what I have seen with systema training. That is to work with a partner, punching to the body and gradually increasing the power of the strikes depending on the partner's ability to absorb the strike. This training also involves controlling the breathing and relaxing. What in means in the long term is the fear of being hit hard diminishes and the likelihood of remaining in control after being attacked is increased.
I suppose what I am saying is, you may not need to spar as long as you undertake some other form of conditioning but you will still be at a disadvantage unless there is some training to help you to recognise and take advantage of any openings in your attacker's defence. :asian:


----------



## chinto (Apr 6, 2009)

I guess my question is .. are you talking about a real street attack? or some kind of stupidity that is prearranged in the street?
real self defense situations are over in seconds. the winner is alive and the looser may or may not be.  the main thing is that it is over in seconds and usually some one is badly injured or even dead in that less then 15 seconds it took. ( often less then 10 seconds.)

That said, sparring and  yakosoku kumite are good for timing and distance and such, but kata really does teach you most all you need to know. 

Free style sparring is a technique and practice that is less then 120 years old as I understand it.  I can Guarantee that men and women trained in kata and prevailed in situations where to loose was to die before  free sparring came to be!


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 6, 2009)

blindsage said:


> You can talk all you want about sparring not being the same as a 'street fight', but those who spar defend themselves better on the street than those who don't, period. Now, if you want to throw in some uncontrolled 'street' defense scenarios to round out your practice as well, that's ideal, but if you aren't sparring or haven't sparred, you are missing out on skill refinement that you don't get any other way. There's a reason boxers do well for themselves on the street.


 
I've said this already, but it seems to bear repeating. 

Sparring has as many issues for real self defence skill development as it has benefits. We, for instance, don't "spar" in the sense that you are infering here, but we are very focused on getting our students prepared for any potential street confrontation. We do this by incorporating adrenaline response training, constant drilling of principles and techniques under pressure and against resistance, and always staying up-to-date with modern assaults. 

We also utilise a traditional Japanese style free-form style of training. In this form, there is a nominated defender, and one or more nominated attackers, who can come in with definite, pre-arranged attacks from pre-arranged directions, all the way through to unnominated, random attacks from any direction at any time, with any style of attack (up to and including weapons). The defender responds with unnominated responses to the attack, from slow all the way through to full speed.

The idea of this type of training is that you have the opportunity to experience your art against a variety of attacks, with the addition of adrenaline (in most cases), and this is the traditional form of sparring. It gives many of the same benefits as the more typical sparring, with the added benefits of being far closer related to a real encounter. But, as with all things, it is how you train it that really matters.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 6, 2009)

searcher said:


> Not sparring hard will not prepare you for getting hit.    I know, you think you won't get hit.   Thats a nice thought, but it is not a reality.   If you want to be prepared for the street, you need to have some hard sparring against a variety of opponents.   I don't let my students spar with people of similar heighth or weight very often.    I want them to experience a bunch of different body types and skill levels.    And to make it as realistic as possible, we allow almost all techniques when they spar.    You will fight like to train.
> 
> IMO, fitness and kata are important, just like SD techniques and basics, but you need to spar.    And not tippy-tappy point style.




'Everybody has a plan....until they get punched in the face!' -Mike Tyson


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 6, 2009)

blindsage said:


> You can talk all you want about sparring not being the same as a 'street fight', but those who spar defend themselves better on the street than those who don't, period. Now, if you want to throw in some uncontrolled 'street' defense scenarios to round out your practice as well, that's ideal, but if you aren't sparring or haven't sparred, you are missing out on skill refinement that you don't get any other way. There's a reason boxers do well for themselves on the street.


 Yes there is........because they can take a punch and they can throw a punch, because they practice taking and throwing them all the time against someone who is really trying to hurt them back.

Most folks in the street don't actually get knocked out by an opponent, but they get dazed enough and put in an alien situation to the point where they become unable to react.  Getting punched in the nose/head/jaw for the first time is disorienting, it's a sensation that if all you've ever done is imagine it, there isn't an imaging it.......the bizarre smell sensation of your nose being punched to the point of bleeding, the odd way that you can actually 'smell' being punched in the head.......the throbbing numbness of being punched in the face, the feeling of blood running out of your nose.

Those are things that can overwhelm people experiencing them for the first time.........overwhelm to the point of distraction.


----------



## chav buster (Apr 6, 2009)

theres 2 sides to my answer the first is dancing around probing for openings has very little to no actuel use in a street attack. there are 3 main types of attack 1, the interview type were theres a bit of banter and argy bargy, this is the most common  and happens from talking range sparring largely want help. you can do full force drills from this range but thats nothing like sparring more like a few strikes and some grappling. pre emptive striking, awerness is what will help here. the second most common type of attack is the ambush, awerness again is your main weapon and again sparring want help you here. you can have someone randomly attack students at any time during class but thats nothing like sparring. the 3rd type of attack is the match fight whihc 99% of ma solely deal with and sparring will help here but you never have to actuelly get into this type of fight as you can and should just decline the offer to come and have a strieghner. 

after saying all that the 1 thing that is good about sparring is it will get you used to taking a punch as if you dont do anything were your taking a punch it will freak you out if you ever do get into a fight. 

if you want to learn use your skills properly then use them properly, how much time do you spend practicing getting out of front chokes, bear hugs headlocks ect? and then you sparr which has no coralation to the techniques you have learned? if you want to learn how to use your skills then get a neck brace gum shield groin guard and full face head gear and practice your ecapes multiple oponents ambush fighting from talking range full force and then tell me its anything like sparring!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 6, 2009)

chinto said:


> That said, sparring and  yakosoku kumite are good for timing and distance and such, but kata really does teach you most all you need to know.



Well, here's the issue I have.......if I took two groups of similar people, and taught one for six months boxing techniques using a kata-esque method of teaching, I basically taught them the motions and movements of boxing, but no sparring.

And I taught the other group using the methods of boxing instruction commonly taught, which includes extensive boxing.

At the end of six months my boxers who sparred would outfight the non-sparrers........ring, street, it wouldn't matter.......all other things being equal, those who sparred would beat those who didn't.

Now, the Non-Sparrers would likely defeat a third similar group who didn't do any kind of training.......which supports the thinking that you only need to be as prepared as you need to be prepared to be.  Sparring isn't for everyone. 


As i've long maintained........learning to fight without getting hit, is like learning to play football.....without getting hit!




chinto said:


> Free style sparring is a technique and practice that is less then 120 years old as I understand it.  I can Guarantee that men and women trained in kata and prevailed in situations where to loose was to die before  free sparring came to be!


 Free sparring might be less than 120 years in the TAMA's standards........but it's been apart of the western tradition for thousands of years.


----------



## MJS (Apr 6, 2009)

suicide said:


> for instance a guy that just trains techniques and katas and really keeps his health and fitness up - but doesnt spar , kumite , etc etc etc maybe in his mind he spars but thats about it :flame:


 
I would say that how you spar is what really matters. Nothing wrong with point sparring, but people condition themselves to stop after they score a hit, or they're used to nothing except light to med contact, just doing body shots, etc. may effect what you fall back on.

I gear my sparring to be more continuous. I throw more boxing type punches vs. the quick backfist. My footwork is different. Depending on what the training is for that day, clinch work, low line kicks, knees, elbows, and ground work will all be added in.  The contact is hard.

For me, this suits my needs of what I want to get out of sparring.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 6, 2009)

chav buster said:


> theres 2 sides to my answer the first is dancing around probing for openings has very little to no actuel use in a street attack. there are 3 main types of attack 1, the interview type were theres a bit of banter and argy bargy, this is the most common and happens from talking range sparring largely want help. you can do full force drills from this range but thats nothing like sparring more like a few strikes and some grappling. pre emptive striking, awerness is what will help here. the second most common type of attack is the ambush, awerness again is your main weapon and again sparring want help you here. you can have someone randomly attack students at any time during class but thats nothing like sparring. the 3rd type of attack is the match fight whihc 99% of ma solely deal with and sparring will help here but you never have to actuelly get into this type of fight as you can and should just decline the offer to come and have a strieghner.
> 
> after saying all that the 1 thing that is good about sparring is it will get you used to taking a punch as if you dont do anything were your taking a punch it will freak you out if you ever do get into a fight.
> 
> if you want to learn use your skills properly then use them properly, how much time do you spend practicing getting out of front chokes, bear hugs headlocks ect? and then you sparr which has no coralation to the techniques you have learned? if you want to learn how to use your skills then get a neck brace gum shield groin guard and full face head gear and practice your ecapes multiple oponents ambush fighting from talking range full force and then tell me its anything like sparring!


 
If some form of grappling (standing and/or ground work) is included in your sparring, then plenty. There is also a possible miscommunication here. I'm all for situational defense scenarios for training as well, but in many schools they call it realistic but that's about where the realism ends. For instance in many so-called SD demos *and *classes the application of technique is taught, but the resistance level of the opponent ends at the application of the technique with way to much opponent compliance. But if you have a serious scenario, with a fully resistent opponent or opponents then that's great, I agree this is a great skill builder.

But again, I also say if you're not doing sparring you are missing out on important skills. Not just learning how to hit or get hit, but timing, learning how to read an opponent, speed, and control. If you talk about sparring in just a strictly one on one fight context, superficially you are correct, but in actuality the skills you learn do translate to street reality, and those who spar generally do better on the street than those who don't.



			
				chinto said:
			
		

> Free style sparring is a technique and practice that is less then 120 years old as I understand it. I can Guarantee that men and women trained in kata and prevailed in situations where to loose was to die before free sparring came to be!


 
Really? Nobody every practiced actual fighting before 120 years ago? They just used kata and that was it, and they were deadly? You can Guarantee that? I'd love to see your research that shows this was the case.


----------



## Zero (Apr 6, 2009)

chinto said:


> Free style sparring is a technique and practice that is less then 120 years old as I understand it. I can Guarantee that men and women trained in kata and prevailed in situations where to loose was to die before free sparring came to be!


 
Personally I think it is a mistake to condition and train for SD situations as if they will always only be over in seconds/split seconds and that there is no possibility of you ending up in an altercation or even being "jumped" by an aggressor on the street who is actually also a good fighter (be it from street/school of hard knocks or dojo trained to a high level). There may be a time when you are attacked, you do your SD move only to have the aggressor disengage, square off and come back for more.

Without your sparring and hopefully some competition/full contact fights on top of your SD application training, I think you are only half way there. And that's fine if half way keeps you alive. But what happens when you find yourself confronted by a fighter who can evade your wrist lock, eye gouge, back of the knee stomp and is reigning some jheavy blows on you at the same time? You loose, game over.

I just don't see kata alone getting you home.

Those who have commented on the advantage that conditioning from sparring and fights (both of body and mind) brings are correct.  I have had friends attacked on the street and who have been hit, only to freeze up in shock - not even hit by a debilitaing strike.  One of them had done martial arts for a couple of years also - so the concept of hitting and being hit was at least not new to him!  On being punched in the face, he froze while his friend then got a real beating.  It's only after you have had a broken rib, black eye, smashed nose or torn lip that you realise a lot of surface damage and even some internal damage is to some degree superficial and that you can actually go on.  If you have the right mind set you can fight pretty much 'til you're dead.  Again, I don't see kata getting you to this place.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 6, 2009)

real simple, as I am a simple man.

if you aint used to getting hit, it's gonna be ugly when you do get hit.

and you WILL get hit on the street.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 6, 2009)

I think it depends on the authenticity of the sparring. If all sparring is point sparring with combatants automatically pausing when the instructor calls a point or calls stop, then I think the effectiveness of the sparring is limited beyond the student learning some combinations. One of the problems with light-contact point sparring is that fighters can develop a bad habit of anticipating a judge's call. For self-defense purposes, 
there also has to be heavier-contact, free-style sparring in order for people to get used to getting hit *and* to keep on hitting.

I've recently started Systema. We were doing some sparring the other day at a very slow, relaxed pace. It was interesting to take the time to spot openings that didn't reveal themselves to me previously. At the same time, though, while we were moving at a relaxed pace, we were hitting with some force -- more than is necessary in point sparring. I think varied levels of combat and aggression are helpful in self-defence.


----------



## shihansmurf (Apr 6, 2009)

Training to fight by perofrming kata without sparring is like learning to play guitar by jamming on Guitar Hero. You might be good at punching buttons but you can't actually play a song.

If you want to be a good fighter you have to fight. We improve that skills we practice. Its the point of practice, after all. If we train Kata then we get good at doing kata. If we traing fighting, then we improve our ability to fight. Getting good at kata is fine, but it isn't the same as being good at fighting. On a similar note, punching the air is great fun but it won't make you better at hitting an object.

Its important to understand one's goals in training. If you are training to develope fighting ability then you have to train as a fighter. If you are training for some other reason, then you have to train accordingly. Taking a short cut like not sparring will leave you without the ability to engage a resisting oppponent. 


Mark


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 6, 2009)

The truth of the matter is that you will do as you train yourself to do. I realize that in some martial arts solo kata practice is the essence of the art. The secrets are in the kata and it is up to the warrior to discover what they are himself. I do think that without training with other people who put up resistance there is really no way to see if your techniques will work out the way you think they are going to work.

I asked my teacher's teacher during a personal interview of him "Does a martial artists have to obtain actual experience in a real life fight to know that he is skilled enough to protect himself?"

he responded, "To *know*? Yes. Without actual combat experience all we can really do is form a good guess. That is why we must train as realistically as possible."


----------



## seasoned (Apr 6, 2009)

I will try to explain this, as best as I can. When I was a white belt, to be very honest, it was understood that we were the sparring dummies. Sound harsh, well it was very harsh. Mind you we didnt start sparring right away, that was held off until we had a good grasp on basic blocks, punches, and kicks. But we all knew, that by the time you made it to purple belt, that you better have your act together. White belt sparring was 3 times a week with instructional matches, with colored belts. 2 nights a week, it was by invitation only, not mandatory, but expected if you wanted to advance. These 2 nights, were hard core, and if you were there, it was because you wanted to be, as long as you were invited. Once there, you were there for the whole class, with no exceptions. Nothing instructional that night, just survival, no coddling, if you got hit it was because you didnt block it. The hitter never got blamed for contact, unless it was malicious, in which case, everyone came down on you, even Sensei. Ill tell you this, from the time you bowed in, until the time you bowed out, it was war. If you got hurt, you didnt show it, and if you could walk, you could spar. We did round robin style, where there was two lines facing off, and we would rotate to the left or right so we would end up sparring everyone there many times. The survivors of this training over years became warriors. Our dojo in those days was old CNY Karate. We did many tournaments from Binghamton, NY to Buffalo, NY, and were well known. The best thing that came out of all this is even though we kicked the hell out of each other, we were always friends afterwards. To this day most of the DoJo in Syracuse NY are made up of these old time warriors. These days, there is more sparring gear worn, but man do we have fun talking about the good old days . J


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 6, 2009)

Sparring is useful for getting you used to making do with imperfect technique due to circumstance and, as I said before, is a shortcut for students to 'get' the concept of distance and timing.

I don't think that anyone, in any of the many {many :sigh:} threads we've had along these lines has said that sparring is useless.  It does, however, have downsides and "trains in" bad habits becase it can never be close to real.  The limitations required to make it 'safe' are what make it a poor way to train technique.

Given the choice between only kata or only sparring then I'd take kata but both is better as long as the emphasis is on the former.

Now clearly others are going to disagree.  All I can say is that I had more than a decade of experience with 'empty hand' and found hard sparring useful but not as useful as kata training.  I now have my third dan in my sword art and have not missed sparring as a training method at all - kata is fine for me thanks .


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 7, 2009)

There have been a few comments about the old systems only utilising kata and no sparring, and that working well enough for them. Rather predictibly, a number of members have called this type of comment out, and asked for evidence (I think the timeline of "only the last 120 years or so" for sparring was used). Personnally, I feel that there may be a little confusion over exactly what is meant by "sparring" and "kata" in this sense.

The way I have read the OPs concept (pirate smiley and all...), is in reference to the modern training tool as used in karate dojo, tae kwon do dojang etc., primarily point based, bouncing back and forth, two individuals trying to "tag" each other. Some organisations do teach this as a full-contact version, but the rest is the same, with the same habits, benefits, and dangerous tendancies as previously mentioned. This form of training is, in the main, a modern occurance, however, it came out of duelling training, where rules would be enforced, and strict parameters would be in effect.

Most people here, it seems, are from this type of background, training in these modern systems, with modern training methods allowed by modern protective equipment. There doesn't seem to be too many of the more "old school" systems, although those that are, you may notice, are not advocating the necessity of sparring as it is understood. This is because it is rarely used in these older schools. But those that train the newer systems are familiar with the term "kata", as it forms a part of their classes as well. And if we take kata as the form found in karate arts (and related methods, such as Tae Kwon Do's hyung), then I completely agree. It is not enough to truly prepare for violent encounter, as it is designed to instill the fundamental tactics and strategies of the particular art.

But kata is not always what has previously been described. In classical (Japanese) arts, martial and otherwise, kata is the primary form of training/teaching. In martial arts, it is often a paired exercise, and involves an attacker and a defender. The two practitioners then go through a pre-arranged sequence of movements, which could be as simple as: Attacker punches; Defender evades and blocks, then counter strikes, and applies a throw and pin. It could also be much more complex, as in the (much!) longer sword kata of Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu, which may be made up of around 20 or so exchanges as described above, with the idea of attacker and defender often switching.

This version of kata training is often performed (at high levels) at full speed and power, which gives you a very good sense of distance, timing, accuracy, control etc. In the weapon systems, real weapons could be used, which certainly brings the reality of the situation to the forefront (I heartily recommend you try going completely free-form sparring with real weapons, and see if you may want to try a different approach). This is often combined with the traditional form of free-response training as I have described in my previous posts, giving you the ability to work on your reflexes and other aspects.

The closest to the more modern sparring in classical systems is what is known as shiai, essentially a form of duelling competition. A number of old arts have this as part of their curriculuum, with the Owari Kan Ryu actually starting with shiai before kata. Other than that, many older schools (in Japan and China, at least) would often go out to challenge other arts/practitioners, and would have fights to determine the best (the Japanese term was Taryu Jiai). This practice was outlawed in the mid 20th Century, though.

So, sparring as we seem to be discussing it is a modern thing, however, it has it's roots in older training practices. And kata as it is commonly recognised today (a long solo routine) is not going to give a complete set of skills, however the older version of kata is quite different and much more applicable to the realities of combat. So everyone is right! Well done!


----------



## Ninja_in_training (Jun 18, 2009)

Sparring helps, but does not prepare you to fight either. Countless hours of sparring will still not give you the exp of going 100%. Repitition of the techniques will be what helps you win a real fight, so when the real life fight comes, its instinct on how to react and you dont have time to let nerves get in the way. First fight is always the hardest.. gets easier after that !!!


----------



## ap Oweyn (Jun 18, 2009)

I know this is an old thread (April of this year) and has been resurrected.  But just in case the same question comes up again, I'll throw my two cents in:  There have been some really well considered answers about training methods, types of sparring, mental rehearsal, etc.  But the first question that leaps to my mind is "why would you _set out_ not to do such a major component of martial arts training?"  

Are you afraid of sparring?  (And I'm asking this of everyone, not just the OP.)  Why?  What scares you?  I ask this because it seems to me that overcoming that fear or trepidation is both an important personal goal and a useful exercise in coming to grips with the effect of adrenaline and intimidation.

The fact that it scares some people is fine.  It's useful.  Learn to work through it and you'll have put sparring to one of its most basic uses.

Try to skirt around it and you'll just have short changed yourself.


Stuart


----------



## Franc0 (Jun 19, 2009)

At the risk of sounding repetative (and/or stupid), I went ahead and decided to post based only on the *Title* and didn't bother reading a single reply: Easy, it effects you 110%. You have to know 3 simple "effects of the individuals technique" that you can only gain through sparring;
1. Does my "Technique/ Fighting skill" work against a resisting opponent?
2. Can I "Take a shot or do I have a glass jaw?"
3. Who runs out of gas 1st, me or my opponent? 

IMO, sparring helps to answers these questions so that your answers can be something like (in order of question)....
1. Some did and some didn't, so I will work towards fixing or dispose of what didn't work as well as solidifying what did work.
2. One major rule is to "Always protect yourself" / "Always keep your hands up" so your "glass jaw" if you do have one, isn't compromised. If you have a glass jaw, sparring will tell you soon enough.
3. Sparring equals cardivascular conditioning. In a street fight, whoever runs out of gas 1st, usually gets his *** handed to him. That is a simple fact. 

Franco


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 19, 2009)

ap Oweyn said:


> But the first question that leaps to my mind is "why would you _set out_ not to do such a major component of martial arts training?"



The reason is that unless both fighters have very good technique, a sparring session becomes about 'winning' and not about improving technique. Randori within Genbukan is only done at higher levels that have proven they have good technique.



ap Oweyn said:


> Are you afraid of sparring?  (And I'm asking this of everyone, not just the OP.)  Why?  What scares you?  I ask this because it seems to me that overcoming that fear or trepidation is both an important personal goal and a useful exercise in coming to grips with the effect of adrenaline and intimidation.
> The fact that it scares some people is fine.  It's useful.  Learn to work through it and you'll have put sparring to one of its most basic uses.
> Try to skirt around it and you'll just have short changed yourself.
> Stuart



I am not afraid of randori, but I flat out refuse to fight full contact.
I am a software developer / systems engineer. I need my brain. I am not going to let people pound me in the head for no good reason. I had a severe concussion once in my life, and that was enough. Accidents happen during partner drill and resistance training as well, and I accept that. I am just not going to invite it.

And if some people label that as fear: whatever. Being able to sit behind a computer screen 12 hours per day without a headache and providing an income is higher on my priorities list than being a tough full contact fighter.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 19, 2009)

At the risk of repeating myself, I will endeavour to answer the questions posed in these later posts...

ap Oweyn (Stuart), you asked "But the first question that leaps to my mind is "why would you _set out_ not to do such a major component of martial arts training?" 

Are you afraid of sparring? (And I'm asking this of everyone, not just the OP.) Why? What scares you? I ask this because it seems to me that overcoming that fear or trepidation is both an important personal goal and a useful exercise in coming to grips with the effect of adrenaline and intimidation.

The fact that it scares some people is fine. It's useful. Learn to work through it and you'll have put sparring to one of its most basic uses.

Try to skirt around it and you'll just have short changed yourself."

Well, in Ninjutsu circles, sparring as understood in karate-style systems is not a part of the training. This does not mean we do not train against resisting opponents, nor that we are fearful of anything you are mentioning. It just means that we recognise that sparring as understood in those arts has some very inherrent weakness's that do not actually add to your ablity to survive, in fact they can take away from them. So I would here go back to one of my previous posts and show what we understand as "sparring", or resistance training; randori as Bruno mentioned.

Masterfinger (Franco), you stated: "At the risk of sounding repetative (and/or stupid), I went ahead and decided to post based only on the *Title* and didn't bother reading a single reply: Easy, it effects you 110%. You have to know 3 simple "effects of the individuals technique" that you can only gain through sparring;
1. Does my "Technique/ Fighting skill" work against a resisting opponent?
2. Can I "Take a shot or do I have a glass jaw?"
3. Who runs out of gas 1st, me or my opponent? 

IMO, sparring helps to answers these questions so that your answers can be something like (in order of question)....
1. Some did and some didn't, so I will work towards fixing or dispose of what didn't work as well as solidifying what did work.
2. One major rule is to "Always protect yourself" / "Always keep your hands up" so your "glass jaw" if you do have one, isn't compromised. If you have a glass jaw, sparring will tell you soon enough.
3. Sparring equals cardivascular conditioning. In a street fight, whoever runs out of gas 1st, usually gets his *** handed to him. That is a simple fact."

Well, at the risk of sounding repetitive myself, I would ask that you do go back and read through some of the posts previously made, as these questions are covered. But in short, 
1: A "sparring" match is against a similarly trained opponent (or at least trained in a similar style/method), and as such is no real indication of effectiveness of technique against anyone but someone trained in the same methodology as yourself, and usually under restrictive rules.
2:Well, this can be done in any number of ways. And it isn't covered at all in no-contact sparring, so while I thoroughly agree with you that it is a vital (and often under-emphasised) aspect of martial art training to be able to take a hit as well as deliver one, you cannot take sparring as the way to find out. There are just too many other methods which can be used as drills in a much more effective way, and there are too many variants on the concept of sparring that do not include contact for it to be particularly viable here.
3: As for who runs out of gas first, this is absolutely essential... for a competition. If you are training for survival, most fights last 3 to 10 seconds, so endurance isn't so much of an issue. However, the ability to handle the adrenaline dump and it's after-effects is vital.

So, in essence (once again), it depends entirely on why you are training, how you train in your system, and how you art your art define "sparring". And finally, if anyone feels that the traditional Japanese form of free-form training (randori) is less scary than the more competitive versions of sparring, I invite you to recognise that the traditional is far closer to a fight in that there is an attacker who is commited to attacking when the defender doesn't know hwo they are coming at them, and the defender is responding in ways the attacker doesn't know to prepare for. As in most fights, there is an attacker and a defender, as opposed to sparring in which there are 2 aggressors (which is not actually realistic at all).


----------



## ap Oweyn (Jun 19, 2009)

The last two replies sound as though I was _accusing_ people of being afraid of sparring.  You missed my point.  It wasn't a rhetorical question.  If someone rejects sparring because they've got particular medical concerns, they've found tools that work better for them, or they haven't developed and/or found a sparring format that addresses their concerns, that's one thing.  I was asking, genuinely, whether the original poster was afraid of the idea of sparring.  IF they were, I was suggesting that confronting that fear was a benefit to him or her.  I was NOT suggesting that everyone who rejects sparring is afraid of it.  Dig?


----------



## ap Oweyn (Jun 19, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> The reason is that unless both fighters have very good technique, a sparring session becomes about 'winning' and not about improving technique. Randori within Genbukan is only done at higher levels that have proven they have good technique.


I don't believe that. Sparring is about whatever a teacher reinforces in his students. If he touts it as a tool to develop technique, that's how it will be viewed. 

In fact, I think that idea is actually _undermined_ by this policy of only having higher ranks spar. Because, by then, two things have happened: 1) the person has developed a reputation as a skilled proponent of his system; a reputation that stands to be tarnished in sparring (because, let's face it, everyone looks bad in sparring at one time or another) and 2) people develop a sense of technique based on more ideal circumstances; a sense that comes crumbling down once sparring is finally introduced.

To my mind, the sooner sparring is introduced, the better it serves as a learning tool. I believe a lot of the bad sparring I see stems from the mental hiccup people get when their technique doesn't look and feel the way it did in line practice, pad work, or kata. The earlier they get to grips with that sense of dissonance, the sooner they start to internalize a sense of how it will actually feel in its less-idealized state.

Also, by using sparring as a learning tool early on, you establish that sparring is the laboratory. Not the showcase. Less ego involved when everyone in the match understands that they're still in the process of developing the tools.



> I am not afraid of randori, but I flat out refuse to fight full contact.
> I am a software developer / systems engineer. I need my brain. I am not going to let people pound me in the head for no good reason. I had a severe concussion once in my life, and that was enough. Accidents happen during partner drill and resistance training as well, and I accept that. I am just not going to invite it.


 
Who said anything about full contact? I'm a former writer/editor, former counselor, and current stay-at-home dad. You don't think I need a brain?

First of all, people have the option of wearing headgear and gloves. I sparred in boxing and can still form a coherent sentence. I competed in full-contact stick sparring under the WEKAF format and can still walk a straight line. 

But the OP never even mentioned full contact. They just said sparring. I personally was intimidated by sparring, even the comparatively light contact sparring we did in taekwondo. It was simply the feeling of being in direct physical conflict with someone else that bothered me. Level of contact was inconsequential. Being matched up _against_ someone else was enough to make me very uncomfortable at that age.

Conflict often makes people uncomfortable, even without the threat of physical harm.



> And if some people label that as fear: whatever. Being able to sit behind a computer screen 12 hours per day without a headache and providing an income is higher on my priorities list than being a tough full contact fighter.


 
I'm not a tough full-contact fighter. I spend my days changing diapers and steaming carrots. So there's no need to be defensive about this. As I said in my previous post, you've misunderstood my point here. Okay?

I don't think we're actually in nearly as much disagreement as you seem to think. Cool?


Stuart


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 19, 2009)

Yes, but this is a direct quote from your post...



ap Oweyn said:


> There have been some really well considered answers about training methods, types of sparring, mental rehearsal, etc. But the first question that leaps to my mind is "why would you _set out_ not to do such a major component of martial arts training?"
> 
> Are you afraid of sparring? (And I'm asking this of everyone, not just the OP.) Why? What scares you? I ask this because it seems to me that overcoming that fear or trepidation is both an important personal goal and a useful exercise in coming to grips with the effect of adrenaline and intimidation.
> 
> Try to skirt around it and you'll just have short changed yourself.


 
Now, to me, phrases such as "I'm asking this of everyone, not just the OP" does imply everyone who doesn't spar. Did we mis-read? You also have a direct link in thought process between "Why wouldn't you..." and "Are you afraid?". Whether deliberate or not, having one question follow directly from another creates a link between the two concepts, giving the impression that you feel that if you don't spar, then you are afraid. I'm sure you can understand how we came to that conclusion, yes?

I personally didn't see anything in your post which alluded any other reason for not sparring, other than fear. And we didn't treat it as rhetorical, you may notice. We answered.

That said, I do agree that if you are experiencing fear, confronting it is a very important, and powerful action. It is to be recommended to each and every person, in as many forms as possible, whether that is sparring, or diving out of a plane, or trying a new food for the first time! So if we did mis-read your statement, I for one apologise, but I was simply following the words you posted.


----------



## ap Oweyn (Jun 19, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> Now, to me, phrases such as "I'm asking this of everyone, not just the OP" does imply everyone who doesn't spar. Did we mis-read? You also have a direct link in thought process between "Why wouldn't you..." and "Are you afraid?". Whether deliberate or not, having one question follow directly from another creates a link between the two concepts, giving the impression that you feel that if you don't spar, then you are afraid. I'm sure you can understand how we came to that conclusion, yes?


 
Sure I can.  But only if you assumed it was rhetorical.  I suppose I could've taken the time to provide other possible reasons.  But 1) it was late and 2) I thought that other reasons had already been thoughtfully and thoroughly covered by previous posters.  A fact that I believe I acknowledged in my very first sentence.



> I personally didn't see anything in your post which alluded any other reason for not sparring, other than fear. And we didn't treat it as rhetorical, you may notice. We answered.


 
As I say, I thought the other reasons had already been sufficiently covered.  And people answer rhetorical questions all the time.  The nature of the answers suggests a foregone conclusion on my part (which wasn't true).



> That said, I do agree that if you are experiencing fear, confronting it is a very important, and powerful action. It is to be recommended to each and every person, in as many forms as possible, whether that is sparring, or diving out of a plane, or trying a new food for the first time! So if we did mis-read your statement, I for one apologise, but I was simply following the words you posted.


 
Hey, as a writer, I know that things can always be worded better.  I'm used to posting on a different forum.  Perhaps if you knew me better, as they do over there, it wouldn't have come off that way.  I'll have to remember to start over from scratch here.

No need to apologize, in any event.


Stuart


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 19, 2009)

Cool. I can certainly understand posting late at night, and that affecting your posting... and, yes, you did reference other answers in your post, but then continued with "the first thing that comes to my mind", so I took that as your primary argument. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## ap Oweyn (Jun 19, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> Cool. I can certainly understand posting late at night, and that affecting your posting... and, yes, you did reference other answers in your post, but then continued with "the first thing that comes to my mind", so I took that as your primary argument. Thanks for the clarification.


Next time, I'll include my standard (and exhaustive) list of disclaimers.  Remember, you brought this on yourselves.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 19, 2009)

Ok let me put it differently: My current system does not contain sparring. I like it very much and I am going to stick with it for the foreseeable future. That is why I don't do randori. I like (love) groundfighting but as I mentioned it is not part of my training. I was explained the reason for not sparring, and to me they make sense. If you disagree, then we can agree to disagree.

If a system would demand full contact sparring, I would not do it for the reasons I already mentioned. You mention head gear and gloves. When I was doing modern JJ I sometimes sparred like that. When I accidentally stepped into my sensei's punch, my lights went out. I felt sick all day.
Even with gloves and gear, the statistics about headtrauma with boxers are shocking. Boxers still die from blunt force trauma. There is a thread running in the boxing forum right now about a death after a title fight. No matter how much protection you use, getting pound in the head -will- cause a level of brain damage.


----------



## ap Oweyn (Jun 19, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Even with gloves and gear, the statistics about headtrauma with boxers are shocking. Boxers still die from blunt force trauma. There is a thread running in the boxing forum right now about a death after a title fight. No matter how much protection you use, getting pound in the head -will- cause a level of brain damage.


 
I don't train that way any longer. I want to use a level of contact that forces people to address the mental reaction to getting hit, without dealing with the physiological damage.  Believe me, I don't want any life-altering sparring sessions either.  My kids need me thinking straight.



Stuart


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 20, 2009)

you do what you train...  you train what you do... 

you are either trained or untrained...   


You could have been punching a human drawing on a brick wall for 10 years and it can still translate into real life situation...  most people who survive violence had the same thing in common... the unwaivering will to live so much that they forged thier own reality...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 20, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> There is a thread running in the boxing forum right now about a death after a title fight. No matter how much protection you use, getting pound in the head -will- cause a level of brain damage.


 Is fighting......is not safe.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> real simple, as I am a simple man.
> 
> if you aint used to getting hit, it's gonna be ugly when you do get hit.
> 
> and you WILL get hit on the street.


 True, that........nothing like getting punched in the nose hard by someone who means it........you don't want the first time to be someone who means you ultimate ill.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 20, 2009)

Real, hard sparring is where you strip away what you KNOW from what you THINK you know.......it's not about gaining a truth, it's about losing an illusion and subsequently training accordingly.


----------



## nelsonkari (Jun 20, 2009)

How bad?

Life and death bad.

I believe the late BL once said:

"A fighter must be hurt occasionally and stung often in order to keep cool in a kill or get killed situation."

I agree with Bruce. Learing the latest dance steps won't save you butt on the street. If you've never felt the pain of a KO it is hard to learn how important it is to learn your basic blocks.

Just one man's opinion.

Nelson Kari


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 22, 2009)

nelsonkari said:


> How bad?
> 
> Life and death bad.
> 
> ...


 
Pain is the teacher....   it has been since we were born... its a language all man and animals understand.   You can tell a child 100 times not to touch the stove becuase its hot... buit they never seem to learn until after they get burned... this reciprocates throughout the duration of our lives and if we understand it and harness it we can separate the truth from fiction in your training real quick....    this is why force on force is covering so much ground....   we normally train with and against dry guns but found the truth once we inserted pellets into the chamber and put some gas behind them...  once you get shot point blank with a 500fps pellet you learn quick whats right and what will get you mortally wounded...


----------



## Big Don (Jun 22, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> To my aging mind, this type of question is symptomatic of the schizophrenic society we seem to live in today, where physical violence is something that young people often see in media but very rarely are allowed to experience (at a non-lethal level).


You allow them to experience lethal levels? You are bad ***... 


> When I was young {and no it's not all *that* long ago :lol:}, people did not need sparring in their martial arts training to know what taking and giving a 'hit' in the real world felt like.  We got an awful lot of that from schoolyard fights and the punishments that usually devolved from same .


 I couldn't agree with you more.





> It would appear that our youth are now so wrapped up in cotton wool that the only violence they encounter in daily life is shooting each other; not a lot of help in unarmed martial arts .
> 
> Sparring in any empty-hand art is a quick way of getting students to appreciate timing and distance so that their 'solo' training visualisation has something to found itself upon.  Other than that it's just plain fun - or at least it was for me in my empty-hand days.


IMO, learning Katas/forms, Sets, techniques are precursors to sparring. Sparring, a controlled form of fighting, is the fun part, and the GOAL of martial arts is to be a good fighter, at least to me.


----------



## Shinobi Teikiatsu (Jun 22, 2009)

My instructor has just started incorporating sparring into our curriculum (At the end of classes), and I love it.

The way I see it, sparring is good if you allow full contact, but in a controlled environment. You know the person you spar with and you know when to pull out of the fight, and you have people that can help to tell you when the match is over. Sparring is good because it conditions your endurance and shows you what you're good at, what you're bad at, and what your favorite techniques are.

I think we should view sparring as a tool for our training, in the sense that it helps our form and technique, not that it better prepares us for that street fight that we all seem to crave or fear.

Granted, all forms of martial art will, in one way or another, help prepare you for a real fight, but our ultimate goal should be simply to perfect ourselves through our training, not to be able to best any for. I used to train because I was always afraid that one day I'd be walking down the street and someone would pull a gun on me, then I realized that, even if I train for 20 years, if someone pulls a gun on me, the odds are slim that I'll walk away from it. That said, the chances of that happening are pretty slim as well, depending on where you are. That's when I realized that I should train just to train, to clear my mind, to stay healthy, and to have fun. 

I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to spar to prepare for a street fight, we should spar just to better ourselves. ALL of our training should help us in a street fight, as there are people who do nothing but kata all day and can defend themselves pretty well, I've seen it.


----------



## Franc0 (Jun 24, 2009)

1: A "sparring" match is against a similarly trained opponent  (or at least trained in a similar style/method), and as such is no real indication of effectiveness of technique against anyone but someone trained in the same methodology as yourself, and usually under restrictive rules.
And who sets these rules of matching skill levels? Your school may, but not mine, so please don't place the limitations of your training as a comparison, cuz they're not even close. 
2:Well, this can be done in any number of ways. And it isn't covered at all in no-contact sparring, so while I thoroughly agree with you that it is a vital (and often under-emphasised) aspect of martial art training to be able to take a hit as well as deliver one, you cannot take sparring as the way to find out. There are just too many other methods which can be used as drills in a much more effective way, and there are too many variants on the concept of sparring that do not include contact for it to be particularly viable here.
OK, I can see your view, but for the benefit of others, explain to me and the others who are reading this, the "other" methods of how one is to measure whether or nor not you can take the hits. Do we stand still and see how hard a shot we can take?

3: As for who runs out of gas first, this is absolutely essential... for a competition. If you are training for survival, most fights last 3 to 10 seconds, so endurance isn't so much of an issue. However, the ability to handle the adrenaline dump and it's after-effects is vital.
So you can _fully predict_ that a street confrontation will last you 3 to 10 seconds? If we all had the gift of determining/guessing how long a confrontation will last, wouldn't we all train towards acheiving that? Sorry but thats a limitation. I do however agree that controlling the adrenalin dump is important.

So, in essence (once again), it depends entirely on why you are training, how you train in your system, and how you art your art define "sparring". And finally, if anyone feels that the traditional Japanese form of free-form training (randori) is less scary than the more competitive versions of sparring, I invite you to recognise that the traditional is far closer to a fight in that there is an attacker who is commited to attacking when the defender doesn't know hwo they are coming at them, and the defender is responding in ways the attacker doesn't know to prepare for. As in most fights, there is an attacker and a defender, as opposed to sparring in which there are 2 aggressors (which is not actually realistic at all).
OK my friend, this is something we agree upon. Part of our training is what we call D/A Sparring (Defender'Aggressor Sparring) which is basically learning to react against the sucker punch/direct attack. This where the elements of what we were talking about comes in to play. This is what separates "sparring' from "reactive defenses". The prior (sparring) helps to develope skill sets such as the jab, combos and the ability to take a hit. DA works on the more immediate apps.  Kinda see the diff?

Franco

[/quote]


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 24, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Real, hard sparring is where you strip away what you KNOW from what you THINK you know.......it's not about gaining a truth, it's about losing an illusion and subsequently training accordingly.



To know whether a technique works, you can also use partner drill (1, 2, 3, ...) step training against a resisting partner. The more experienced you get, the more you can add variations etc. This is how traditional martial arts have always been practised, and that seems to work too.



sgtmac_46 said:


> Is fighting......is not safe.



There is always risk with MA.
I have practised my basic tai sabaki enough that my sensei knows that I know what I am doing ( I am by no means at a high level though), and that I should be able to evade hard attacks and not just the slow _'see the bokken coming what am I supposed to do' _attacks.

If I don't move or do the wrong thing, I will get hit pretty hard and possibly end up with a concussion if I am unlucky. I accept that.

I am currently practising zenpo tenkai (handstand flip), and preparing to learn koho tenkai (handstand backflip) even though they are not mandatory. I've already fallen hundreds of time, and I will fall some more. If I fall the wrong way, I can break my collarbone, arms, wrist, or worst case my neck.
And I accept that too.

If I practise blocks with my sensei and he tells me that he will hit to get me, I had better do something to prevent that from happening. Fine, no problem.

But setting out like a boxer, knowing that it is not a risk but a certainty that I will get hit in the head time and time again, and that I am guaranteed to have measureable brain damage... -that- is the part I object to.

To me, the risk of getting injured in full contact sparring (the consequences of head blows) outweighs the risk of not doing full contact sparring and being less prepared for full contact hits on the street.

My head sensei seems to be able to handle himself very well without full contact sparring, as do other senior ninjutsu practisioner. Even if full contact would prepare them better still, they are better prepared for conforntation than 99% of the people. So absence of full contact does not make a system inherently worthless imo.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 24, 2009)

Hi Franco,

I'm the one you're quoting, by the way, so we'll get any confusion about that out of the way first. On to your points:



masterfinger said:


> 1: A "sparring" match is against a similarly trained opponent (or at least trained in a similar style/method), and as such is no real indication of effectiveness of technique against anyone but someone trained in the same methodology as yourself, and usually under restrictive rules.
> And who sets these rules of matching skill levels? Your school may, but not mine, so please don't place the limitations of your training as a comparison, cuz they're not even close.
> 
> The "rules" are often dictated by the system and it's Instructors, but can also include implied rules as well. And, if you haven't noticed by each of my posts here, I do not indulge in sparring as described here, but the majority of "mainstream" arts do (and those I have been involved in in the past as well, just so we're sure). These implied rules include single opponents, referees, only certain tools being utilised (hands and feet, but no takedowns; throws, chokes and grappling with no striking; each different range, but no weapons and a time limit). These are only examples, and each may be included or not, or variations thereof. As we have established that this is the form of sparring accepted as the pmise of this thread, if you are not indulging in competitive-type sparring, then I would say you come down on the side of sparring not being essential. But that's just my interpretation.
> ...


[/quote]


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jun 24, 2009)

To me it is not about sparring or not sparing it is about can you apply said technique in a realisitic manner. 

Sparring implies 2 people agree to meet with said amount of precautions,rules and use of power. 

A fight does not meet these requirements for there are no rules,no precautions.

There of course needs to be a level of resistance be that in sparring and practicing without sparing because it is the resistance that is the key and not so much sparring or not sparring.

But these topics have been discussed even in old times I remember a story concerning sword Kata vs sparring the students felt that sparring was more efficent the master showed them by parring every block during sparring and saying which part of Kata he was using. The point was he felt that Kata contained all the essential movements needed and if practiced long enough will provide success in real encounters.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 24, 2009)

Without careful structure and planning, sparring is preparation for dueling.  Even the roughest free sparring has some mutually agreed on rules.  The Dog Brothers Gatherings allow the fighters to choose the rules -- and they mutually limit the damage they do to each other.

A duelist may do well in an actual encounter; after all, they have practiced and put their tactics into use in a more real environment.  But a duelist may also be overwhelmed by the facts of real violence, outside the ring.  It's not according to the "script."  They may not play by the rules; they might attack with illegal or unorthodox techniques, or before they're supposed to.  Or just really hit!

But kata (solo or two person), step-sparring, and other partner work can be equally bad at preparing you.  They lend themselves even more to developing habits of expecting the attack -- even responding before the actual attack happens!

Scenario training, done properly is fantastic preparation for the real deal; it's as close as you can get without actually getting jumped.  But to do it right is NOT easy and most people who think they know what they are doing are actually doing a pretty awful job.  There's more to it than making up a scenario and seeing what you can do...

The best training balances all of these in a way that's appropriate to the student's goals.  If they're preparing for competition, sparring may take priority over scenarios and partner work.  If they're cops preparing to go on the street -- scenario training is key.  You just have to focus YOUR training for YOUR goals.


----------



## BLACK LION (Jun 24, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Without careful structure and planning, sparring is preparation for dueling. Even the roughest free sparring has some mutually agreed on rules. The Dog Brothers Gatherings allow the fighters to choose the rules -- and they mutually limit the damage they do to each other.
> 
> A duelist may do well in an actual encounter; after all, they have practiced and put their tactics into use in a more real environment. But a duelist may also be overwhelmed by the facts of real violence, outside the ring. It's not according to the "script." They may not play by the rules; they might attack with illegal or unorthodox techniques, or before they're supposed to. Or just really hit!
> 
> ...


 
That was a well articulated post... thanks


----------



## AnglingBoi (Jun 24, 2009)

Its good to spar,  Keeps your wits on end.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Jun 26, 2009)

Remebering how it feels when your fist strikes meat and bone will make you less reluctant to strike.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 26, 2009)

Em MacIntosh said:


> Remebering how it feels when your fist strikes meat and bone will make you less reluctant to strike.



That's why you do your bag work at the local slaughter house.....ROCKY STYLE!


----------



## shihansmurf (Jun 26, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Real, hard sparring is where you strip away what you KNOW from what you THINK you know.......it's not about gaining a truth, it's about losing an illusion and subsequently training accordingly.


 
Unvarnished truth for the taking right there. Well said. All the kata and step sparring in the world amounts to simply a well rehersed op-plan, and as Mr. Murphy points out, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy"!

Heavy contact sparring is the proving ground for the techniques that populate your arsenal for real world fighting. Now, others may be comfortable with trusting themselves to material that they haven't pressure tested against a resisting opponent that is activly striking them with enough force to elicit appropriate stress responses, but I sure wouldn't. If your goal in training in the martial arts is the development of actual fighting skills, then there simply isn't any way that is remotely as effective as heavy contact sparring. If you have other reasons for training, then go for it, but results vary accordingly.

Mark


----------



## wingchun100 (Mar 3, 2014)

If you mean sparring with rules, then it might not hurt you at all. However, interacting with another human being DOES get you to learn how to read the human body. That is where your reflexes are truly developed. For a while all I could do was shadow box because I couldn't afford to go to class, but I realized very quickly this was a waste of time (well, except for the cardio benefit) because I'm "defending" against only the attacks *I* can imagine. 

Long story short, you need to spar full-blast as if it were a real street situation.


----------



## K-man (Mar 3, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> If you mean sparring with rules, then it might not hurt you at all. However, interacting with another human being DOES get you to learn how to read the human body. That is where your reflexes are truly developed. For a while all I could do was shadow box because I couldn't afford to go to class, but I realized very quickly this was a waste of time (well, except for the cardio benefit) because I'm "defending" against only the attacks *I* can imagine.
> 
> Long story short, you need to spar full-blast as if it were a real street situation.


How do you define sparring?


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 3, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Long story short, you need to spar full-blast as if it were a real street situation.



so every sparring session should end with someone going to the hospital or the morgue, and a police report?


----------



## K-man (Mar 3, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> so every sparring session should end with someone going to the hospital or the morgue, and a police report?


Good point. :hmm:


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> so every sparring session should end with someone going to the hospital or the morgue, and a police report?



I would say that not every self defence situation should end with someone going to the hospital or the morgue.

But full contact sparring is a different game to semi contact. The factors become different.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2014)

I am not a fan of scenario training. I believe it promotes the attacker to start reacting badly. They start to train their flinch reaction in a way that assists the other guy. As opposed to actively trying to spoil the technique and make their partner look bad.

I have found it is much easier to deal with a person that has scenario trained than a person that has not trained at all.  And I think it is due to a person who has not trained does not recognize my technique will work.

I do train drills. I do not train them to where I tea off on a guy who is just standing there.

An example arakan.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2rBj1d4_kgk

See how they are flinching and collapsing when it is an action that is detrimental to self defence.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2014)

What sparring leaves a gap in is the covering of distance. I am hesitant to run full bore at someone to engage them. But this situation is quite often forced when a fight has no boundaries. The tactics of that becomes a different game.


----------



## K-man (Mar 3, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I am not a fan of scenario training. I believe it promotes the attacker to start reacting badly. They start to train their flinch reaction in a way that assists the other guy. As opposed to actively trying to spoil the technique and make their partner look bad.
> 
> I have found it is much easier to deal with a person that has scenario trained than a person that has not trained at all.  And I think it is due to a person who has not trained does not recognize my technique will work.
> 
> ...


Well, I would say that the person receiving is role playing in a realistic response to an attack. The better you are as a martial artist, the better you can receive and the more value your partner will get out of the exercise. If you have to actually use full force to get your partner's response you will end up with massive injuries and no students. So I don't see anything as flinching and collapsing. I see a guy responding to his partner's moves. It is the basis of predictable response training. 

As to your claim that someone who has scenario trained being easier to deal with than some one who hasn't trained at all ... sorry ... :bs:


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 3, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I would say that not every self defence situation should end with someone going to the hospital or the morgue.



one would hope.  But if I'm attacked, it may well go there.  And if I go full blast, there's a very good chance it will go there.



> But full contact sparring is a different game to semi contact. The factors become different.



sure, but that's also a different game from going "full-blast, as if it were a real street situation".


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2014)

K-man said:


> Well, I would say that the person receiving is role playing in a realistic response to an attack. The better you are as a martial artist, the better you can receive and the more value your partner will get out of the exercise. If you have to actually use full force to get your partner's response you will end up with massive injuries and no students. So I don't see anything as flinching and collapsing. I see a guy responding to his partner's moves. It is the basis of predictable response training.
> 
> As to your claim that someone who has scenario trained being easier to deal with than some one who hasn't trained at all ... sorry ... :bs:




It does you or your partner no good to respond appropriately to their attacks. It certanally doesn't do any good to be driving your head backwards when punches come at you as it is a great way to get hurt if they are real punches. And if you shouldn't be doing it then I shouldn't be attacking someone who is doing it. 


And you are right the better you get the better you can receive attacks poorly.
It just loweres the bar.

And you can call be on my experience. It is anecdotal and not able to be proved.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> one would hope.  But if I'm attacked, it may well go there.  And if I go full blast, there's a very good chance it will go there.
> 
> 
> 
> sure, but that's also a different game from going "full-blast, as if it were a real street situation".



Decent padding and short rounds you should be able to manage it. Without too much injury. I used to do reality based stuff with ten second rounds that was helpful.

In general you are only ever going to approximate fighting in training.


----------



## K-man (Mar 3, 2014)

drop bear said:


> It does you or your partner no good to respond appropriately to their attacks. It certanally doesn't do any good to be driving your head backwards when punches come at you as it is a great way to get hurt if they are real punches. And if you shouldn't be doing it then I shouldn't be attacking someone who is doing it.
> 
> 
> And you are right the better you get the better you can receive attacks poorly.
> ...


So what you are claiming is that unless your partner does a real strike that causes a real reaction the training is detrimental to your training. When I am partner to someone training predictable response I want a realistic attack but I don't want a full out attack that will cripple me. And he needs my response to move to the next technique in the bunkai. You claim that you have experienced RB training but you have not posted anything that shows you understood it. That, or it was not RB to start with.



drop bear said:


> Decent padding and short rounds you should be able to manage it. Without too much injury. I used to do reality based stuff with ten second rounds that was helpful.
> 
> In general you are only ever going to approximate fighting in training.


Sorry, without a red man suit that is just not possible.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2014)

K-man said:


> So what you are claiming is that unless your partner does a real strike that causes a real reaction the training is detrimental to your training. When I am partner to someone training predictable response I want a realistic attack but I don't want a full out attack that will cripple me. And he needs my response to move to the next technique in the bunkai. You claim that you have experienced RB training but you have not posted anything that shows you understood it. That, or it was not RB to start with.
> 
> Sorry, without a red man suit that is just not possible.
> :asian:




I have used a fist suit and honestly they are over rated.

Your biggest issue would be your face otherwise I have gone full contact knees and elbows with no more than gloves mouth guard box shinguards and elbow pads. Sometimes we train I. Boxing head gear near fights to avoid cuts. People of course fight knees and elbows full contact.

If you were desperate to make eye gouges a part of training a mate of mine sparred Kudo. Now there headgear is full face. And getting smashed in the face is not so bad. According to him.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cIs1MS64Fe0

I did hocks system for four years. Up to you as to whether you think that is valid or not.

I understand the idea. I don't think it works very well. It moves from resisted training to compliant training to assisted training with people who have never received crippling shots trying to imagine what it is like to received crippling shots.

Which seems to be flinching and collapsing.


----------



## K-man (Mar 4, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I have used a fist suit and honestly they are over rated.


Until there is something better we're stuck with them.



drop bear said:


> Your biggest issue would be your face otherwise I have gone full contact knees and elbows with no more than gloves mouth guard box shinguards and elbow pads. Sometimes we train I. Boxing head gear near fights to avoid cuts. People of course fight knees and elbows full contact.


Your full contact is not my full contact, sorry.



drop bear said:


> If you were desperate to make eye gouges a part of training a mate of mine sparred Kudo. Now there headgear is full face. And getting smashed in the face is not so bad. According to him.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cIs1MS64Fe0


And we use full face helmets when we are fighting with strikes to the head and eyes.



drop bear said:


> I did hocks system for four years. Up to you as to whether you think that is valid or not.


That's cool, I like Hock's stuff. But his stuff is more like I train rather than what you describe.



drop bear said:


> I understand the idea. I don't think it works very well. It moves from resisted training to compliant training to assisted training with people who have never received crippling shots trying to imagine what it is like to received crippling shots.
> 
> Which seems to be flinching and collapsing.


Our training is a bit different to what you showed in the clip but the fact remains, you have no understanding of what they are demonstrating.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Mar 4, 2014)

K-man said:


> Until there is something better we're stuck with them.
> 
> Your full contact is not my full contact, sorry.
> 
> ...



No dramas. Please post a video of what aproximates full contact by your definition.

A fist suit is just too bulky to be really usefull. The guy in the suit never really bangs because it is unfair on the guy not in the suit so it becomes almost the same role as a pad holder.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7brvpd4QLjM

You don't really need a full suit to do that. Basic sparring gear would work just as well.


*Our training is a bit different to what you showed in the clip but the fact remains, you have no understanding of what they are demonstrating.*

And I am sorry but I will have to return the bs flag there. Unless you can explain why Your statement is really no more that you opinion. Definitely not fact.

I pretty much laid out my issues with combat scenarios. They weren't really addressed.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 4, 2014)

drop bear said:


> In general you are only ever going to approximate fighting in training.



that's exactly my point.  In training, you cannot go full blast like you are in a real street situation, or people will get seriously injured.  Padding will not be enough protection to avoid that.  Training only ever approximates fighting.  Training does not duplicate fighting.

people like to make comments about how one should train/spar with full power.  it comes across as kind of a "tough guy" thing and isn't too smart.  They think we need to beat up our training partners.  But they often don't stop to consider what that really means.  Train hard but more importantly, train smart.  That means avoiding injury for both yourself and your training partner.  Don't succumb to the tough-guy mentality, or you'll get real injuries or you'll end up without training partners because you've injured them and nobody will train with you.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 4, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> that's exactly my point.  In training, you cannot go full blast like you are in a real street situation, or people will get seriously injured.  Padding will not be enough protection to avoid that.  Training only ever approximates fighting.  Training does not duplicate fighting.
> 
> people like to make comments about how one should train/spar with full power.  it comes across as kind of a "tough guy" thing and isn't too smart.  They think we need to beat up our training partners.  But they often don't stop to consider what that really means.  Train hard but more importantly, train smart.  That means avoiding injury for both yourself and your training partner.  Don't succumb to the tough-guy mentality, or you'll get real injuries or you'll end up without training partners because you've injured them and nobody will train with you.



There are ways to spar hard without risking (within reason) your training partner. A lot of our stuff is pretty hot and heavy but the intent is to make each other better not destroy each other.

Iron sharpens iron.

I think you do need to spar to a decent level to raise your game to a better standard.

There is a term ego sparring which we use to describe that intent to tear down the other guy. And we try to avoid training like that.


----------



## K-man (Mar 4, 2014)

drop bear said:


> No dramas. Please post a video of what aproximates full contact by your definition.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mmwx7vcNbBo
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cKMRN3yoWrI
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XJE7XIMVCOk



drop bear said:


> A fist suit is just too bulky to be really usefull. The guy in the suit never really bangs because it is unfair on the guy not in the suit so it becomes almost the same role as a pad holder.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7brvpd4QLjM
> 
> ...


That is a crap video, really. Red man training is just another tool. If the red man acts like zombie training it is a waste of time. Red man gives you the opportunity to practise full power strikes. You can't do that with pads. Or any other type of training.




drop bear said:


> *Our training is a bit different to what you showed in the clip but the fact remains, you have no understanding of what they are demonstrating.*


OK, as I have stated two or three times, what they are practising is a type of predicted response training. Have you practised that and if so who was the trainer? Our training involves restraint that restricts the moves that your opponent has available. He either blocks or is hit. If he blocks you are expecting that and move to the next technique. If he doesn't block you hit him again. The difference is, because you are always controlling one limb, your opponent cannot move away. 



drop bear said:


> And I am sorry but I will have to return the bs flag there. Unless you can explain why Your statement is really no more that you opinion. Definitely not fact.


You haven't asked me to explain anything. What statement don't you understand? Was is the bolded statement above? If so, I stand by my statement. You have no understanding of what they are practising.



drop bear said:


> I pretty much laid out my issues with combat scenarios. They weren't really addressed.


i'm sorry. You just said you didn't agree with scenario training and that you could whip the **** of anyone that trained that way because they were easier to handle than people with no training ... remember.



drop bear said:


> I am not a fan of scenario training. I believe it promotes the attacker to start reacting badly. They start to train their flinch reaction in a way that assists the other guy. As opposed to actively trying to spoil the technique and make their partner look bad.
> 
> 
> I have found it is much easier to deal with a person that has scenario trained than a person that has not trained at all. And I think it is due to a person who has not trained does not recognize my technique will work.



Mate, you'll have to do a lot better than that!


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 4, 2014)

drop bear said:


> There are ways to spar hard without risking (within reason) your training partner. A lot of our stuff is pretty hot and heavy but the intent is to make each other better not destroy each other.



that also is exactly my point.  

Wingchun100 stated that one needs to spar full-blast, like you are in a real street situation.  That is the comment that I disagreed with.  You kinda defended his position, but what you are saying now does not support his position.  What you are saying now is definitely NOT going full-blast like you are in a real street situation.  you are talking about having some controls and limitations to avoid injury.  Yup, not full-blast like in a street situation.

So I guess we are in agreement?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 4, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> that also is exactly my point.
> 
> Wingchun100 stated that one needs to spar full-blast, like you are in a real street situation.  That is the comment that I disagreed with.  You kinda defended his position, but what you are saying now does not support his position.  What you are saying now is definitely NOT going full-blast like you are in a real street situation.  you are talking about having some controls and limitations to avoid injury.  Yup, not full-blast like in a street situation.
> 
> So I guess we are in agreement?




Probably. you spar with Intent but not ego. To test your partner not to destroy him. But it has to be tough to reach better gains.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 4, 2014)

K-man said:


> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mmwx7vcNbBo
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cKMRN3yoWrI
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XJE7XIMVCOk
> 
> ...



Alright I am having a look at your vid.

The red man. Why can't I practice full power strikes with the gear that I have? Either on pads or in sparring. 

Is this predicted response training the arakan? Where you go in Throw one shot and then get hit for five minutes while standing there. Actually yes A lot of styles do that. Zen do kai was a bit mad keen, hock had a pedestrian drill I even did with wing chun for a month and they did circle of death.

Otherwise there is dutch drills that essentially does that.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vwcj6q5_yU4

But notice that people get to defend. Creating a better flinch response. And not being trained to move in a way that helps the attacker. 

As I said about the people who train like that anecdotally are easier to deal with. Because they revert to muscle memory. And are more likely to collapse under pressure. You have to remember sports fighting is different to SD training.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 4, 2014)

In general, I think "hard-contact" is a better descriptor for most reasonable training than "full-contact".  As has been said, the point of sparring is to learn, not to damage our training partners.  Even most pro fighters aren't trying to knock out their sparring partners the way they would be trying to knock out their opponents in the ring.  (That said, many high-level professional fighters get conditioned to a level of "hard" contact in training which is harder than the "full" contact an amateur might achieve in a real fight.)



			
				drop bear said:
			
		

> No dramas. Please post a video of what aproximates full contact by your definition.





			
				K-man said:
			
		

> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mmwx7vcNbBo
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cKMRN3yoWrI
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XJE7XIMVCOk



?? K-man, I don't see any full (or even hard) contact training in those videos.  Those are all cooperative demos with the uke taking a dive as scripted.  Nothing against the art or the techniques being demoed, but none of that is full contact.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 4, 2014)

You'll forgive me for not reading all six pages of replies to the OP thread, but it looked interesting and I wanted to toss in my two cents worth 

To begin, per the OP question, we're talking about a self-defense training methodology as opposed to a sport training methodology. As such I would suggest that sparring is less efficient than a scenario-based training methodology.  Here are points to consider:



Sparring normally requires a specific rule set and safety equipment.  In other words, one person stands 'here' and the other stands 'there' and then they begin sparring i.e. attempting to hit/kick/grapple with one another.  Sparring may be based upon points or takedowns.  None of this is conducive to what is actually needed in a self-defense situation.
I've never seen a 'sparring' session that allows for one opponent to attempt to verbally de-esculate the other.  Nor have I seen a session allow/encourage improvised weapons, cover, concealment, escape & evasion or the use of barriers.
The above is where a scenario-based training session shines.   The 'trainee' of the scenario can go in 'cold' which represents a surprise situation (which is common since an attacker will chose a time/place that is advantageous to them and disadvantageous to you).  It requires them to quickly evaluate the situation and determine a course of action, possibly while under duress and the affects of an adrenaline dump i.e. tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of manual dexterity in the extremities, breathing control, starting from a position of disadvantage etc.
Whereas a sparring session normally involves an artificial environment i.e. flat, dry surface in a well lit venue with a rule set, the scenario can be in any type of location or situation i.e. dim light, hallway, elevator, stairs, alley, sloping surface etc.  This is more realistic and can be altered continuously.
L.E. uses the scenario-based methodology for both weapons and Defensive Tactics with good results for a multitude of scenarios.  It works well for lightly trained people all the way to highly trained professionals.

Just a few tidbits to toss out for consideration.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 4, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> In general, I think "hard-contact" is a better descriptor for most reasonable training than "full-contact".  As has been said, the point of sparring is to learn, not to damage our training partners.  Even most pro fighters aren't trying to knock out their sparring partners the way they would be trying to knock out their opponents in the ring.  (That said, many high-level professional fighters get conditioned to a level of "hard" contact in training which is harder than the "full" contact an amateur might achieve in a real fight.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks I was trying to find a way to say that without sounding mean.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 4, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> You'll forgive me for not reading all six pages of replies to the OP thread, but it looked interesting and I wanted to toss in my two cents worth
> 
> To begin, per the OP question, we're talking about a self-defense training methodology as opposed to a sport training methodology. As such I would suggest that sparring is less efficient than a scenario-based training methodology.  Here are points to consider:
> 
> ...




So you wouldn't spar at all? I am not sure why this is a one or the other deal.

We do situational drills. Which is a fancy way of saying combat scenario.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 4, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So you wouldn't spar at all? I am not sure why this is a one or the other deal.
> 
> We do situational drills. Which is a fancy way of saying combat scenario.



We don't do any type of sparring.  The methodology of sparring doesn't meet the needs of our training which is purely and solely self-defense oriented.  Scenario based training contains every element that is needed for such training for the reasons I detailed above i.e. environment, stress-responses, ability to tailor the scenario (for example shoot/don't shoot or verbal only or ambush or multiple attackers etc), improvised weapons and additional factors that a typical sparring session doesn't cover.  And one can have all the full contact that is needed to experience actual real world defense.  And it is far superior for things such as the flinch response, fight or flight, OODA etc.  

That's how we train in L.E. and that's the method I've adopted in our martial arts training as well based on the needs of my students.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 4, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I am not a fan of scenario training. I believe it promotes the attacker to start reacting badly. They start to train their flinch reaction in a way that assists the other guy. As opposed to actively trying to spoil the technique and make their partner look bad.
> 
> I have found it is much easier to deal with a person that has scenario trained than a person that has not trained at all.  And I think it is due to a person who has not trained does not recognize my technique will work.
> 
> ...



I suspect that you haven't seen or done proper scenario based training.  It's not easy.  It takes a lot of hard work to set up, coach, and run.  There's a whole lot more to it then "OK, so you're walking down the street, and this guy comes at you...  kick his ***!"  Let me refer you to the folks who literally wrote the book on it: Armiger Institute.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 4, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> I suspect that you haven't seen or done proper scenario based training.  It's not easy.  It takes a lot of hard work to set up, coach, and run.  There's a whole lot more to it then "OK, so you're walking down the street, and this guy comes at you...  kick his ***!"  Let me refer you to the folks who literally wrote the book on it: Armiger Institute.



I have seen it and done it. I think this idea I haven't done the real combat scenario training is a bit misleading.

Sparring teaches a different set of skills to combat scenarios. As I said we drill as well. But to understand random movement  dealing with contact and problem solving you need to spar.

Mc map is moving back in that direction. The police here are employing mma fighters to help with their combat systems. Seal team 6 was looking to employ boxing instructors.

Sparring is coming back into fashion with these organisations that put themselves in harms way.

The Gracie's are doing combat scenarios and sparring combined.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HncwGDTNsxo

I get the ppct stuff forced on me during security guard training. And there is a lot of oponants to it among the people who actually have to put themselves in danger using it.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ7mjc_aweE


----------



## K-man (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Is this predicted response training the arakan? Where you go in Throw one shot and then get hit for five minutes while standing there. Actually yes A lot of styles do that. Zen do kai was a bit mad keen, hock had a pedestrian drill I even did with wing chun for a month and they did circle of death.


Predicted response is really a lot different to Arakan but the concept is similar. In training you will start with a realistic common attack, say jab cross or jab hook, it doesn't really matter. The idea is to move in deflecting the attack to hit and restrict or trap an arm. Your next strike follows and you partner has no choice but to block with his free arm. If he doesn't block he gets hit and that hit may turn in to two or three hits until he goes down or manages to get his arm up to defend, in which case we can capture that arm and move to the next technique in the bunkai. It is not choreographed. Your partner is free to use any technique available and, if he can, he is free to kick or punch. In reality it doesn't happen and as the speed picks up it is virtually impossible to defend more than once before you get hit. It does work on flinch response as you are relying on your partner to respond instinctively. 



drop bear said:


> Otherwise there is dutch drills that essentially does that.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vwcj6q5_yU4
> 
> But notice that people get to defend. Creating a better flinch response. And not being trained to move in a way that helps the attacker.


 Nothing like this video.


drop bear said:


> As I said about the people who train like that anecdotally are easier to deal with. Because they revert to muscle memory. And are more likely to collapse under pressure. You have to remember sports fighting is different to SD training.


Hey, I made this point time after time.  At least we agree on something. :cheers:

There is a huge difference between anecdotal and what you claimed earlier as first hand experience. You said "*I* have found it is much easier to deal with a person that has scenario trained than a person that has not trained at all". I find that really hard to believe.



Tony Dismukes said:


> ?? K-man, I don't see any full (or even hard) contact training in those videos.  Those are all cooperative demos with the uke taking a dive as scripted.  Nothing against the art or the techniques being demoed, but none of that is full contact.


Tony, I agree with you but I was not asked to post full contact but what _approximates_ full contact by my definition. I don't believe there is anything on Youtube like unregulated full contact unless you look at the early UFC contests. So we will train those types of things with full power using protective gear where possible but at other times as partner we will respond as might be expected if a particular shot was full power, although not with the theatrical flair shown in the videos. I have reposted the original request below.


drop bear said:


> Please post a video of what aproximates full contact by your definition.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

K-man said:


> Predicted response is really a lot different to Arakan but the concept is similar. In training you will start with a realistic common attack, say jab cross or jab hook, it doesn't really matter. The idea is to move in deflecting the attack to hit and restrict or trap an arm. Your next strike follows and you partner has no choice but to block with his free arm. If he doesn't block he gets hit and that hit may turn in to two or three hits until he goes down or manages to get his arm up to defend, in which case we can capture that arm and move to the next technique in the bunkai. It is not choreographed. Your partner is free to use any technique available and, if he can, he is free to kick or punch. In reality it doesn't happen and as the speed picks up it is virtually impossible to defend more than once before you get hit. It does work on flinch response as you are relying on your partner to respond instinctively.
> 
> Nothing like this video.
> Hey, I made this point time after time.  At least we agree on something. :cheers:
> ...



Your drills are teaching a different set of skills to sparring. So I am not sure how you can compare the two.

Now from my experience when a person first spars the drills have not put them in a good position to deal with that. It happens with our guys as well if they have done drills and then apply it to sparring. A person who has not trained at all has no idea that my moves work and do not act accordingly. It can be difficult to deal with and requires different techniques.

For us it is a progression. Technique,drills, resisted drills,sparring. That way we try to give people the best chance in a conflict.

Full contact is generally not considered drills but full contact resisted. But it saves confusion that when you say full contact you mean drills.


In regards to dutch drills the intent is different. The correct response your partner should be achieving is defending your attacks forcing my attacks to try and outmanoeuvre his defence. 

So I may feed a pre arranged attack he feeds a pre arranged defence. At a experienced level if you get nailed then you just have to recover for the other shots will still be coming. If your shots are being spoiled by his defence then you need to throw better shots.

The sort of drills you describe are used but they are right at the start of that progression. And not done with speed or force because their poupose becomes lost.

To make a person react like they have been hit. Is done in sparring by hitting people.


----------



## K-man (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Your drills are teaching a different set of skills to sparring. So I am not sure how you can compare the two.


my training does not consist of drills. When I switched from Japanese to Okinawan karate I threw all the drills out as they were all oriented towards winning points in tournaments.



drop bear said:


> Now from my experience when a person first spars the drills have not put them in a good position to deal with that. It happens with our guys as well if they have done drills and then apply it to sparring. A person who has not trained at all has no idea that my moves work and do not act accordingly. It can be difficult to deal with and requires different techniques.
> 
> For us it is a progression. Technique,drills, resisted drills,sparring. That way we try to give people the best chance in a conflict.
> 
> Full contact is generally not considered drills but full contact resisted. But it saves confusion that when you say full contact you mean drills.


I had your sort of sparring for 20 years and it does nothing for me. We are on two different planets. You haven't the first idea of what I am discussing because your training is rooted in competition. If you had of looked for the guys I mentioned for you to check out you may have got a glimpse of what I am talking about.



drop bear said:


> In regards to dutch drills the intent is different. The correct response your partner should be achieving is defending your attacks forcing my attacks to try and outmanoeuvre his defence.
> 
> So I may feed a pre arranged attack he feeds a pre arranged defence. At a experienced level if you get nailed then you just have to recover for the other shots will still be coming. If your shots are being spoiled by his defence then you need to throw better shots.


So this appears to me to be choreography.



drop bear said:


> The sort of drills you describe are used but they are right at the start of that progression. And not done with speed or force because their poupose becomes lost.
> 
> To make a person react like they have been hit. Is done in sparring by hitting people.


And once again you are making assumptions about something you have obviously never experienced and do not understand. Our training can be as fast as you like but when it is fast it is over before it can progress. So we may practise small segments full speed but to progress the whole bunkai it needs to be slower to give your partner a chance to react. The more experienced your partner, the faster you can go. The beauty of the training is you do not have to hit your partner hard.
:asian:


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Sparring teaches a different set of skills to combat scenarios. As I said we drill as well. But to understand random movement  dealing with contact and problem solving you need to spar.



After reading your comment above I took a look at your profile and I think I understand the issue.  It says you train MMA.  Now there is nothing wrong with that, but if this is correct, it explains why we're not on the same sheet of music so-to-speak.  We're really talking about apples and oranges.

To begin, MMA uses a sport training methodology.  To be clear, nothing wrong with that if the focus remains on sport and competition.  So please don't confuse anything I say as a put-down towards MMA.  As such, a sport training methodology is not sufficient for self defense training and in truth is extremely detrimental.  I'll say this again to emphasis the point, it is detrimental to the training.  Let me requote a post I did quite some time ago on this (and other) boards that was well received and cuts to the heart of the discussion:



> For the purposes of  this thread we can define self-defense as the strategies, principles,  tactics and techniques to defend oneself and/or loved ones from and  attack which can cause bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death.
> 
> To begin with, most types of sport traing/competions revolve around  some/most/all of the following considerations (be they TKD  specific or a  more general MMA).
> 
> ...



So you need to ask yourself the question of where your sparring fits into the above commentary.  If your sparring subscribes to a certain rule-set then it is sport and not sufficient for self defense.  If your sparring is one-on-one in a weaponless environment and does not allow for verbal judo, escape & evasion, improvised weapons, use of barriers and/or cover and concealment etc then it is sport and detrimental to developing good self defense skills.  Sparring does not have the randomness of a scenario because a scenario is not limited in any way, shape or form and can utilize any and all locations, environmental stimulus, duress (that can't be obtained during sparring), sensory overload, OODA, applicable self defense laws etc.

Again, not putting down MMA and/or sport training at all, it's just a different animal with a different training perspective and methodology to achieve a specific goal.  You mentioned Gracie:



> The Gracie's are doing combat scenarios and sparring combined.



I know Royce.  He use to train L.E. personnel at SEPSI which is a regional training center.  He began with the traditional sport-oriented BJJ style training and quickly discovered it sucks for what a high liability professional needs in the real world.  He had to make extreme changes to what and how he teaches in order for Deputies/Officers to continue to come to his course.  And it was still questionable (that is putting it nicely).  That isn't a slap on Royce.  It's just that what he offered worked in one environment and not in another.  As a result I haven't seen him teach there in years now.



> Seal team 6 was looking to employ boxing instructors.



This doesn't make it a good idea.  I've trained under (and became an Instructor) Ken Good who was Seal Team Six.  No boxing at all and was more oriented towards Aikijujutsu (along with Sonny Puzikas and Systema).  I can assure you that the preponderance of their training is scenario based (I know as I commanded SOG Team Six and that's what we did).



> The police here are employing mma fighters to help with their combat systems.



If this is true then I truly feel for them.  If it is rear naked chokes and kamoras and cross body mounts and triangle locks etc then they are going to be putting themselves in danger before the altercation even starts.  We messed with this back in the 90's when it was the flavor of the month.  I died out quickly fortunately before anyone got hurt.  Now we use SPEAR, PCR, Boatman and Israeli training (of which I'm an instructor in each system).  It has done extremely well for us (we're the fifth largest agency in the state).  And it has, along with our traditional self-defense related Karate training been in good stead with my students (the bulk of which are high liability professionals).


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

K-man said:


> my training does not consist of drills. When I switched from Japanese to Okinawan karate I threw all the drills out as they were all oriented towards winning points in tournaments.
> 
> 
> I had your sort of sparring for 20 years and it does nothing for me. We are on two different planets. You haven't the first idea of what I am discussing because your training is rooted in competition. If you had of looked for the guys I mentioned for you to check out you may have got a glimpse of what I am talking about.
> ...



I have looked at every video you have posted and seen mostly unresisted drills. Some were fast but still unresisted. I am an advocate of resisted training.

From what you have posted all your training looks like drills. Of one shade or another. That is neither a new or secret concept. I do drills that's are choreographed and ones that approximate a fight. And then progress from that to sparring which is another approximation and so on.

No training is the same as fighting. No training is done without rules and safety measures. That is the reality of good training.

What I don't understand is you have this system that is faster and more effective. That is crucial to winning fights and that is sold and readily available to anyone who wants to take the time out to do it and you then think nobody else is adopting these concepts. That I don't understand them just because I don't agree with them.


I would not put someone in a competition if they had not sparred they would be under prepared and get hurt. A competition is safer than an attack so I could not envisage preparing somone for an attack without sparring.

I would just not be giving them the best chance.

Now your system should be easily provable because it would dominate in competition. Considering you are trained for the much more serious nature of the street. The safety and ineffectiveness of sports martial arts should be easy to take on.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I would not put someone in a competition if they had not sparred they would be under prepared and get hurt.



This was directed at K-man, but I'd like to offer my thoughts.  I agree.  For competition you need sports training.



> A competition is safer than an attack so I could not envisage preparing somone for an attack without sparring.



And this is the crux of the issue.  Hopefully my above posts will help you to see the differences in the training methodology.



> Now your system should be easily provable because it would dominate in  competition. Considering you are trained for the much more serious  nature of the street. The safety and ineffectiveness of sports martial  arts should be easy to take on.



Well, it would dominate the sport arena until I was DQ'd.  As an example, you adhere to your rule set..but I don't.  You have your gloves and cup and mouth piece...I don't.  What I do have is my Glock 19 and at least two edged weapons on my person.  I would have no hesitation to grab the ref and throw him into you.  Or strike to an area that probably isn't permitted by the rule set you are forced to adhere to.  And I wouldn't necessarily met you on the mat, rather the fight would occur in the parking lot between two parked cars or I would attack you from behind on the way to the mat using a chair or brick.  

I'm not being funny here and hopefully you'll understand we're I'm going with this.  These are two different animals and like oil and water you can't mix them.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> After reading your comment above I took a look at your profile and I think I understand the issue.  It says you train MMA.  Now there is nothing wrong with that, but if this is correct, it explains why we're not on the same sheet of music so-to-speak.  We're really talking about apples and oranges.
> 
> To begin, MMA uses a sport training methodology.  To be clear, nothing wrong with that if the focus remains on sport and competition.  So please don't confuse anything I say as a put-down towards MMA.  As such, a sport training methodology is not sufficient for self defense training and in truth is extremely detrimental.  I'll say this again to emphasis the point, it is detrimental to the training.  Let me requote a post I did quite some time ago on this (and other) boards that was well received and cuts to the heart of the discussion:
> 
> ...




What you miss is the focus on better basics. Sparring allows for mastery of a core set of principles that are then infinitley adaptable. Sparring occurs at all ranges of combat. In all sorts of different environments. The adaptability is what makes these ideas so effective.

Control of these core principles is what creates the opportunities for the submissions and the knockouts. It is the same core principles that allow for the use of all the rule breaking moves.

Instead of constantly trying to create a skill set of moves for every variable and then trying to filter through them. You train basic ideas and are forced to problem solve. Sparring is an exercise in problem solving.

Ultimately the defence against a punch is exactly the same as an eye gouge a throat punch a judo chop. It does not matter what rule breaking move is used the principles behind that move remain constant.

Sparring may not teach a person to hit knees or throats but it teaches the ability to hit a target which is the the point. If you haven't started by getting that right then you are in trouble.

So instead of learning to fight 8 guys with weapons in a flash Gordon style death ring I focus on being able to handle one guy. Because unless that is done the rest cannot be accomplished. 

Weapons are not covered in mma de escalation is not covered. Awareness ambush counter ambush. And you would need to go to an expert in those fields to complete your skill set if that is what you want to do. 

But for the bare mechanics of forcefully dominating another person the sports fighters are the experts. And sparring is a vital tool.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 5, 2014)

I would dare to say that most of the benefits of sparring are mental rather than physical, in that they force the student to keep their head under pressure and must make their techniques work against an actively resisting opponent.

That still doesn't make sparring (as the term is most often used) the equivalent of a realistic self defence scenario, nor does that make it the only way to achieve these sorts of benefits.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> This was directed at K-man, but I'd like to offer my thoughts.  I agree.  For competition you need sports training.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why do I adhere to a rule set. You take somone on in a parking lot they are hardly expected to fight fair.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I would dare to say that most of the benefits of sparring are mental rather than physical, in that they force the student to keep their head under pressure and must make their techniques work against an actively resisting opponent.
> 
> That still doesn't make sparring (as the term is most often used) the equivalent of a realistic self defence scenario, not does that make it the only way to achieve these sorts of benefits.



Getting the basic mechanics of making attacks work and resisting their attacks needs resisted training. The other guy will be fighting back. I think that has to be experienced in the gym before you try it out for real.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Getting the basic mechanics of making attacks work and resisting their attacks needs resisted training. The other guy will be fighting back. I think that has to be experienced in the gym before you try it out for real.


Sure.  Though your statement is not specific to sparring (as the term is most often used) or to other training methods, as mentioned by others in the conversation.

Having had to defend myself using techniques learned in an art that has sparring, I came out okay on more than one occasion and can say first hand that outside of schoolyard scraps (you know; meet me on the playground/out back/wherever and we'll get it on), no self defence scenario that I have ever been in that also involved a physical component ever resembled sparring in the usual sense of the word.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

The other thing people miss is that the gym is a real place not some sterile environment. For most places I have trained there are walls I have to avoid bits of hard floor and other people moving and banging around. There are improvised weapons people team up on others. People are ambushed.

This is all part of life clashing with this pure training that everybody thinks is a detriment.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Sure.  Though your statement is not specific to sparring (as the term is most often used) or to other training methods, as mentioned by others in the conversation.
> 
> Having had to defend myself using techniques learned in an art that has sparring, I came out okay on more than one occasion and can say first hand that outside of schoolyard scraps (you know; meet me on the playground/out back/wherever and we'll get it on), no self defence scenario that I have ever been in that also involved a physical component ever resembled sparring in the usual sense of the word.



All of mine have. But I am not naturally agressive. And mma is more in line with how fighting looks anyway.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Sparring occurs at all ranges of combat. In all sorts of different environments.



Hmmm, so your telling me your sparring takes place;


Inside of a car?
In an elevator?
On stair?
In an alley?
On a bed?
In a doorway?
On a slopping and/or wet surface?
On asphalt?
In dim light?
By complete surprise?
With multiple attackers?
With weapons (standard or improvised)?

So you're telling me that you have the option to walk/run away from the other person?  You have a chance to employ verbal judo?  You can throw some loose change in their face?  

Is this what you're saying?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Hmmm, so your telling me your sparring takes place;
> 
> 
> Inside of a car?
> ...



Well yeah pretty much. I have those sort of friends

But the principals of sparring cover those conditions without having to go to every single environment. And develop a new set of tactics for each one which would be an arduous way to lean to defend yourself.

Basically if you can dodge a spanner you can dodge a dodge ball.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Well yeah pretty much. I have those sort of friends



Well great.  But I'll be honest with you, either your not being honest with us or you make a habit of contradicting yourself.



> But the principals of sparring cover those conditions without having to go to every single environment.





> So instead of learning to fight 8 guys with weapons in a flash Gordon style death ring I focus on being able to handle one guy.



Learning to handle one guy isn't 'covering those conditions' that I've listed.  Sparring is one-on-one and I think your embellishing how you spar a bit to try to make it into something it isn't.  No offense, but like K-man I'm calling BS.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Well great.  But I'll be honest with you, either your not being honest with us or you make a habit of contradicting yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Learning basics is.

I don't need to find every stairwell I conceivably might find myself in a fight in and train there so I am prepared. I focus on a few set concepts and then apply them.

Then I randomise those concepts with sparring.

Then it does not matter if it is one guy ten guys in a house on a stair or on top of a moving train. The tools are still there to be employed.

Why is sparring one on one?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

I have sparred people everywhere. We have a tendency to just jump each other randomly and from there it gets worked out. Not that its a big claim to fame.

By all ranges I mean standing up sitting down punching kicking grappling. A basic skill set that is transferable to stairs and dim lights and suprises. 

If I want to throw things at people I can. It does not effect. the rest of my system. Neither does running away. I am not a robot.

I am not sure what impression you have about mma. But I'd do not actually need an hour of warm up to put on my mma clothes and then my hands taped then wait for walk out music then wait for a ref to say start before I can start defending myself.

The same as I can defend myself outside a cage throw money run away from fights eye gouge spit be nice to people so they don't fight me at all.

I will explain this again.

Training is not fighting.

So when you say I am limited by rules. You also have rules. 

I think people are being increadably hypocritical.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> All of mine have. But I am not naturally aggressive.


If you're out of high school but find yourself in schoolyard style fights, then that is more a reflection of the company you keep or the establishments that you frequent. than of how self defence is in the big picture.

A rape does not resemble schoolyard fistfights, for example.  Nor does a mugging, an attempted kidnapping, or an armed robbery.  Principles and skills you learn in sparring may be applicable, and the ability to keep your head is certainly a benefit, but that does not change the fact that MMA sparring does not resemble these things.



drop bear said:


> And mma is more in line with how fighting looks anyway.


Debatable, and not all SD circumstances are 'fights' along the lines of MMA. 

 So if you're talking about street fighting as in underground fighting for money and unsanctioned tournaments, MMA probably is more in line with how 'fighting' looks.  

If you're talking about street fighting as in handling yourself in a violent or potentially violent encounter, then MMA is not more in line with how 'fighting' looks.  And neither is any other form of contest fighting.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> If you're out of high school but find yourself in schoolyard style fights, then that is more a reflection of the company you keep or the establishments that you frequent. than of how self defence is in the big picture.
> 
> A rape does not resemble schoolyard fistfights, for example.  Nor does a mugging, an attempted kidnapping, or an armed robbery.  Principles and skills you learn in sparring may be applicable, and the ability to keep your head is certainly a benefit, but that does not change the fact that MMA sparring does not resemble these things.
> 
> ...



You mentioned your experience I mentioned mine. My experience is that the fighting is similar.

The basic mechanics of the fight looks the same as the basic mechanics of a mma match. Look at a fight there is punching kicking and grappling.

The basic defences are the same in a fight as mma. I am trying to reduce damage and maintain a good position.

Weapons is different. And I have said before mma does not cover that.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> You mentioned your experience I mentioned mine. My experience is that the fighting is similar.


I wasn't disputing your experience.  I will restate what I said: the types of altercations that you (the general you) get into and the frequency of such altercations are more a reflection of you than of the big picture of what violent encounters look like.

If you're getting into fist fights that resemble tournament sparring, then you are doing so because of the company you keep or the places you frequent. There are certain places wherein certain types of violence is more common.  Just as there are certain places where other types of violence are more common.  One's gender and the way one carries themselves can have an influence on how likely you might be to be victimized by physical violence. 

At this point in my life, cyber security is a greater concern for me than physical security.  I'm far more likely to be electronically filched than I am to be mugged.



drop bear said:


> The basic mechanics of the fight looks the same as the basic mechanics of a mma match. Look at a fight there is punching kicking and grappling.
> 
> The basic defences are the same in a fight as mma. I am trying to reduce damage and maintain a good position.
> 
> Weapons is different. And I have said before mma does not cover that.


Sure, but none of that is what I was referring to.


----------



## K-man (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I have looked at every video you have posted and seen mostly unresisted drills. Some were fast but still unresisted. I am an advocate of resisted training.
> 
> From what you have posted all your training looks like drills. Of one shade or another. That is neither a new or secret concept. I do drills that's are choreographed and ones that approximate a fight. And then progress from that to sparring which is another approximation and so on.
> 
> ...


I didn't post a video of our training for you, and I have posted no videos of our training ever. I suggested you did some research for yourself if you want to understand where I am coming from. We train against full resistance constantly, we hit to the body with close to full power constantly, we train fast or slow when appropriate but we do not train drills and we do not spar in the conventional sense. We are not into competition and our techniques are not suited to competition. We have no choreographed moves, our partners responses are totally unscripted.

Your comment on being tested in competition is unrealistic. We have another thread on that so I'm not going down that rabbit hole here. We are RB and that is not suited to competition. I have no desire to compete in the ring, I did enough competing in earlier times. It is nothing like what we train now and it would be impossible to take just a portion of it to prove it in competition.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I wasn't disputing your experience.  I will restate what I said: the types of altercations that you (the general you) get into and the frequency of such altercations are more a reflection of you than of the big picture of what violent encounters look like.
> 
> If you're getting into fist fights that resemble tournament sparring, then you are doing so because of the company you keep or the places you frequent. There are certain places wherein certain types of violence is more common.  Just as there are certain places where other types of violence are more common.  One's gender and the way one carries themselves can have an influence on how likely you might be to be victimized by physical violence.
> 
> ...



You were referring to how fights went in your experience. I refered to how fights went in mine. Each persons experience in a fight is different.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> You were referring to how fights went in your experience. I refered to how fights went in mine. Each persons experience in a fight is different.


That was my point.  

When you say 'fight,' are you referring to self defence in general or to two guys stepping outside and duking it out?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

K-man said:


> I didn't post a video of our training for you, and I have posted no videos of our training ever. I suggested you did some research for yourself if you want to understand where I am coming from. We train against full resistance constantly, we hit to the body with close to full power constantly, we train fast or slow when appropriate but we do not train drills and we do not spar in the conventional sense. We are not into competition and our techniques are not suited to competition. We have no choreographed moves, our partners responses are totally unscripted.
> 
> Your comment on being tested in competition is unrealistic. We have another thread on that so I'm not going down that rabbit hole here. We are RB and that is not suited to competition. I have no desire to compete in the ring, I did enough competing in earlier times. It is nothing like what we train now and it would be impossible to take just a portion of it to prove it in competition.
> :asian:



You have been jumping down the throat of the street sport debate since post one. I don't do reality training I do honest training. I don't make esoteric claims about what should work. I make actual provable claims.

That the method I employ works in fully resisted competition. Yours doesn't. That the method I employ works in sparring. You don't engage in it.

So what can you say with any real certainty that your method works under any conditions. Remembering that if it is anecdotal I am pulling that bs flag you like using.
.
Without videos of your training how can anybody know. Every video has been a drill that you have shown so far. So if you have a method that is provable by resistance then please show it.

Or if you have some other way of proving your method go with that. But as I said about anecdotes you opened the door on that.

I am sorry but unscripted? Like when you react to a shot you don't get hit with but pretend to so your partner knows what it is like to hit someone.

And so people know what mma sparring looks like. ( not my gym of course)
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I5DAr1uvJ1c


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I don't do reality training I do honest training.



So reality based training is...dishonest training?



> I don't make esoteric claims about what should work. I make actual provable claims.



Okay, what are your provable claims?  How many real-world altercations have you been in (armed and unarmed) against violent, resisting felons?



> That the method I employ works in fully resisted competition.



That's great.  Doesn't mean it will work outside of competition where the attacker isn't bound by the same rule set or the artificially created environment of a competition.  As mentioned, many of the best competitors in the world have realized (thankfully) that what they do doesn't translate well to the 'street'.  As I mentioned, Royce Gracie is one of them.  The fact that you continually bring up competition demonstrates that your not really on the same sheet of music as those of us explaining reality based and scenario based training. 



> So what can you say with any real certainty that your method works under any conditions.



Well, been using it successfully for 23 years now against violent felons (not counting military service prior to that).  About a thousand document uses-of-force including five deadly force incidents.  Plus the data base we keep on our students real world altercations.  And the fact that every major/minor agency of which I'm aware uses scenario based training.  I'd say that's a pretty good start.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> And so people know what mma sparring looks like. ( not my gym of course)
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I5DAr1uvJ1c



Okay, I don't want to sound mean here, but from the point of real world self defense training this video presentation is complete garbage.  Here's a small list of why;


Artificially created training environment i.e. everything is padded, dry, level, well lit with plenty of room to dance around.
They are trying to take each other to the ground.  I can't stress how stupid that is in a real fight unless you enjoy getting stomped on by other assailants/don't mind injuring yourself on stuff like concrete/don't mind getting stabbed by that edged weapon you should have assumed the attacker had/like to limit your mobility etc.
They are going to a point...stopping...and then resetting to start their dance all over again.  I've never seen a real fight happen that way.  It should be going to a definitive conclusion each and every time.  If you're not going to a definitive conclusion EACH and EVERY time your training is detrimental to your health based on thousands of documented uses-of-force.  That's one of the major reasons LEO training has changed since I began decades ago.
Their wearing some nice loose fitting clothing and I'll bet their all warmed up and stretched out prior to beginning their dance.
When one of them needs to readjust their safety gear the other is nice enough to stop and let them make their adjustments.  That courtesy doesn't happen in a real fight.

Look, I'm not really trying to bust your balls here (nor is anyone else).  But you really....really...REALLY need to listen to what we're trying to explain to you.  This video is fantastic for sport competition and I'm sure these guys are in fine shape.  The training however will get you hurt or killed in the type of situations I've described unless you're really lucky.  And I don't train for luck.  The average realworld altercation lasts 7 seconds with injury usually occurring in the first 3 seconds.  That is how you need to train for the real world.  Not dancing around on mats.  How you train is how you will react under duress.  That is a plain, documented state of fact.  Training for the wrong venue is detrimental.  I really don't know of any other way to put it.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I have seen it and done it. I think this idea I haven't done the real combat scenario training is a bit misleading.
> 
> Sparring teaches a different set of skills to combat scenarios. As I said we drill as well. But to understand random movement  dealing with contact and problem solving you need to spar.
> 
> ...


That's not scenario training.  Why'd they decide to arrest him?  Why'd they immediately launch into hands on?  No commands, no shoes...  That was exactly what I described: "here, go arrest this guy."  No scripting, no real planning other than the hidden knife... no striking, no escalation of force...  Honestly, if I was evaluating them in some sort of training exercise, I'd fail them.  We'd restart, and work until it's right.  (There's a hint there about scenario training.)


> I get the ppct stuff forced on me during security guard training. And there is a lot of oponants to it among the people who actually have to put themselves in danger using it.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ7mjc_aweE



First -- he hasn't done PPCT himself, nor has he really researched it.  (There are a few threads here on MT about it, as I recall.)  He can't even be bothered to learn who created it or why...  Kind of damages his credibility.  I'm not a fan of PPCT either -- but I admit that my opinion is largely ignorant and based on incomplete exposure to it.  Pressure points have a place and do work in the DT arsenal.  They're not a tool for active assailants however, unless you start talking about things like the point of the jaw for right hook...

Perhaps we need to define sparring... and scenario training.  Perhaps you'd like to start by reviewing this post upthread


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> That's not scenario training.  Why'd they decide to arrest him?  Why'd they immediately launch into hands on?  No commands, no shoes...  That was exactly what I described: "here, go arrest this guy."  No scripting, no real planning other than the hidden knife... no striking, no escalation of force...  Honestly, if I was evaluating them in some sort of training exercise, I'd fail them.  We'd restart, and work until it's right.  (There's a hint there about scenario training.)
> 
> 
> First -- he hasn't done PPCT himself, nor has he really researched it.  (There are a few threads here on MT about it, as I recall.)  He can't even be bothered to learn who created it or why...  Kind of damages his credibility.  I'm not a fan of PPCT either -- but I admit that my opinion is largely ignorant and based on incomplete exposure to it.  Pressure points have a place and do work in the DT arsenal.  They're not a tool for active assailants however, unless you start talking about things like the point of the jaw for right hook...
> ...



I have done the ppct and it suffers from two major issues 

It doesn't work if the guy is fighting back

It is taught by people who have a weeks worth of training. And seems to be trapped in the 70s

And then is used as this ideal solution to violence." I don't understand why you had to punch kick choke the guy. Ppct is scientifically proven to defeat any attacker without hurting them"

I am not sure has you would really do a scenario right. You would need a lot of experience in actual incidents to do the job right. Otherwise it devolves into fantasy pretty quickly. When I did scenarios it was the same. I knew I was never going to talk the guy out. So why bother.

If you have got a better example post a vid.

I don't think shoes make a difference.I have never been bothered one way or another. De escalation is tricky. I do it but have never figured out a system for it. I have done the security guard versions and again pretty unrealistic.

The dog brothers comment?

Situational stuff and sparring teach different skills. Sparring allows for the application of core technique and to get that right. Combat scenarios allow for application to a specific environment. If you don't have the core skills the combat scenario's don't work.

Same as if I made people spar without giving them the core skills of fighting first.

I am pretty dead set against compliant drills or combat scenarios. Especially done at speed or with contact. I will take that one step further if you are helping the guy by pretending their shots are doing damage when they are not. I think it does something bad to your brain. And is the start of how these no touch knockout styles work.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Okay, I don't want to sound mean here, but from the point of real world self defense training this video presentation is complete garbage.  Here's a small list of why;
> 
> 
> Artificially created training environment i.e. everything is padded, dry, level, well lit with plenty of room to dance around.
> ...






OK so padding safety gear and warming up and courtesy between partners is now a bad thing in reality training? You would hate K man he uses a full suit. 

You are using dogma to justify yourself. fights last for 7 seconds. going to the ground is bad.  And so on. You are limiting your training with too many rules. Just learn to move around with a resisting oponant and then you will be flexible enough to deal with a situation that might fall outside your ideas about fighting.

And be nice to your training partner I don't think a little courtesy in the gym will get you killed in the street. And more people will want to train with you.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 5, 2014)

Your not understanding what is being said to you.  Let's take a look at your post;



drop bear said:


> OK so padding safety gear and warming up and courtesy between partners is now a bad thing in reality training? You would hate K man he uses a full suit.



Padding is occasionally okay, but not necessary in every training session.  You'd hate PCR or Systema training;  you use a real knife/M16/AK47/shield.  The rifles are unloaded of course, but the knives are real.  Not done in every session, but it is in some just like WWII Combatives training.  Why?  Because real life attackers don't use rubber knives.

Warming up is okay, but not all the time.  Good to go in cold from time to time.  Why?  Because a real life attacker won't allow you to warm up and stretch out prior to attack.

Courtesy is okay prior to and after the scenario.  But not during.  This is the time to train.  Why?  Because a real life attacker isn't going to allow you to catch your breath/tie your shoe/adjust you cup.

We occasionally use full suits as well depending on the scenario.  Most of the time there is NO gear at all.



> You are using dogma to justify yourself.



No, I'm using real life experience as well as real world statistical data compiled by L.E. agencies around the world.  This is my area of expertise, I humbly would suggest you benefit from it.  



> ...going to the ground is bad.



In a controlled environment such as what you train in or in a competition it is fine.  In the real world is will get you hurt or killed unless you're very lucky.  That's a fact.  For all the reasons I've already detailed earlier in the thread.  The ONLY time a LEO _wants_ to go to the ground is once the situation is under control and the threat has ceased.  Unless he's a rookie or hasn't received good training.



> You are limiting your training with too many rules.



I am?  What rules are limiting me?  Did you actually look at the video link you posted.  Those boys are the ones abiding by an artificial rule set.  And you've erroneously translated that as actual self defense training when it is the polar opposite.  



> Just learn to move around with a resisting oponant and then you will be  flexible enough to deal with a situation that might fall outside your  ideas about fighting.



My last time fighting a violent, resisting felon high on spice was last week.  How about you?  Serious question and not a slap.  I truly don't think you understand the level of violence that some people are actually capable of.  You are looking at the real world through a narrow lens.  And to be very clear, I'm not trying to be tough on you or 'call you out'.  But I am, as a courtesy, trying to educate you on some things that you are in grave error on.  For YOUR benefit as well as those you may have to protect.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I have done the ppct and it suffers from two major issues
> 
> It doesn't work if the guy is fighting back
> 
> ...


 As I said -- I've got problems with PPCT, as well -- but I've also communicated with actual instructors of it, and have a decent idea of why it's set up the way it is.  (It was designed around being legally defensible... which raises all sort of issues.)



> I am not sure has you would really do a scenario right. You would need a lot of experience in actual incidents to do the job right. Otherwise it devolves into fantasy pretty quickly. When I did scenarios it was the same. I knew I was never going to talk the guy out. So why bother.


Then they weren't done properly -- or you've been exposed to a very narrow slice of it.  When you design a scenario, you have a lesson or performance goal in mind.  Some are quite broad (handle an encounter with a street tough) and others are very specific (go in, and put this guy in that cell...).  The script and options then are built to support that goal, and allow the student to work the scenario to success.  A scenario may be a direct rehearsal of a planned encounter or activity, too -- like a SWAT unit practicing an entry.   Done right, scenario training is as close as you can to actually dealing with the situation in question under somewhat laboratory conditions.  Depending on the skill of the instructors and the training level of the students, there may be several possible outcomes -- with varying degrees of success.  Doing it RIGHT is very hard work.  Doing scenario training half-assed is easy.

But -- scenario training won't do much at all to help you prepare for sparring or competitions. 



> If you have got a better example post a vid.
> 
> I don't think shoes make a difference.I have never been bothered one way or another. De escalation is tricky. I do it but have never figured out a system for it. I have done the security guard versions and again pretty unrealistic.


Shoes were a simple observation.  The first thing I do when I evaluate a potential DT program is look at what they wear to teach and demo.  If they aren't using a full gun belt, appropriate uniforms, etc. to show it, I have to wonder whether they've actually considered the realities of what cops wear to work.  Body armor changes how you move, gun belts and boots can limit your movements...  



> Situational stuff and sparring teach different skills. Sparring allows for the application of core technique and to get that right. Combat scenarios allow for application to a specific environment. If you don't have the core skills the combat scenario's don't work.
> 
> Same as if I made people spar without giving them the core skills of fighting first.
> 
> I am pretty dead set against compliant drills or combat scenarios. Especially done at speed or with contact. I will take that one step further if you are helping the guy by pretending their shots are doing damage when they are not. I think it does something bad to your brain. And is the start of how these no touch knockout styles work.



You've got a valid point here.  It's what a lot of us have been saying: sparring is training for a particular environment.  But it's not preparation for street self defense.  At least not by itself.

I asked you to define sparring; you've haven't done that.  Here's one definition of sparring: a method of practicing the learned techniques under the pressure of an opponent.  And here's one for scenario training: a method of simulating real events to allow students to practice responding to them.  (Wow, just hit me...  Sparring is really scenario based training for a competition or duel...)

Both have a place in training, depending on your goals.  One of the big advantages of sparring is that it's fun -- and we learn best when we play.  But that's also a disadvantage; it's fun, so we do it to the exclusion of less fun stuff.  How many times have you seen folks "rock and roll" who haven't really learned the basic techniques, and aren't practicing anything they've learned when they're under pressure?  They're often tough scrappers -- but unskilled.  Scenario training allows you to simulate the actual events -- but make mistakes and fix them.  Done right, it's a really powerful tool for learning to actually apply skills.  That's why pilots, the military, NASA, and lots of others use it.  But -- it's easy to do wrong.  One of the most common errors is the instructor who builds unwinnable scenarios to prove how good they are... which can teach exactly the wrong lesson ("I knew I was never gonna talk the guy out.  So why bother.")

OK... one more thing I want to call your attention to.  You said 





> De escalation is tricky. I do it but have never figured out a system for  it. I have done the security guard versions and again pretty  unrealistic.


If you're doing it, and it's working -- start taking a step back and figuring out why.  It'll make you more effective, and more capable, so that you do things consciously rather than unconsciously.  At that point, you'll be able to do it by design, instead of luck.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> OK so padding safety gear and warming up and courtesy between partners is now a bad thing in reality training? You would hate K man he uses a full suit.
> 
> You are using dogma to justify yourself. fights last for 7 seconds. going to the ground is bad.  And so on. You are limiting your training with too many rules. Just learn to move around with a resisting oponant and then you will be flexible enough to deal with a situation that might fall outside your ideas about fighting.
> 
> And be nice to your training partner I don't think a little courtesy in the gym will get you killed in the street. And more people will want to train with you.



Actually, being nice to your training partner can hurt them.  You teach them to drop their guard, and let their adversary move in.  And then there was an incident that really happened...  There was a cop who loved practicing gun disarms.  He practiced them all the time; he'd have a training partner point a practice weapon at him, and quick as a blink, he'd disarm the guy, then hand the practice gun back to do it again.  One day, a crook approaches him, and brandishes a gun at him.  Our guy was in heaven... and, quick as a blink, disarmed the crook.  THEN HANDED THE GUN BACK just like he'd practiced.  The only saving grace of that is that he did it again, the crook was apparently so shocked that he handed it back that he didn't shoot him.


----------



## wingchun100 (Mar 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Probably. you spar with Intent but not ego. To test your partner not to destroy him. But it has to be tough to reach better gains.



At least someone knows what I meant. If there is no resistance then there are no gains. An opponent in a street fight isn't about to do what you think they will. You need to train with that element of unpredictability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> So reality based training is...dishonest training?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh sorry I am going to have to call bs on all of that due to at this stage it is all anecdotal.

By the same rules everybody else is calling bs on mine.

Irritating isn't it.

Your system does not even work in an artificial environment with rules. You will just have to provide evidence of these documented street fights. I am not bashing rsbd that is just the reality.

Royce Gracie spars as part of his training. If he extends his sort trading to encompas self defence aspects I applaud that. I have no issue with scenario training so long as it is based on a core of honest training of basics.

And that only comes with resisted training like sparring.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> At least someone knows what I meant. If there is no resistance then there are no gains. An opponent in a street fight isn't about to do what you think they will. You need to train with that element of unpredictability.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Yeah it seems fighting back is the one element not covered. 

Just a quick poll.

I don't think throwing money at someone is covered in the wing chun syllabus. Would you for any reason be unable to do so to defend yourself?

Would you get yelled at by your instructor if you did?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Actually, being nice to your training partner can hurt them.  You teach them to drop their guard, and let their adversary move in.  And then there was an incident that really happened...  There was a cop who loved practicing gun disarms.  He practiced them all the time; he'd have a training partner point a practice weapon at him, and quick as a blink, he'd disarm the guy, then hand the practice gun back to do it again.  One day, a crook approaches him, and brandishes a gun at him.  Our guy was in heaven... and, quick as a blink, disarmed the crook.  THEN HANDED THE GUN BACK just like he'd practiced.  The only saving grace of that is that he did it again, the crook was apparently so shocked that he handed it back that he didn't shoot him.



Good more anecdotes. Happened to a friend of a friend? You are basing your training on that?

It is an urban myth.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> As I said -- I've got problems with PPCT, as well -- but I've also communicated with actual instructors of it, and have a decent idea of why it's set up the way it is.  (It was designed around being legally defensible... which raises all sort of issues.)
> 
> 
> Then they weren't done properly -- or you've been exposed to a very narrow slice of it.  When you design a scenario, you have a lesson or performance goal in mind.  Some are quite broad (handle an encounter with a street tough) and others are very specific (go in, and put this guy in that cell...).  The script and options then are built to support that goal, and allow the student to work the scenario to success.  A scenario may be a direct rehearsal of a planned encounter or activity, too -- like a SWAT unit practicing an entry.   Done right, scenario training is as close as you can to actually dealing with the situation in question under somewhat laboratory conditions.  Depending on the skill of the instructors and the training level of the students, there may be several possible outcomes -- with varying degrees of success.  Doing it RIGHT is very hard work.  Doing scenario training half-assed is easy.
> ...



Well the ppct instructor did train for a whole week. (18 days I think) so probably not that much time on doing things well.

I did help run them in a fist suit. But that was a self defence one. Which has different goals. Basically you de escalate until I throw an then bang on with me throwing half hearted attacks.

My definition of sparring is a fully resisted exersize that has an open playing field. Meaning It allows both people to test random attacks and defences. Rather than a drill that while still can be resisted but covered a limited section of that. Or a pre arranged attack.

Both need to be covered to be well rounded.

Sparring can range from fun to very not fun. It has been used as a punishment for extreme duchebaggery.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gZqownbIxsw

I believe the back story on that was a guy who wanted to go hard on people with less skill learning why it is better to be courteous to your partner.

You will also notice that it did not go to the ground. Just to show people don't have to if they don't want to.

(I know you didn't argue that )

I would suggest rock and roll is a pretty important factor in defending yourself. Especially when you do not have a pre arranged ending. And that ending is up to you.


----------



## K-man (Mar 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> You have been jumping down the throat of the street sport debate since post one. I don't do reality training I do honest training. I don't make esoteric claims about what should work. I make actual provable claims.


We have debated street vs sport endlessly on this forum. You will find post after post bagging RBSD systems but you won't find a single post of mine bagging sport based training. But it is offensive to state that your training is honest implying the rest is not when you admit you don't do RB training. I don't have any problem in agreeing MMA training works well in the ring and it is likely to be very effective in most street scenarios. I would claim that my training would fail dismally in the ring with MMA rules but would be more effective on the street.



drop bear said:


> That the method I employ works in fully resisted competition. Yours doesn't. That the method I employ works in sparring. You don't engage in it.


Our training is often against full resistance. Yours is full resistance competition. You spar in a manner that suits your competition. I used to spar in a similar manner but now I don't because it is contrary to the type of training we now do. You have a problem with my training, that you have never seen and I don't have a problem either way. 



drop bear said:


> So what can you say with any real certainty that your method works under any conditions. Remembering that if it is anecdotal I am pulling that bs flag you like using.


my system is not anecdotal. I am there first hand. 



drop bear said:


> Without videos of your training how can anybody know. Every video has been a drill that you have shown so far. So if you have a method that is provable by resistance then please show it.
> 
> Or if you have some other way of proving your method go with that. But as I said about anecdotes you opened the door on that.


Mate, I don't need to prove anything to anyone. You want to see what we do first hand, you are welcome to train with us any time you are in Melbourne.



drop bear said:


> I am sorry but unscripted? Like when you react to a shot you don't get hit with but pretend to so your partner knows what it is like to hit someone.
> 
> And so people know what mma sparring looks like. ( not my gym of course)
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I5DAr1uvJ1c


And this is the way we used to spar. Does it prove something?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9NKOvNjDVLA



drop bear said:


> I am pretty dead set against compliant drills or combat scenarios. Especially done at speed or with contact. I will take that one step further if you are helping the guy by pretending their shots are doing damage when they are not. I think it does something bad to your brain. And is the start of how these no touch knockout styles work.


No touch knockout has nothing to do with our training. To even consider what we do to be like that shows you haven't a clue what we do. No touch KOs have as much relevance to my training as it does to yours ... that is none. 



drop bear said:


> OK so padding safety gear and warming up and courtesy between partners is now a bad thing in reality training? You would hate K man he uses a full suit.


 If you are going to quote me, please be accurate. I don't use a red suit. My comment refers to the only way you can train full contact full power and for the record I don't like red man for a number of reasons.



> drop bear said:
> 
> 
> > Decent padding and short rounds you should be able to manage it. Without too much injury. I used to do reality based stuff with ten second rounds that was helpful.
> ...



Now, I'm do for a couple of hours of ineffective training.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 6, 2014)

jeezus ****ing krist folks, all this back-and-forth.  And everyone is talking in the extremes: "the way WE train is the ONLY way that works, and if you don't train OUR way, then you'll just get killed on the streets..."  I'm sorry, but that's the BS right there, no matter which side of the argument you are on.

there are lots of ways to train, that will help one develop effective and useful skills.  Sparring, if done appropriately, if recognized as simply one tool in the toolbox of training, can be part of an effective training methodology.  But it's not the only effective method and it's certainly not imperative that one use sparring.

competitive athletes who spar a lot can certainly take care of themselves on the street.  To say otherwise is nonsense.

likewise, those who train in a non-competitive way and do not spar or spar very little, can also develop skills to take care of themselves on the street.  To say otherwise is nonsense.

This debate devolves (as always) into everyone arguing the merits of their own favorite method.  OK, you like it and you feel it works for you and gives you the skills you need?  Great, keep doing it.  And sharing your thoughts and ideas and insights with folks here is great.  But this "only my way works and your way will get you killed" attitude is nonsense, plain and simple.  That goes for all sides of this debate.


----------



## K-man (Mar 6, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> jeezus ****ing krist folks, all this back-and-forth.  And everyone is talking in the extremes: "the way WE train is the ONLY way that works, and if you don't train OUR way, then you'll just get killed on the streets..."  I'm sorry, but that's the BS right there, no matter which side of the argument you are on.
> 
> there are lots of ways to train, that will help one develop effective and useful skills.  Sparring, if done appropriately, if recognized as simply one tool in the toolbox of training, can be part of an effective training methodology.  But it's not the only effective method and it's certainly not imperative that one use sparring.
> 
> ...


Michael, I'm not sure that it is two extremes. I have absolutely no problem accepting that training MMA is effective for the ring and the street and I am not thinking that anyone else here has voiced otherwise. I just get thoroughly peed off when some one bags every other persons training including mine. I haven't seen anyone from a traditional style say their training was the only 'honest' training. We have lots of MMA guys on the forum who constantly put up great posts which are not only educational but can get you to look at something from another angle. But every so often we get the 'my way or the highway folks' who can polarise the forum. What should we do? Just ignore them?

The thread was basically, do you need to spar to be effective in RBSD or street fighting. The answer is, there are many ways to prepare yourself for that scenario. Some systems use sparring and some don't. The ones that don't spar use other types of training to replace the sparring. It depends on the focus of your training but common sense should say that a system that trains solely for the street type situation might be more effective on the street than on designed for competition. But in reality both styles of training on the street against an untrained or poorly trained aggressor should prevail.
:asian:


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Oh sorry I am going to have to call bs on all of that due to at this stage it is all anecdotal.
> 
> By the same rules everybody else is calling bs on mine.
> 
> Irritating isn't it.



I don't think you understand the definition of anecdotal.

*Definition of ANECDOTAL*

1
_a_ *:*  of, relating to, or consisting of anecdotes <an _anecdotal_ biography>   
_b_ *:* anecdotic 2 <my _anecdotal_ uncle> 

2
*:*  based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers <_anecdotal_ evidence> 

3
*:*  of, relating to, or being the depiction of a scene suggesting a story <_anecdotal_ details> 

This doesn't apply to the information I (and others) have detailed to you in this thread.  It can be researched and verified from thousands of L.E. agencies world wide.  It would appear that your becoming rather defensive which indicates a closed mind and an unwillingness to learn from those that 'do' what you profess to 'train' for.  That doesn't put you down in any way to listen and learn, but you have to check your ego partner.  No one is calling you an idiot despite the fact that your trying to argue that a sport methodology is better for the 'street' than what we do....and many of us actually have real world altercations on a rather unfortunately regular basis.  Do you understand the conflict here?  Someone (you) that doesn't 'do' is telling us that 'do' that our way of doing it is inferior to your sport method.  And then you provide a video link to some rather bad MMA as support.  I've listed for you in great detail why what you've offered is not only inferior training, but detrimental to solid SD training.  And we've taken the time to discuss this with you and you're still not getting it.  For example;



> Your system does not even work in an artificial environment with rules.



This is comparing apples and oranges.  What I do would work just fine in your artificial environment, but since I would not subscribe to an artificially created rule set I would be DQ'd after about the first 5 seconds.  Whereas if you tried to pull of some of the stuff in your video link against the people I have to regularly fight...well, lets just say I don't like your chances very much.  

And your very statement shows the contradiction that your using to bolster your argument;  basing the effectiveness of RBSD or scenario based training by how it would work in an ARTIFICIAL ENVIRONMENT WITH RULES.  Do you understand the contradiction?  Did you actually read my summary of the MMA link you provided and why it was pure garbage from the perspective of RBSD and scenario based training?  Seriously, did you actually thoughtfully read it with the mindset of understanding?  



> You will just have to provide evidence of these documented street fights.



You bet.  Next time you find yourself in my neck of the woods I'll personally drive you down to records and you can peruse my file at your leisure.  It is public record and is several inches thick so bring a lunch.  In fact, I'll buy you lunch.  How's that sound?



> Royce Gracie spars as part of his training. If he extends his sort trading to encompas self defence aspects I applaud that.



You continue to bring up Royce as an example.  Not a good idea.  You don't know him, I do.  And I've explained that what he offers as training was a flavor-of-the-month situation that was quickly exposed as not only being sub-standard for SD but detrimental.  That is why he had to dramatically alter the training....and NO sparring.  And finally even that died off and he no longer teaches at the Regional Training Center which encompasses a fairly large part of the state.  People that do continue to teach there are Tony Blauer, Ken Good, Sonny P., Peter Boatman (up until he passed away), Tony Lambria etc.  I've taken all these courses and became an instructor in all of them (also in my file).  And there is NO sparring.  Lots of reality based drills and scenarios all of which are taken to a conclusion.  Which is one of the things your video lacks (among a great many other things).


> I have no issue with scenario training so long as it is based on a core of honest training of basics.



And why would you think our basic core of scenario based and/or RBSD training isn't designed directly for what we actually do?  You're just not making sense.



> And that only comes with resisted training like sparring.



Let me correct this for you:  _And that only comes with resisted training_.  Sparring isn't sufficient to qualify for true resistance and can't be compared with scenario based training.  Again, looking at the video link you provided, that isn't real resistance.  They're dancing around.  Their pausing to pull up their pads.  Their laughing and smiling during some to this 'training'.  There is not verbal judo or any type of verbalization that is MANDATORY during a street assualt, no escape & evasion, no improvised weapons, no realistic terrain, no multiple attackers, no ambush etc.  I've already detailed all the reasons it is garbage training for the purposes of SD based training.  

Peace.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I don't think you understand the definition of anecdotal.
> 
> *Definition of ANECDOTAL*
> 
> ...



So you are trying to basically say mma is inferior to rsbd. And you wonder why I disagree.

Garbage training seriously?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So you are trying to basically say mma is inferior to rsbd. And you wonder why I disagree.
> 
> Garbage training seriously?



No, that is not what I'm saying at all.  They both have a specific goal.  As such, they each have a specific training methodology.  That specific methodology lacks, severely, if it is used for the goal for which it is not intended.

In other words, sport training is great for sport and is sub-standard for self defense.  And vise-versa.  There is no superior or inferior, just different methodology for the goal.

The link you provided is not indicative of good MMA training, even for sport.  So yes, I would say it is a poor example of the training necessary for competition.  And for self defense training, it would be hard to get much worse than what they were doing in that video.  I've detailed the reasons why already a couple of times.

Doesn't mean MMA sucks.  But the training methodology is sub-standard for the topic covered in this thread.  If this was a sport sparring thread it would be different, though as I stated, in a pure sport context that video just wasn't a good example.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 6, 2014)

Let me tackle this conversation from another angle.  First, I'm not trying to bust your balls, attack you, flame you or say your training sucks.

Now let's discuss sparring directly.  For a controlled competition it is the bomb.  It provides you with a resisting opponent within the confines of the rule set of the competition.  Thus for this environment it is a sound training methodology.

For self-defense it is not an optimal training methodology.  I've detailed many reasons why already and can touch on any of those if you would like clarification or further discussion on them.  Now, that doesn't mean sparring totally sucks for self-defense, only that it is less than optimal.  Sparring as noted above puts you against a resisting opponent so that is a good thing.  But so does scenario based training in more realistic real world environments.  So what I'm saying is that while sparring maybe covers the first wrung of the ladder (which is sufficient for the sport environment), scenario based training takes everything good about sparring and fills in the areas where it lacks thus taking you to the top of the ladder for this specific environment.  

Thus in a scenario session, you have a resisting attacker....or multiple attackers.  You have different stimuli that aren't normally covered in a sparring session.  You have options such as verbalization, escape & evasion, improvised weapons etc that aren't normally covered in a sparring session.  And it takes you from beginning to a conclusion in a fluid manner which definitely is not covered in a sparring session.  And there are documented reasons why this is of the utmost importance.  Some have been touched on already and I can provide a plethora of additional real world data that we have learned from if you would like.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> No, that is not what I'm saying at all.  They both have a specific goal.  As such, they each have a specific training methodology.  That specific methodology lacks, severely, if it is used for the goal for which it is not intended.
> 
> In other words, sport training is great for sport and is sub-standard for self defense.  And vise-versa.  There is no superior or inferior, just different methodology for the goal.
> 
> ...



And this is where you get rage posted at you may as well be comparing mma to salsa dancing. Good for a bit of fun but crap in a fight.

Which would be fine if it wasn't wrong.

There is a lot of videos out there of sports fighters doing fine in self defence. I have used sports fighting fine for self defence. So have plenty of other sports fighters The principles are basically sound.

I have done rsbd. And sports fighting. I am speaking from experience in both. For yourself when you see belator or top team and then say their mma is no good? I am going to start to doubt a bit.

You reasonings are debatable. You really don't have to angry grind every sparring session. It is not a drill to get your angry grind on it is to cement you basic techniques against a resisting oponant.

What you see there is professionalism in training. That is their job that is all they do.

I have still not seen a counter video of how it should be done. Just a lot of people getting upset when I expect them to justify their opinions.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 6, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> If this was a sport sparring thread it would be different.


Perhaps we're all barking up the wrong tree.  We're discussing and/or debating the merits of sparring in self defence.  

Here is the OP: 



suicide said:


> %-}



Which leaves us with only the title of the thread: "How bad does not sparring effect you in a real street fight situation?"

So how we answer is partly dependent upon how you interpret a "real street fight situation."

Secondly, the question was how, if you are in a "real street fight situation" are you affected if you do *not* spar?

Thirdly, I'd like to remind everyone that some of the responses are starting to fall outside of the forum rules.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Let me tackle this conversation from another angle.  First, I'm not trying to bust your balls, attack you, flame you or say your training sucks.
> 
> Now let's discuss sparring directly.  For a controlled competition it is the bomb.  It provides you with a resisting opponent within the confines of the rule set of the competition.  Thus for this environment it is a sound training methodology.
> 
> ...



Sparring teaches basic fundamentals the same fundamentals that will win competitions will win fights.

Without the ability to master that basic process of having techniques work when someone is fighting back. You cannot gain as much value from scenarios.

This is my point about honesty. A scenario is also a made up environment designed to teach or test. But as you control the environment you need to be sure that it is not being influenced by wrong preconceptions. Sparring brings back that honesty.

This is my problem with compliant drills. And doubley so with this predictive drill idea.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> And this is where you get rage posted at you may as well be comparing mma to salsa dancing. Good for a bit of fun but crap in a fight.



These are your words and not mine.



> There is a lot of videos out there of sports fighters doing fine in self defence.



And we have them getting their clock cleaned as well.  Not to mention those that have been killed.  I'm sure you're aware of these incidents as well?



> I have still not seen a counter video of how it should be done. Just a  lot of people getting upset when I expect them to justify their  opinions.



Look up any of the systems I've previously detailed.  And though I can't speak for others, I'm not upset at all.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Sparring teaches basic fundamentals the same fundamentals that will win competitions will win fights.



Maybe, but not necessarily.  Sparring doesn't cover the totality of a SD situation.



> Without the ability to master that basic process of having techniques work when someone is fighting back.



I'm not sure why you're assuming that basic training hasn't already occurred?


> This is my point about honesty. A scenario is also a made up environment  designed to teach or test. But as you control the environment you need  to be sure that it is not being influenced by wrong preconceptions.  Sparring brings back that honesty.



I don't understand what you're saying here, could you please clarify?


> This is my problem with compliant drills. And doubley so with this predictive drill idea.



Where are you getting the idea that scenario based/RBSD training is compliant drills?  They have attacker(s), various stimuli, various environments, various terrain, various problem solving and more duress that you can shake a stick at.  I've never seen a compliant scenario unless it is a 'no-shoot' type scenario which needs to be tossed in from time to time in order to be able to correctly address a situation with the proper amount (or no amount) of force.


----------



## MJS (Mar 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I am not a fan of scenario training. I believe it promotes the attacker to start reacting badly. They start to train their flinch reaction in a way that assists the other guy. As opposed to actively trying to spoil the technique and make their partner look bad.
> 
> I have found it is much easier to deal with a person that has scenario trained than a person that has not trained at all.  And I think it is due to a person who has not trained does not recognize my technique will work.
> 
> ...



Many martial artists do this, as well as military and LEO.  However, as JKS said, it needs to be done correctly.  Done right, it is a very beneficial tool.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> These are your words and not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sports fighting is not good for self defence is a terrible misconception. Fighting is dangerous sports fighters loose fights. But they are the bulk of the fighters you see winning fights on YouTube.

Just find the video for me please. I will get blamed for it not being the really real combat scenario.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2014)

MJS said:


> Many martial artists do this, as well as military and LEO.  However, as JKS said, it needs to be done correctly.  Done right, it is a very beneficial tool.



The unresisted I throw one punch leave my arm out so my instructor can do a thousand finishing moves scenario. 
Eg.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tGAE99qawps

Yes we do drills as well. We have a monster one for fight training.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 6, 2014)

*Attention all members:*

While discussion and debate are fundamental to MartialTalk, when tempers start to rise and things start to become vitriolic, nothing positive can result.
That being said, please remember that MartialTalk  is, as it says in the logo, "friendly". So let us all try to keep things friendly and polite, and avoid the nastiness.

Thank you,
Mark A. Cochran
Dirty Dog
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## MJS (Mar 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I have used a fist suit and honestly they are over rated.
> 
> Your biggest issue would be your face otherwise I have gone full contact knees and elbows with no more than gloves mouth guard box shinguards and elbow pads. Sometimes we train I. Boxing head gear near fights to avoid cuts. People of course fight knees and elbows full contact.
> 
> ...



Nice clip!  Some of the people in my Kyokushin dojo use the full face head gear even though we're not punching to the face.  During my private lessons with one of my old Kenpo teachers, we used full face gear and fought pretty much MMA style.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 6, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> So how we answer is partly dependent upon how you interpret a "real street fight situation."



Very true.  Some think of a bar fight.  Others a shoving match.  And still others a mugging or multiple assailant type of attack.  

For me, I draw upon personal experience which usually entails a drunk or someone high on crack, meth or spice.  Spice is the worse as these people don't know what planet their on, have super human strength and just don't have the sense to feel pain like a normal person does.  Edged weapons are a very real possibility or at the least improvised weapons.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2014)

MJS said:


> Nice clip!  Some of the people in my Kyokushin dojo use the full face head gear even though we're not punching to the face.  During my private lessons with one of my old Kenpo teachers, we used full face gear and fought pretty much MMA style.



My coach did a seminar of it. It is very kyokushin judo sort of.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Maybe, but not necessarily.  Sparring doesn't cover the totality of a SD situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Last bit first from the nobody posting a video of what they are on about.

Now you will not have basic technique until it can be applied to someone who doesent want it applied to them. This is the only way a technique becomes yours.

Then you can honestly say it work for you to the level it works for you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 6, 2014)

For you SD guys, how will you develop your "hip throw (mother of all throws)"?

In 

- "sport" approach, you 1st "develop" in your partner training, you then "test" in your "sport"? 
- "SD" approach, you may "develop" it in your SD situation, but how do you "test" it?


----------



## MJS (Mar 6, 2014)

IMO, we need a little of everything, not just one thing, if we want to be complete.  If our goal is SD, to feel comfortable dealing with weapons, multi man attacks, grappling, getting hit hard and being able to take the hit and recover, we need to focus on all of those areas. One thing isn't a fix all...it's a combination of everything.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 6, 2014)

MJS said:


> IMO, we need a little of everything, not just one thing, if we want to be complete.  If our goal is SD, to feel comfortable dealing with weapons, multi man attacks, grappling, getting hit hard and being able to take the hit and recover, we need to focus on all of those areas. One thing isn't a fix all...it's a combination of everything.



Good way to put it.  Let me see if I can approach the topic from another perspective.  I'll use Drop Bear's video as a point of reference.  And let me start by saying to DB, I'm not busting on your video.  It is as a point of reference to expound my point(s).

Okay, sparring as demonstrated in the video or in general.  What are the good points?  Well to begin, we have a training tool that allows you to use the basic skills that you have learned.  That could include striking, kicking, grappling, locks and/or a combination of those things.  So that is a good thing.  Next, it allows you to use it against an opponent that is resisting your attempts to control the situation (for whatever the desired result).  So that is also a good thing.  

So sparring does have a couple of things going for it.  Can we all agree on this point?

Now, here are, in my professional opinion, where sparring (as presented in the video and in general) is less than optimal for the purpose of self-defense and other methods are superior (for this specific purpose).  To be clear, that should not be taken as a slap in the head for sparring.  But if we're to have a frank, open conversation on the topic we need to look at the good as well as the bad (or ugly).

Using the video as a point of reference:



They are in a controlled environment.  Can we all agree that you are not likely to get attacked inside of a school as opposed to other venues?  Can we all agree that you and your attacker aren't likely to be wearing safety equipment?  Can we all agree that your attacker may not be standing in front of you in a starting position and waiting for you to also get into a starting position?  Can we all agree that an attacker may not be abiding by the same rule set that you are using?  Can we all agree that the terrain is likely not going to include a dry, level, flat, padded surface (and padded walls) in a well lit venue?
There is no opportunity or attempt at verbalization i.e. opportunity to  de-escalate the situation before it begins.  Now not every situation will provide that luxury, but some will.  And it needs to be addressed and trained for accordingly.  Any fight that can be avoided is a fight that was won.  Otherwise no one wins and everyone loses.
The video demonstrates normal sparring i.e. you stand here and he stands there and you start boxing and dancing and looking for an opening.  They go to a point, stop and then reset.  This is fine for competition, but is not reflective of how a real fight progresses.  There is no reset, break, tap out or time out.
No opportunity is utilized to escape the situation or place a barrier between you and the attacker.
No attempt is made to draw attention to the attack as it is happening.  Attracting the attention of bystanders or the public in general is good for you and bad for the attacker(s) that don't want to be identified.
The video demonstrates attempts to go for a submission.  While that may be fine to calm down your drunk uncle at the family BBQ because you're trying not to hurt him, attempts to purposefully go the to ground in an actual attack is fool-hardy at best and detrimental to your life at the worst.  In a real world altercation you NEED to assume weapons are present and multiple assailants are present until the attack is over.  The video does not address either real world consideration at all.
While the training demonstrated may suffice for an untrained attacker, I honestly don't like your chances against a determined (trained or not) attacker(s) who may be armed and/or under the influence of a drug.
The video does not address taking the situation to a specific conclusion.  This is paramount!  As detailed by JKS, under duress you WILL react as you train.  As I've said before many times, you will NOT rise to the occasion...you WILL sink to the level of your training.  In short, how you train is how you will react under extreme duress.  That can be a good or bad thing.
The video does not address self defense applicable laws and legal uses-of-force.  It is only you stand there, I'll stand here and let's start duking it out and then we'll stop, reset and do it again.  That isn't real life.

Scenario based training addresses all of the real world concerns detailed above in ADDITION to the things sparring addresses i.e. full contact with and from a resisting attacker.  So where sparring has a limited use for SD, scenario based training takes all that sparring offers and takes it up several notches to an entirely different level.  Sparring is not the tool to address these other consideration.  Thus whereas one needs to spar for competition, one does not need to spar for SD as their are other tools that incorporate what sparring has to offer and adds elements that sparring (as presented in the offered video link and in general) doesn't include.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Good way to put it.  Let me see if I can approach the topic from another perspective.  I'll use Drop Bear's video as a point of reference.  And let me start by saying to DB, I'm not busting on your video.  It is as a point of reference to expound my point(s).
> 
> Okay, sparring as demonstrated in the video or in general.  What are the good points?  Well to begin, we have a training tool that allows you to use the basic skills that you have learned.  That could include striking, kicking, grappling, locks and/or a combination of those things.  So that is a good thing.  Next, it allows you to use it against an opponent that is resisting your attempts to control the situation (for whatever the desired result).  So that is also a good thing.
> 
> ...




Then you would put up a video of scenario training so we could critique it wouldn't you.

Because as far as I can see you have 3 choices.

Contact but in a controlled environment. Which is the same as sparring.

No contact but in any environment you want but it is not realistic.

Compliant which is compliant.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Contact but in a controlled environment. Which is the same as sparring.


That really depends upon how you are defining sparring.


----------



## Kframe (Mar 6, 2014)

Drop bear,  you keep mentioning that sparring teaches the fundamental basics. Im sorry but you are wrong, and who ever taught you is wrong. You should have ALREADY learned those basics, out side of sparring. Sparring is not the place to learn a technique correctly.  It is were you go to learn when to apply it appropriately.  That is my issue and part of why i quit MMA. They spend not nearly enough time not sparring and doing the boring #### like pad work and partner drills. Especially the partner drills. I gained more from them then i did in any other thing.

 Hence why on sherdog you constantly get threads about the piss poor state of striking in mma.  They just don't spend enough time on the basics,  out side of sparring. Oh and for proof all i have to do is watch any mma fight in the last 10 years and all i see out side of a few people is craptacular striking and standup..  It is essentially BJJ with some striking for the flavor and a potential payday.

Your nonsense about mma guys constantly dominating on the street is far fetched. I guess someone forgot to tell Miquel Falco and his friend. One of which was a UFC Fighter, the other a Professional boxer.  Before you jump in and say it was 5 on 2 let me clue you in.  The first exchange, was in a small space, in a door way, with only 2 aggressors making it 2v2.  The others were not engaged at that point.  Our MMA hero, the man with the single greatest fighting style and training methodology in your opinion violated the number one rule in a mma fight right off the god Darned batt. Which is KEEP YOUR HANDS UP. At no point in that exchange, did he ever assume a fighting stance, or even have his hands up En guard. They were by his sides the whole time, and all of his strikes you see, were all haymakers. Yep that was Dang nice performance by a top teir fighter using the supposed best training methodology.  Not to mention his Pro boxer friend whose career is over  because of his idiot friend. 

Your the type of sherdog poster i cant stand,  if it isn't the mma holy trinity, then its crap and needs to die.   This attitude of  your art sucks and you suck or doing it is ridiculous, especially at a time when martial artists of all flavors need to be coming together in support of each other not fighting each other. Wanna know why?

The state and federal authorities don't have a problem with TMA and its competitions. It does however have a major problem with yours and is constantly trying to ban it. MMA needs to unite with TMA and both stand together to keep a entire style from being banned. Which it is in some places. MMA's continual arrogance and egotistical BS will be its eventually down fall. You guys need to take your chips off your shoulders, and pull you heads out of the sand and unite with other arts  instead of constantly bashing them and tearing them down.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 6, 2014)

Kframe said:


> The state and federal authorities don't have a problem with TMA and its competitions. It does however have a major problem with yours and is constantly trying to ban it. MMA needs to unite with TMA and both stand together to keep a entire style from being banned. Which it is in some places. MMA's continual arrogance and egotistical BS will be its eventually down fall. You guys need to take your chips off your shoulders, and pull you heads out of the sand and unite with other arts  instead of constantly bashing them and tearing them down.



This is something I've just not understood well over the years, be it MMA or TKD or any art that has it's main focus on sporting competition.  I would never claim that RBSD or scenario based training is great for competition because it just isn't.  It wasn't designed to meet the needs of that venue.  That doesn't diminish the usefulness of RBSD or scenario based training in the venue for which it was designed.  Conversely, sparring or bag work or speed bag or whatever training works well for the venue in which it was designed to be used in.  That it isn't the best methodology for a different venue doesn't diminish it's usefulness in the sporting venue.  

MMA can be well conditioned practitioners of their art.  That's a good thing.  Some of what is learned can be useful outside of the sport venue.  That's also a good thing.  It just isn't optimal in some cases, and detrimental in other cases for the SD venue.  But again, that doesn't diminish the MMArtist in any way and should never be taken as such.  

A screwdriver is a very useful tool.  It is great for putting a screw into something.  Kinda sucks as far as brain surgery but then it really wasn't designed for that purpose.  The fact it kinda sucks for brain surgery doesn't diminish the overall usefulness of the screwdriver for other tasks within the scope of it's design.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 6, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Drop bear,  you keep mentioning that sparring teaches the fundamental basics. Im sorry but you are wrong, and who ever taught you is wrong. You should have ALREADY learned those basics, out side of sparring. Sparring is not the place to learn a technique correctly.  It is were you go to learn when to apply it appropriately.  That is my issue and part of why i quit MMA. They spend not nearly enough time not sparring and doing the boring #### like pad work and partner drills. Especially the partner drills. I gained more from them then i did in any other thing.
> 
> Hence why on sherdog you constantly get threads about the piss poor state of striking in mma.  They just don't spend enough time on the basics,  out side of sparring. Oh and for proof all i have to do is watch any mma fight in the last 10 years and all i see out side of a few people is craptacular striking and standup..  It is essentially BJJ with some striking for the flavor and a potential payday.
> 
> ...



Excellent post but I don't think its the *sand *they need to pull their heads out of.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> That really depends upon how you are defining sparring.



I am using the critique definition an artificial environment with people hitting padded opponents. For this. And basically to make the point that there are little differences between training methodology.

Sparring  I went for an open plane with resisting oponants because sparring isn't scripted or situational I define situational or combat scenarios as drills mostly.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Drop bear,  you keep mentioning that sparring teaches the fundamental basics. Im sorry but you are wrong, and who ever taught you is wrong. You should have ALREADY learned those basics, out side of sparring. Sparring is not the place to learn a technique correctly.  It is were you go to learn when to apply it appropriately.  That is my issue and part of why i quit MMA. They spend not nearly enough time not sparring and doing the boring #### like pad work and partner drills. Especially the partner drills. I gained more from them then i did in any other thing.
> 
> Hence why on sherdog you constantly get threads about the piss poor state of striking in mma.  They just don't spend enough time on the basics,  out side of sparring. Oh and for proof all i have to do is watch any mma fight in the last 10 years and all i see out side of a few people is craptacular striking and standup..  It is essentially BJJ with some striking for the flavor and a potential payday.
> 
> ...



I am bashing other styles by saying my system has as much merit as yours?

If that is going to upset you then you are going to have to get used to being upset.

OK to improve your knowledge of mma a bit.

You do not have real knowledge of your skills until you have tested them against a resisting oponant. Padwork and drills and sparring are used to achieve this method. If your training wasn't any good then you need to seek better training in this.

In Melbourne nemisis is one of the top gyms there. And you will also get to train with guys who embrace and exel in both sport and reality training.

http://www.teamnemesis.com.au

I am not sure what you have read of sherdog. But your understanding of mma is limited here. It has not been bjj with crappy punches for about ten years.

Now in regards to boxing and mma. Boxing is only part of the system i do. So to step in the ring against a boxer. I need to have better fundamental basics to win. There is no excuse that I don't train for boxing because the skills transfer from mma to boxing and to self defence.

It is my lack of skill that determins whether I do well or poorly. Not some tired reasoning about how I would win if I only could grapple or something. It is not honest.

I have seen the video of that fight he got hit in the head with a steel pole. I don't have an answer to that I don't pretend to. I try to be honest about my ability to deal with numbers and weapons.

But here is my one example of mma working in the street. So now we are even.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PzCsznE_JE8


I am not the kind of sherdog poster that will accept personal attacks. Especially untrue ones.

Mma and tma is standing together to unite. Mma is allowing a place for multiple platforms to compete in the public arena. For them to collaborate in the gym. And for them to share and better there systems.

You should go to a mma gym and talk to the people there they are more than willing to embrace your ideas if they have merit.

Of course only really one way to show merit. And that is sparring. But there are plenty of tma styles that do well. We have a karate guy who routinely comes in and kicks peoples heads off.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2014)

And I notice still no example of an alternative to sparring.

Fine then I will post one.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2j-m3GnHkDY

Now the issue is it is in a controlled environment with people wearing pads and going to ground. 

Which is fine because it will prepare you for the street in the same way sparring would.


----------



## Kframe (Mar 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I am bashing other styles by saying my system has as much merit as yours?
> 
> If that is going to upset you then you are going to have to get used to being upset.
> 
> ...



Hate to break it to you son but I did train mma. I quit 1.5 years in because of all the crap that is in it so do not tell me I don't know anything about mma

 People with your horrid ego, and the poor state of mma training are the reason I quit. So I speak with some experience. We spent way to much time in sparring and not enough time out side of sparring working on the basics.  The constant admonition for being not aggressive enough, when im a god dang counter fighter.. Constantly being pushed to be more aggressive and to attack. Guess what, im a counter fighter, I am good with parries and deflections guess what, IM NOT GOING TO ATTACK FIRST.   So ya, I did learn a lot, I also learned I hated the inefficient methodology of the ground training. Random techniques every day, nothing tying them together.  Which apparently is the norm at  bjj clubs.    Only the GJJ club focus's on specific positions for a few months be fore moving on.. 





You can bury your head in the sand all you want but that will not change the state of mma. Again all the proof I need is any mma fight for the last 10 years. THE STAND UP SUCKS.  Period.   End of story. They do not work enough non sparring.   People constantly dropping there hands and chins up and damned haymakers...  

Falco got hit later, after the part of the incident were his mma should have nuked the other guys When it was 2 on 2. Yet his crappy stand up skills, didn't allow him to finish them quickly there, so it escalated out side. 

Karate is more then kicks.. If that's all he can do, then he must not be very good. 


None of what you have posted, has taught me anything.  There is no excuse to spar as much as mma does. Pad work and partner drills should come first and more often. Sparring only after you have mastered the movements.   Partner drills have proven to be some of the most effect methodologies for me when it comes to learning a technique, not sparring.   You do know that partner drills can be amped up and down and the pressure can be enormous If you need it to be.  Its that kind of work you need to be doing more of then sparring. 

You do know your at a predominantly TMA forum right? If your only point day after day is to come here and bash tma and its various training styles, you can do that on sherdog were it is welcomed.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I am using the critique definition an artificial environment with people hitting padded opponents. For this. And basically to make the point that there are little differences between training methodology.


I'm not really sure what you're saying here.  



drop bear said:


> Sparring  I went for an open plane with resisting oponants because sparring isn't scripted or situational I define situational or combat scenarios as drills mostly.


Okay, so you mean two or more people facing off under some kind of rule set fighting unscripted for a set duration of time.  Is that correct?

I'm not picking your definition apart, by the way; I'm just trying to get a feel for where you're coming from and to be clear as to what you're saying.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Hate to break it to you son but I did train mma. I quit 1.5 years in because of all the crap that is in it so do not tell me I don't know anything about mma
> 
> People with your horrid ego, and the poor state of mma training are the reason I quit. So I speak with some experience. We spent way to much time in sparring and not enough time out side of sparring working on the basics.  The constant admonition for being not aggressive enough, when im a god dang counter fighter.. Constantly being pushed to be more aggressive and to attack. Guess what, im a counter fighter, I am good with parries and deflections guess what, IM NOT GOING TO ATTACK FIRST.   So ya, I did learn a lot, I also learned I hated the inefficient methodology of the ground training. Random techniques every day, nothing tying them together.  Which apparently is the norm at  bjj clubs.    Only the GJJ club focus's on specific positions for a few months be fore moving on..
> 
> ...



But ..but.. You have a whole mma section. You even said you welcomed all of these mma guys who were posting valuable information. Ok all that hasn't happened to me but i am sure others have faired better.

I read somewhere it was also a friendly forum.



Why are you so opposed to different methodology? I train with tma guys they train mma. I am trying my best to explain my system and its position on things.

And you come out rage posting and making personal attacks.



The training you did obviously did not work to your standard. That is fine you should not let a bad school tar your impression of a martial art.

As I said go train nemmisis. Their method should be better. And you can even get your boxing and your reality based training on as well.

Now with your conflict in the mma gym. This is where you have to let go of your ego and listen to the guys you have actively sought out to train you. You can't just ignore advice from an instructor. This is important for anybody who is learning a new style they don't understand.

Otherwise when you leave that style you will not have understood it.

Was it Bruce Lee who said that thing about the cup being empty before it can be filled? I think that is good advice.

OK stand up. One of our coaches got his golden gloves and trained a guy who got his silver. We have a kid who was on the Australian boxing team. Our karate guy came second in a national comp. Another coach is going for a title belt in mma. That seems to be an indication of good stand up.

So when you post incorrect information about bad stand up.and bad training. You are going to be corrected on it.

You may have experienced bad training I don't know where did you train mma?

Mma and the street.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lFKiawxEfDI

Now I am one ahead I think. On mma and self defence situations.

I do pad work and partner drills I have said as much constantly.again your assumption is incorrect. We have the mother of all resisted drills that we use to prep fighters for competition. It works fine. I am not disagreeing that drills are important. I am disagreeing that sparring isn't for self defence.

I do not like compliant drills. As a sole method of training. I posted that. I also posted compliant drills have their place.

I am not bashing styles I am suggesting methods to get the most out of your training regardless of your style.

This is why I suggested head gear. Suggested situational drills. Why I will advocate warm ups loose fitting clothing courtesy to your training partner,training on the ground. And other basic safety precautions in training. This should not be a sport fighter thing. This needs to be a training thing.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'm not really sure what you're saying here.
> 
> 
> Okay, so you mean two or more people facing off under some kind of rule set fighting unscripted for a set duration of time.  Is that correct?
> ...



For the second yes. For the first I am presenting a case that combat scenarios will fall into the same unreality traps as sparring as soon as you add resistance or contact.

That whether or not it is more applicable is a debate. That one is real and one is artificial is not.

So I am kind of using two different descriptions to serve different purposes.

I am trying to be reasonable where I can.


----------



## K-man (Mar 7, 2014)

drop bear said:


> This is my problem with compliant drills. And doubley so with this predictive drill idea.



So compliant drills don't work and the type of training I do that you have never seen is less effective again. Mmm! And that is not bagging my training? My training is similar to Hock's training in this regard so I suppose his training is crap too?



drop bear said:


> The unresisted I throw one punch leave my arm out so my instructor can do a thousand finishing moves scenario.
> Eg.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tGAE99qawps


Now you bag Krav as well. Really, where is the arm being left out? No one thousand finishing moves. In Krav we teach 360 defence which basically has just two scenarios based on the level of the attack. One for high with over hook and one for low with under hook. And we do train that against 100% resistance. How long have you been studying Krav? The fact that the Israelis teach Krav to their troops is obviously by you a waste of time because it isn't always against a totally resisting partner? Interesting to say the least. :hmm:



drop bear said:


> Then you would put up a video of scenario training so we could critique it wouldn't you.
> 
> Because as far as I can see you have 3 choices.
> 
> ...


I would have thought Hock's training fitted the category of scenario training.



drop bear said:


> I am bashing other styles by saying my system has as much merit as yours?
> 
> If that is going to upset you then you are going to have to get used to being upset.


No one has dissed MMA. It is you dissing many other training systems that is the issue. I would have thought that once you start bashing a few more you might pull some negative reps. 



drop bear said:


> OK to improve your knowledge of mma a bit.
> 
> You do not have real knowledge of your skills until you have tested them against a resisting oponant. Padwork and drills and sparring are used to achieve this method. If your training wasn't any good then you need to seek better training in this.
> 
> ...


Interesting. You posted this as a reply to *Kframe* who happens to be from the US.   I am assuming you meant this comment for me. But don't hold your breath. I won't be at Nemesis anytime soon.   If I every wanted to undertake that sort of training my close friend and training partner trains MMA fighters and kickboxers and is actually a licenced fight promoter. 



drop bear said:


> But here is my one example of mma working in the street. So now we are even.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PzCsznE_JE8


Lol! When I was working I did that by myself more times than I can even remember. So I guess we could say that even sport based karate can be effective on the street as well.



drop bear said:


> Of course only really one way to show merit. And that is sparring. But there are plenty of tma styles that do well. We have a karate guy who routinely comes in and kicks peoples heads off.


Sport based obviously as the only head kicks we do is when the opponent is on the ground. 



drop bear said:


> But ..but.. You have a whole mma section. You even said you welcomed all of these mma guys who were posting valuable information. Ok all that hasn't happened to me but i am sure others have faired better.



You really are confused. It was me who said that I appreciated the posts of the MMA forum members, not *Kframe*.  Must be the heat. I'll look forward to the time you post some valuable information too. 



drop bear said:


> I read somewhere it was also a friendly forum..



It is normally. Just that from time to time someone comes along and rattles our chains.



drop bear said:


> Why are you so opposed to different methodology? I train with tma guys they train mma. I am trying my best to explain my system and its position on things.



Really? I would suggest here we have all accepted different methodologies except you. You are even against things you have never seen. Go figure! 

Let me guess ... your system is MMA. I think that a few of us here have a little understanding of MMA. . 



drop bear said:


> And you come out rage posting and making personal attacks.



Again I think you might be blaming poor old *Kframe* again for my posts. However I haven't seen any rage posts or personal attacks for a long time. People who do that usually don't last more that a few weeks. 



drop bear said:


> The training you did obviously did not work to your standard. That is fine you should not let a bad school tar your impression of a martial art..



Mmm. That would be *Kframe*, I never went the MMA route. 



drop bear said:


> As I said go train nemmisis. Their method should be better. And you can even get your boxing and your reality based training on as well..



Right! I do teach RB MAs so I probably don't need to train at Nemesis and as I said earlier, *Kframe* is unlikely to make the trip to Australia just to experience that fantastic training. As for boxing ... I competed in my last boxing tournament in 1959. I don't see any benefit in me going back to boxing any time soon.



drop bear said:


> Now with your conflict in the mma gym. This is where you have to let go of your ego and listen to the guys you have actively sought out to train you. You can't just ignore advice from an instructor. This is important for anybody who is learning a new style they don't understand.
> 
> Otherwise when you leave that style you will not have understood it.



OK, I'll leave that one for *Kframe.
*



drop bear said:


> Was it Bruce Lee who said that thing about the cup being empty before it can be filled? I think that is good advice.



Wow! Just how do you see your cup? 



drop bear said:


> OK stand up. One of our coaches got his golden gloves and trained a guy who got his silver. We have a kid who was on the Australian boxing team. Our karate guy came second in a national comp. Another coach is going for a title belt in mma. That seems to be an indication of good stand up.



OK. Back in 1986 my then teacher represented Australia at the World Karate Championships in Sydney. A year or so later his sister, his successor as my teacher came third in the World Championships in Japan. Another of my teachers was the coach. I think I received quite a solid grounding. 

Now days I feel privileged to train with some of the top guys around. Later this month I will be training with Masaji Taira and next month with Kevin Secours. I can name drop too if necessary. 



drop bear said:


> So when you post incorrect information about bad stand up.and bad training. You are going to be corrected on it.



Excuse me! And who is going to do the correcting? 



drop bear said:


> You may have experienced bad training I don't know where did you train mma?.



Mmm. That's for *Kframe.*



drop bear said:


> I do not like compliant drills. As a sole method of training. I posted that. I also posted *compliant drills have their place*..



I must have missed that post. I did go looking. I don't know of anyone suggesting compliant drills should be the only form of training. Are you sure that was on MT?



drop bear said:


> I am not bashing styles I am suggesting methods to get the most out of your training regardless of your style.


Well thank you for the vote of confidence in my training. For a while there I was convinced you were bagging it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 7, 2014)

drop bear said:


> For the second yes. For the first I am presenting a case that combat scenarios will fall into the same unreality traps as sparring as soon as you add resistance or contact.
> 
> That whether or not it is more applicable is a debate. That one is real and one is artificial is not.
> 
> ...


The fact is that none of it is "real," and both are limited by the need for training without injury, and both are only as good as the way they are set up.  Some sparring rule sets are much more inclusive than other.  MMA has a very inclusive rule set.  WTF Taekwondo has a very restrictive rule set by comparison, and the competitive rule set rewards things that I might find less than productive in actual self defence in order to make it resemble Taekkyeon and to differentiate it from sport karate.

Scenario training has the same limitations; it's only as good as it is set up to be.  The same goes for kata, drills, etc.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 7, 2014)

K-man said:


> But every so often we get the 'my way or the highway folks' who can polarise the forum. What should we do? Just ignore them?



on some level, yes you have to.  Unless you relish the notion of having a full-time job correcting everyone who says something stupid or inaccurate on the internet, you've got to ignore a lot of it.  'Cause there's a whole lot of it out there and it never stops.  Odin knows, there's a whole lot of it goes on here on MT and I just got tired of the endless mindless exchanges.  

Keep in mind: just because something stupid or inaccurate does not go corrected or challenged, does not imply agreement.  I think we sometimes feel that if we don't correct the record, it somehow means we agree with the statement or we've conceded their point.  It doesn't.  This is just a discussion forum where we share ideas.  Even the stupid and inaccurate stuff, is just someone's idea being shared.  It means NOTHING in the real world, to be honest.  What gets discussed here doesn't set policy anywhere (Odin-be-thanked, given the lunacy that gets discussed in the Study and the sewer-oops Basement), and you don't need to convince anyone who happens to disagree with you.  You don't need to "win" that argument.  So on some level, let the ignorant believe what they want.  If you feel like educating them, have at it.  But if they refuse to be educated, fine, it's their choice and you won't change their minds here.  That's just the way it is.



> The thread was basically, do you need to spar to be effective in RBSD or street fighting. The answer is, there are many ways to prepare yourself for that scenario. Some systems use sparring and some don't. The ones that don't spar use other types of training to replace the sparring. It depends on the focus of your training but common sense should say that a system that trains solely for the street type situation might be more effective on the street than on designed for competition. But in reality both styles of training on the street against an untrained or poorly trained aggressor should prevail.
> :asian:



I'd say they are equally well on the street against a trained aggressor as well. 

The thing is, martial arts training is very subjective.  A whole lot of it depends on the person and how well he/she relates and connects to the training method.  A person needs to find the right training method that "fits" him best, whether it's a more traditional approach or a competitive "mma" type approach, or whatever.  Regardless of what one person thinks is the "most appropriate" way to train for a certain kind of situation, it's meaningless to another person if that person just doesn't connect to that kind of training.  What matters most is what kind of training a person connects to mentally, what makes sense to him and what he can then use.  And he'll use that in whatever situation he finds himself in.

This is all very subjective and cannot be compared in simple black-and-white terms.  I've trained in several different systems over the years.  It took me that long to finally find the system and the sifu who can give me the quality of instruction that really makes sense to me and I feel like I can use.  All the other stuff, I threw it away and don't do it anymore, at all.  I found much of it very problematic, at times illogical and even stupid in how it approached training and curriculum structure.  By my reckoning, nobody should be training that stuff.  But a whole lot of people do, and they love it and find it perfectly logical and useable and feel that it makes a lot of sense and gives them the skills they need and want.  

That's kinda what I was getting at earlier: people end up arguing for their favorite method.  Well of course they will, that is what their experience tells them.  And everyone's experience will tell them something different, even if they experience the same event, or the same training.  It depends on the lens through which they view it and that lens is built upon their experiences in training, instruction, and "real-world".  And let's be honest: very very very few people are open to being told something different by a stranger.  Most of us only accept that information from a very few people who we know and trust or for some reason believe is in a position to give us that information.  Coming onto a discussion forum like this and being told by someone else that we are making some monumental mistakes, is not something that any of us are particularly open to hearing.  Every one of us reads what someone else is writing and we think, that's crazy, I gotta tell this guy he's wrong!  But that same guy is thinking the same thing about what we are saying too.  

It comes back to my signature line here, something my dad used to say a lot when I was a kid:  _De gustibus non disputante est.  _Concerning Taste, there can be no dispute.  That's what is really being argued about: taste.  I like peanut butter on peanut butter sandwiches, but I don't like peanut butter cookies or ice cream.  Take someone who doesn't like kata or scenario training and tell him, that's that only way he will get the necessary skills, and you've got an argument on your hands and you won't convince him.  Take someone who hates competition and tell him that he's got to train like a MMA competitor or he's dead meat, and you've got an argument that you will never win.  Honestly, in this thread I'm seeing this kind of argument coming from both sides.  Both sides are arguing their perspective, trying to convince a guy who loves chocolate ice cream that he should give it up and eat strawberry ice cream instead.  It won't happen.  

The discussion can be worthwhile, but eventually it's just arguing the same point over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over in a circle.  That's when it's time for everyone to just end the discussion, or ignore the other guy.  You've made your point.  It's out there in the thread for anyone to read, if they want to.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 7, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Good way to put it.  Let me see if I can approach the topic from another perspective.  I'll use Drop Bear's video as a point of reference.  And let me start by saying to DB, I'm not busting on your video.  It is as a point of reference to expound my point(s).
> 
> Okay, sparring as demonstrated in the video or in general.  What are the good points?  Well to begin, we have a training tool that allows you to use the basic skills that you have learned.  That could include striking, kicking, grappling, locks and/or a combination of those things.  So that is a good thing.  Next, it allows you to use it against an opponent that is resisting your attempts to control the situation (for whatever the desired result).  So that is also a good thing.
> 
> ...



Pointing out the limitations in a particular form of training can be a useful exercise, but it's missing the point a bit to say "the following elements of this training method are unrealistic, therefore my preferred training method is better."   Every single training method in existence has flaws, especially if you are focusing on preparing for violent encounters.  "Real-world" violence comes in a myriad of forms and there are serious practical and ethical obstacles to studying how to handle it in a scientific and systematic way. Until we invent Star Trek holodeck technology, there will be no truly "realistic" training.

I'm a big fan of sparring.  If done correctly, it can generate benefits that no other training method can.  It also has limitations.  There are important aspects of real world violence that it does not cover.  There are also bad real world habits that you can build up if you treat sparring as your end goal or as a realistic simulation of a self-defense scenario rather than as a tool for developing certain attributes and skills.

I'm a big fan of scenario training.  If done correctly, it can generate benefits no other training method can.  It also has limitations.  There are some very useful attributes and skills that you will not develop using only scenario training.

There are a myriad of other training methods - kata, flow drills, pad hitting, etc.  Each can have good benefits if trained correctly.  Each can lead to bad habits if trained incorrectly.  Each has limitations even if trained perfectly.  The key is to figure out what is missing from each training method you use and then find some other complementary training method to fill in the gaps.

BTW - sparring is not just one thing.  For what it's worth, I have done sparring outside in the snow, on uneven terrain, using mismatched weapons, using asymmetric rules or objectives for the different partners, using (or not using) various levels of safety gear, fighting multiple opponents, and so on.  The boundary between sparring and scenario training can actually be a somewhat fuzzy one at times.


----------



## K-man (Mar 7, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> The discussion can be worthwhile, but eventually it's just arguing the same point over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over in a circle.  That's when it's time for everyone to just end the discussion, or ignore the other guy.  You've made your point.  It's out there in the thread for anyone to read, if they want to.


Of course you are again 100% correct. I was out of it about 4 or 5 pages back and find my training style bagged yet again. But occasionally, in the middle of an irritating debate, someone will throw in a gem. I can only live in hope! 

But I do get a bit confused at times. I would not have thought that someone who claims to have spent four years training with Hock Hochheim would not be bagging the training methodology of Krav Maga that was designed in relatively recent times specifically for the street. I mean, really? Hock, according to his bio, is actually an honorary KM instructor awarded by the United KM World Organisation.




> Originally Posted by *drop bear  *
> I did hocks system for four years. Up to you as to whether you think that is valid or not.



Looks like I with never make the cut as a martial artist until I switch to MMA.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 7, 2014)

I think Tony made some valid points about the way people train a few posts ago.  Training in all kinds of weather and in all kinds of different environment makes the training a little more real.  
Having spared in anything from the sothern Ca. ocean waters to New England mountains when it was 10 below I'll tell you stand up sparring is a good way to train. NOT saying MMA stale is bad but do you want to try to tackle a guy in the surf or 3 foot snow drifts, it has its merits as do all arts but is also limited to what is allowed in the art and what is trained to the point it is instinctual?  Now can that sparring be made better, simple set up situations and go over and over and over them till you figure out what works best. Maybe that will be take the guy down and roll down the mountain. 
Go against more than one opponent if you really want to learn what street may be about. These days the one and one fight in the street is almost gone. How many of your MMA schools train against more that one opponent at a time heck most TMA school do not for that matter .
And before anyone says I do not have knowledge of these things you can go back over the last 13 years of my posting here if you want to find where I posted about street encounters I have been in over the years.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 7, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Drop bear,  you keep mentioning that sparring teaches the fundamental basics. Im sorry but you are wrong, and who ever taught you is wrong. You should have ALREADY learned those basics, out side of sparring. Sparring is not the place to learn a technique correctly.  It is were you go to learn when to apply it appropriately.  That is my issue and part of why i quit MMA. They spend not nearly enough time not sparring and doing the boring #### like pad work and partner drills. Especially the partner drills. I gained more from them then i did in any other thing.
> 
> Hence why on sherdog you constantly get threads about the piss poor state of striking in mma.  They just don't spend enough time on the basics,  out side of sparring. Oh and for proof all i have to do is watch any mma fight in the last 10 years and all i see out side of a few people is craptacular striking and standup..  It is essentially BJJ with some striking for the flavor and a potential payday.
> 
> ...



Hey Kframe, I get the feeling that you may be carrying some baggage over from your recent switch from MMA to Bujinkan training and whatever feedback you might have been getting from hanging out on the Sherdog forums. 

This thread is not about MMA vs TMA and Drop Bear never insulted any TMA or suggested that MMA is the end-all be-all.  The discussion has been about the necessity of sparring and most of the participants who are arguing against that necessity in this thread are actually advocating scenario training as the superior alternative.  For the record, lots of TMAs use sparring, but scenario training is more of a recent development and is more associated with the RBSD community.

The whole "MMA rules, everything else drools" attitude you are describing is mostly coming from fanboys, wannabees, and internet keyboard warriors.  None of the MMA fighters I train with has ever insulted TMAs in my hearing.  Many top MMA fighters _are _TMA practitioners.

If your old gym focused just on sparring at the expense of fundamentals, that's more a reflection on your old instructor than on the state of MMA as a whole.  I guarantee you that the top MMA fighters spend plenty of time doing pad work and partner drills.

A large proportion of the keyboard warrior kvetching about the state of striking in MMA comes from ignorance.  It's true that most high-level MMA strikers are not going to look like an equivalent high-level boxer.  This is for a couple of reasons.  First, many of the technical details required for effective punching are going to change considerably once you add in the possibility of grappling, takedowns, elbows, knees, and so on.  Secondly, MMA fighters have to study a broader range of techniques than boxers do, so they're not going to be as good as someone who only has to practice one thing.  Even so, the state of MMA striking has come a long way.  The average level of proficiency among UFC fighters is frankly well above what most non-professional martial artists will ever achieve, even if it doesn't look like you think it should.  If you want to understand what is going on better in that domain, I strongly recommend reading Jack Slack's articles for detailed analysis.

The story about Maiquel Falcão isn't particularly relevant to much.  You can find examples of MMA practitioners doing poorly in a street fight.  You can find examples of TMA practitioners doing poorly in a street fight.  You can find examples of RBSD practitioners doing poorly in a street fight.  You can find examples of experienced but untrained street fighters doing poorly in a street fight.  The best lesson from the incident is that it's a bad idea to get drunk and start street fights no matter who you are.

Your ideas about governments trying to ban MMA are a bit confused.  First, the legal bans were never about a style.  They were about a type of competition.  In fact, at the time lawmakers were crusading against MMA it wasn't a style at all.  At that time the competition was promoted as a way to tell which traditional martial art was most effective.  The evolution of MMA training into something which might be seen as a style in its own right roughly corresponds with the timing of MMA becoming recognized as a legal, sanctioned, and acceptable form of sporting competition.  At this point, MMA is in no particular danger of becoming banned. (This is referring to the U.S., where you and I live.  I have no idea how things went in Australia, where Drop Bear is from.)

The best advice I can give you is to relax, don't feel like you have to take sides on things, and don't take stuff personally that's not directed at you.  You were a relative beginner at MMA.  Now you are a total beginner in the Bujinkan.  There are a lot of contradictory ideas out there.  Listen to them, file them away for future reference and compare them to your own experiences as time goes on.  There's no point in getting upset over any of it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 7, 2014)

K-man said:


> Of course you are again 100% correct. I was out of it about 4 or 5 pages back and find my training style bagged yet again. But occasionally, in the middle of an irritating debate, someone will throw in a gem. I can only live in hope!



i guess once in a while we all get a moment of clarity and that's when our contributions shine.



> But I do get a bit confused at times. I would not have thought that someone who claims to have spent four years training with Hock Hochheim would not be bagging the training methodology of Krav Maga that was designed in relatively recent times specifically for the street. I mean, really? Hock, according to his bio, is actually an honorary KM instructor awarded by the United KM World Organisation.



I realize this wasn't directed at me, but I'll make a comment.  Everyone sucks, to somebody.  Even the famous people.  Their methodology just doesn't jive with someone, whatever it is.  There's a whole lot of famous people who I have absolutely zero desire to ever train with.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 7, 2014)

If we wish to go back to the OP's question, "_How bad does not sparring effect you in a real street fight situation_"? 

The answer is that it doesn't negatively affect you at all with the caveat that you train with a methodology that is a better tool for real world altercations.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 7, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> If we wish to go back to the OP's question, "_How bad does not sparring effect you in a real street fight situation_"?
> 
> The answer is that it doesn't negatively affect you at all with the caveat that you train with a methodology that is a better tool for real world altercations.



The answer is yes.  Because there is no correct answer to this question.  The definition of 'sparing' is so broad as to be almost meaningless.  Many of the things that are done without "sparring" are considered by some to be sparring.  And sparring from one art to the next can be different enough that simply saying "sparring" is no more descriptive than saying kata, which can be done alone or with partners, can be compliant or resistant, etc.

Also, the OP worded the topic so as to generate exactly the kind of bickering going on here.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 7, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The answer is yes.  Because there is no correct answer to this question.  The definition of 'sparing' is so broad as to be almost meaningless.  Many of the things that are done without "sparring" are considered by some to be sparring.  And sparring from one art to the next can be different enough that simply saying "sparring" is no more descriptive than saying kata, which can be done alone or with partners, can be compliant or resistant, etc.
> 
> Also, the OP worded the topic so as to generate exactly the kind of bickering going on here.



I admit that I haven't read every post, so perhaps I've missed heated comments.  I didn't realize that it was/or is a heated conversation.  Spirited yes, but that's what makes it interesting.  

I look at 'sparring' as very similar to the video that Drop Bear posted for review.  In general, that is probably a fairly consistent representation of what most consider sparring.  It will vary a bit of course.  TKD sparring won't have the grappling of MMA but the stand up can be fairly similar (depending on the TKD organization of course).  As such, effective training for SD isn't negatively affected by the lack of sparring.


----------



## MJS (Mar 7, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Good way to put it.  Let me see if I can approach the topic from another perspective.  I'll use Drop Bear's video as a point of reference.  And let me start by saying to DB, I'm not busting on your video.  It is as a point of reference to expound my point(s).
> 
> Okay, sparring as demonstrated in the video or in general.  What are the good points?  Well to begin, we have a training tool that allows you to use the basic skills that you have learned.  That could include striking, kicking, grappling, locks and/or a combination of those things.  So that is a good thing.  Next, it allows you to use it against an opponent that is resisting your attempts to control the situation (for whatever the desired result).  So that is also a good thing.
> 
> ...



Very good analogy, and I certainly don't disagree!  I think it's safe to say though that some people just aren't into this type of training, and not everyone that is interested in it, trains at a school that does it, despite the students desire to want it.  Personally, I enjoy it, and I workout with people outside of the dojo, that do this type of training, so it's all good for me.   IMO, guys like Peyton Quinn, Bill Kipp, two that come to mind, that do scenario training, are doing a very good thing, but of course, as it was said earlier, it needs to be done right.  Mindset is key, otherwise, the scenario is a failure.  Quite a few years ago, I had the chance to use one of the firearms training simulators that the PD that I dispatch for, had access to.  Of course, the gun that I was using wasn't real, the bad guy on the scene that was playing out in front of me, wasn't 'real' in the sense that if I screw up, I'd literally get shot and killed, but it's imperative that you have it in your mind, that this is the real deal.  Same thing with the scenario training.  The scenario has to be 'real' enough to put the student in the right mindset.

I think it's safe to say that sparring and real SD are 2 different things.  That's why I said what I did...that we need a little of everything.  Of course, as long as the scenario training includes all that you mention, then you might not need the sparring.


----------



## K-man (Mar 7, 2014)

Perhaps another way of looking at it is the intent of your training. If you are young and testosterone fuelled, competitive martial arts are a great outlet. Whether that be a sport that can take you to the Olympics like Boxing, Judo or TKD or many of the others like Japanese style karate that are outside of that sphere but still have international competition. On perhaps the next level of intensity would be full contact karate, Muay Thai and of course MMA. There is not one of those sports that you would dream of participating in without the type of 'sparring' most of us accept as sparring. So it produces fitness and conditioning and provides a competitive environment similar to the ring. Could any of those guys defend themselves on the street? Of course they could, especially against an alcohol affected untrained thug.

I would like to exclude all the MAs that have no relevance to 'real' fighting. My definition of those would be all those that *Chris Parker* would exclude. 

On the other side you have things like the generally accepted TMAs, Krav, Systema, FMAs etc. that do not have the same type of sparring as in the first set but still have some form of heavy contact, full resistance training included in the syllabus. Now, I would argue that although it is not the same sparring as above, in reality it is still 'sparring'. It is still producing fitness and conditioning and to an extent is trying to reproduce the conditions under which it would be used in real life. Could these guys defend themselves on the street? In the same situation as earlier, of course.

If you took the 'sparring' out of either camp, would that make a difference to your ability to defend yourself on the street? Answer, it depends. In a real street fight situation there may not be the necessity to actually fight. If you can escape without fighting, the best alternative, then sparring of any form is totally unnecessary. Millions of people safely navigate particularly sensitive situations successfully every day without the need to fight.

Even our police force have given up on the sparring aspect of training. They used to include basic H2H in their training but it was stopped because they were suffering more injuries in the training than on the street so now they make distance and use other tools like spray, taser and gun, or they bring in the dog squad. Does the lack of 'sparring' adversely affect them? Obviously not and the police are likely to be involved in hundreds more street fights than any normal person.

Perhaps we could introduce weapons at this point. Years ago in the sport oriented environment we trained disarms against a weapon perhaps twice a year. In reality that was probably worse than not training at all because it gave students the sense of thinking that they could defend themselves against weapons when in fact they had a whisker more than no chance. Now we train against weapons for close to an hour every week. The knives are real knives, blunted. Is that training considered sparring? If yes, it is certainly different sparring to the sport sparring above, but more aligned to sport based Tomiki Aikido. If you don't classify it as sparring but 'scenario training' perhaps, where does that leave you on the street? The more RB systems would certainly have more going for them on the street if there was the possibility of a weapon, even an improvised one.

So I would say that sparring is essential for sport but maybe not as imperative for the rest of us. 'Sparring' means different things to different people, essential for some, not as essential for others, and in reality the chances of me needing the skills I teach and train in a street fight are next to zero because my SD training will probably keep me away from fighting anyway. 

On that note, I take the advice of my esteemed colleagues above and stand back to watch with interest future discussion. (I do, however, reserve the right to wave my little flag on appropriate occasions.)
:s67:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 7, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For you SD guys, how will you develop your "hip throw (mother of all throws)"?
> 
> In
> 
> ...



So nobody cares to answer my question?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 7, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> So nobody cares to answer my question?



A lot of questions not being answered.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 7, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The fact is that none of it is "real," and both are limited by the need for training without injury, and both are only as good as the way they are set up.  Some sparring rule sets are much more inclusive than other.  MMA has a very inclusive rule set.  WTF Taekwondo has a very restrictive rule set by comparison, and the competitive rule set rewards things that I might find less than productive in actual self defence in order to make it resemble Taekkyeon and to differentiate it from sport karate.
> 
> Scenario training has the same limitations; it's only as good as it is set up to be.  The same goes for kata, drills, etc.




Yeah I have been kind of spazzing around with this. But that becomes the basic core of the issue.

I could argue that if it does not happen in a fight then it is not realistic and therefore detrimental. I have read those argument as the basic premise against sparring. It is the core argument against sport.

But what happens then?

Bag work?. Well you are not going to fight a bag.

Kata? Not a real fight.

Conditioning? Nope.

Bare knuckle death matches? Well sorry but you are not covering being attacked by a sharknado so it is not applicable to self defence.

Nothing. All martial arts training that is not being attacked in the street by the worst case scenario is not applicable to self defence training. And you cannot work with that premises.

The justification is that the drills I like can be called as closely relating to a real self defence. But how am I coming to that conclusion?

Is that being just pulled out of the air?

It is nice people have real world experience. I have real world experience. But that is not a justification. I feel compelled to support my training based on its own merits.

I am not bashing a style but bashing a premises. I cannot see how anybody can reasonable work form this idea.

By the way how did I come to this conclusion.

Testing my ideas against a resisting opponent.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 7, 2014)

The best training for self defence is not to train.

The best defence in self defence is to not be there in the first place.

So training to not be there is the most effective method.

I proved this by not going to k mans gym and was therefore undefeated.

I will in fact issue a challenge to the whole board that I will not go to all of their gyms and will remain undefeated. Demonstrating the power of my technique.

I have not been to Syria which is one of the most dangerous places on earth. That is how effective this technique is.

(I mean as a Stance I think it is almost unarguable)


----------



## drop bear (Mar 7, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Good way to put it.  Let me see if I can approach the topic from another perspective.  I'll use Drop Bear's video as a point of reference.  And let me start by saying to DB, I'm not busting on your video.  It is as a point of reference to expound my point(s).
> 
> Okay, sparring as demonstrated in the video or in general.  What are the good points?  Well to begin, we have a training tool that allows you to use the basic skills that you have learned.  That could include striking, kicking, grappling, locks and/or a combination of those things.  So that is a good thing.  Next, it allows you to use it against an opponent that is resisting your attempts to control the situation (for whatever the desired result).  So that is also a good thing.
> 
> ...




This is what got me thinking about the basic issue with the premis.

I did not agree with most of that critique and was going to eventually work through it picking it apart.

It would have been arduous and derailing.

Then I noticed the common core.

"I think in a real fight this would not happen. "

It is an unworkable idea.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah I have been kind of spazzing around with this. But that becomes the basic core of the issue.
> 
> I could argue that if it does not happen in a fight then it is not realistic and therefore detrimental. I have read those argument as the basic premise against sparring. It is the core argument against sport.
> 
> ...



Only confining your training to *exactly *what can happen in a real fight situation and *only *what is realistic is a very limited way to train. Any training exercise that can help you in a real situation is useful. There are many training exercises that are not necessarily realistic and don't occur in a real situation that can be helpful. Bag work helps you feel the power in your technique and the feedback you receive (thanks to Isaac Newton). Kata, a great way to develop basic technique, among other things. Conditioning, if it stops you hurting your hand when you punch your attacker or hurting your arm when you block an attack then its applicable.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> The best training for self defence is not to train.



More like the worst.



drop bear said:


> The best defence in self defence is to not be there in the first place.



100% correct. The best way to not get run over by a car is to not run out into peak hour traffic.



drop bear said:


> I will in fact issue a challenge to the whole board that I will not go to all of their gyms and will remain undefeated. Demonstrating the power of my technique.



I have never lost a fight to the death.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 8, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Any training exercise that can help you in a real situation is useful. There are many training exercises that are not necessarily realistic and don't occur in a real situation that can be helpful. Bag work helps you feel the power in your technique and the feedback you receive (thanks to Isaac Newton). Kata, a great way to develop basic technique, among other things. Conditioning, if it stops you hurting your hand when you punch your attacker or hurting your arm when you block an attack then its applicable.



Agreed.

This conversation may flow a bit over to methods other than sparring and their perceived usefulness in self-defense.  Kata can basically be viewed two ways;  one as a set block/punch/kick movements put together and the other as a catalog of movements that go deeper than b/p/k i.e. locks, throws, chokes, breaks, cavity pressing etc.  I personally have not use for kata if it is trained under the first way.  The second way is an extremely valuable tool for self-defense.  

Bag work is useful for both sport and self-defense.  For the same reason doing squats is beneficial for a body builder or football player.  No, you don't squat weights on a stage or on the field, but the exercise helps in the presentation or the performance on the field.  Same with sport or self defense.  No, you don't fight a bag in the ring or street, but the use of the bag (speed, heavy etc) is useful for the development of speed and power which is useful in both venues.  

Conditioning plays a huge roll in both venues.  The obvious is being able to go the distance in the ring.  Same for the street but for different reasons.  In the street we aren't necessarily concerned with going 'rounds', at least we shouldn't be.  But conditioning will play a major role in the ability to use your training under duress.  Additionally, if you are injured, conditioning plays a major role in how you will fight through that injury as well as later recovery.  

We could include other drills as well in the discussion.  I used to kick tires and use bowling pins on the shins.  Same with hard body conditioning to the torso and arms.  The payoff was the ability to inflict an injury without receiving an injury.  All of these methods are useful for either the sport or self defense venue and don't have a trade off of instilling bad habits.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> A lot of questions not being answered.


I just have to draw the conclusion that SD guys don't bother to "test" their skill such as "hip throw".


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 8, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just have to draw the conclusion that SD guys don't bother to "test" their skill such as "hip throw".



Maybe a better conclusion would be that your post got lost in the shuffle since there have been multiple pages in the last several day.  As well as many posters responding to other posters on a continuing basis, on particulars of the conversation that have come up recently.

However, addressing your question, I'm not sure why it is even being asked.  There has been numerous posts on multiple pages from 'SD guys' that have expounded on the utilization of various methods of litmus testing movements such as scenario based training against resisting opponents simulating violent real world encounters.


----------



## K-man (Mar 8, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just have to draw the conclusion that SD guys don't bother to "test" their skill such as "hip throw".


I'm not sure why you are pushing this barrow. I train a hip throw in my aikido, koshi nage ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NxlU0_7TkXI  ), but in reality I wouldn't use it if I was fighting. The takedowns I use where the hip comes into play are much more effective and easier to execute under pressure. The throw I mostly use would be more like osoto guruma, without a lot of the backward leg thrust. 

So perhaps you could show us the hip throw you think is so essential to SD training.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Mar 8, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Only confining your training to *exactly *what can happen in a real fight situation and *only *what is realistic is a very limited way to train. Any training exercise that can help you in a real situation is useful. There are many training exercises that are not necessarily realistic and don't occur in a real situation that can be helpful. Bag work helps you feel the power in your technique and the feedback you receive (thanks to Isaac Newton). Kata, a great way to develop basic technique, among other things. Conditioning, if it stops you hurting your hand when you punch your attacker or hurting your arm when you block an attack then its applicable.




Yes. And so the argument that training in an artificial environment or in a manner that does not resemble the shifting goal posts of self defence.

Is an incorrect argument.

To critique a method like sparring you need another yard stick.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> I'm not sure why you are pushing this barrow. I train a hip throw in my aikido, koshi nage ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NxlU0_7TkXI  ), but in reality I wouldn't use it if I was fighting. The takedowns I use where the hip comes into play are much more effective and easier to execute under pressure. The throw I mostly use would be more like osoto guruma, without a lot of the backward leg thrust.
> 
> So perhaps you could show us the hip throw you think is so essential to SD training.
> :asian:




I don't think it matters about the hip throw. I would double leg under most conditions. I have two hip throws in my arsenal they are used to achieve a specific result.

The issue is they are a bugger to pull off when someone is trying to stop you doing it. So how do you train to prevent them from preventing you?

The other question that follows that is now we have three different methods that can achieve the same result. If we assume the throws are basically equal.

How do you decide which one should be your go to throw?

Now I could just spar and find out which one is the highest percentage and easiest for me. That would be the throw that I would most likely use for self defence.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 8, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Agreed.
> 
> This conversation may flow a bit over to methods other than sparring and their perceived usefulness in self-defense.  Kata can basically be viewed two ways;  one as a set block/punch/kick movements put together and the other as a catalog of movements that go deeper than b/p/k i.e. locks, throws, chokes, breaks, cavity pressing etc.  I personally have not use for kata if it is trained under the first way.  The second way is an extremely valuable tool for self-defense.
> 
> ...



But how do you justify training in an artificial controlled manner?


----------



## K-man (Mar 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I don't think it matters about the hip throw. I would double leg under most conditions. I have two hip throws in my arsenal they are used to achieve a specific result.
> 
> The issue is they are a bugger to pull off when someone is trying to stop you doing it. So how do you train to prevent them from preventing you?
> 
> ...


So what do you think we do at training? Just standing round with beer in hand talking about the weather?

For me a throw is not top of mind. By double leg I am assuming you are shooting. For me that is only an option if I am already on the ground because I don't want to be on the ground from choice, and that is where I practise it from. My preferred takedowns are high percenters for me, maybe not for everyone, which is why I encourage my guys to explore what works best for them and work to improve their application. We practise those against full resistance and you have to be able to get into position to begin with. That is, in effect, no different to anything that you have shown, just we don't do all the hoppy hoppy, bouncy bouncy stuff that happens in competition.

I am really happy for you that your sparring works for you. The fact that it is not my preferred method of training doesn't seem to register with you. I have some guys in their 60s training with me. They have no interest is sport sparring. They are never going to fight in the ring, so why do you think that everyone has to train the way you train to be effective? There are many training methodologies. Yours is just one and for what you are trying to achieve it is great. Good for you.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> So what do you think we do at training? Just standing round with beer in hand talking about the weather?
> 
> For me a throw is not top of mind. By double leg I am assuming you are shooting. For me that is only an option if I am already on the ground because I don't want to be on the ground from choice, and that is where I practise it from. My preferred takedowns are high percenters for me, maybe not for everyone, which is why I encourage my guys to explore what works best for them and work to improve their application. We practise those against full resistance and you have to be able to get into position to begin with. That is, in effect, no different to anything that you have shown, just we don't do all the hoppy hoppy, bouncy bouncy stuff that happens in competition.
> 
> I am really happy for you that your sparring works for you. The fact that it is not my preferred method of training doesn't seem to register with you. I have some guys in their 60s training with me. They have no interest is sport sparring. They are never going to fight in the ring, so why do you think that everyone has to train the way you train to be effective? There are many training methodologies. Yours is just one and for what you are trying to achieve it is great. Good for you.



So how would you practice a fully resistant throw?


----------



## K-man (Mar 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So how would you practice a fully resistant throw?


I would wait for you to attack me, any way you want, I would clinch as most of my training dictates, most likely after a strike, and I would take you to the ground if and when appropriate. To practise the actual throw I would just get into position and ask my partner to resist by any means available. But you have to realise, your training and my training is totally different. In every situation I am not looking to go to the ground. If the opportunity arises I will take my opponent to the ground but my objective is not to follow. If I do end up on the ground, my aim is to regain my feet ASAP.

My ground work would be no where near as good as yours but my Krav and Systema training give me a reasonable chance of success against most people.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> I would wait for you to attack me, any way you want, I would clinch as most of my training dictates, most likely after a strike, and I would take you to the ground if and when appropriate. To practise the actual throw I would just get into position and ask my partner to resist by any means available. But you have to realise, your training and my training is totally different. In every situation I am not looking to go to the ground. If the opportunity arises I will take my opponent to the ground but my objective is not to follow. If I do end up on the ground, my aim is to regain my feet ASAP.
> 
> My ground work would be no where near as good as yours but my Krav and Systema training give me a reasonable chance of success against most people.



So someone is tryng take you down and then you are resisting you try to take them down they are resisting. They try to hold you down you try to get up and vica versa.

You are describing the same principles as sparring.


In regards to mma ground work because off the added hitting on the ground the method is becoming very self defency.
I will do a thread on it when I can put it together properly.

As a taste
I have never seen an rbsd style push this.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHveOzyEtc

But it falls into the rbsd method like a charm using the principle that standing up is better even the blocking is weapons based open blocks. It is super effective. Real ground fighters struggle to combat it. It is simple to learn you could add in bicycle kicks which I do and they work well from there.

And things like eye gouging actually works in your favour rather than engaging in a game where the person on top who has their entire body weight to eye gouge you back is a game I would not want to play.


----------



## K-man (Mar 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So someone is tryng take you down and then you are resisting you try to take them down they are resisting. They try to hold you down you try to get up and vica versa.
> 
> You are describing the same principles as sparring.


Well done, you have finally realised that I am training the same principles without the sparring people normally recognise as sparring.   That is exactly why I asked for a definition of sparring to which you posted the type of sparring you do. I don't do that. Your sparring is give and take where both parties are trying to engage to fight. My 'sparring' is waiting for you to attack and then once you are committed I can respond. Just a different approach.



drop bear said:


> In regards to mma ground work because off the added hitting on the ground the method is becoming very self defency.
> I will do a thread on it when I can put it together properly.
> 
> As a taste
> ...


That is really similar to the Systema version we train. The Krav technique to get up from there is more a roll with one foot pulled in close to stop the guy on top posting and preventing the roll. Once on top it is not hard to get away. I have no idea what it is called but Bas Rutten taught the same escape when I attended his seminar last year.



drop bear said:


> And things like eye gouging actually works in your favour rather than engaging in a game where the person on top who has their entire body weight to eye gouge you back is a game I would not want to play.


I think that eye gouging is a bit misunderstood. For me threatening the eyes normally causes a reflex flinch which opens other targets. If you are grabbed from the front or in a side choke the eyes are a great choice of target. A weaker person can easily escape a larger person if he has his fingers in the big guys eyes. Attacking the eyes from the mount position or from within the guard would not be high on my list of priorities.
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Mar 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> I'm not sure why you are pushing this barrow. I train a hip throw in my aikido, koshi nage ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NxlU0_7TkXI  ), but in reality I wouldn't use it if I was fighting. The takedowns I use where the hip comes into play are much more effective and easier to execute under pressure. The throw I mostly use would be more like osoto guruma, without a lot of the backward leg thrust.
> 
> So perhaps you could show us the hip throw you think is so essential to SD training.
> :asian:





drop bear said:


> So how would you practice a fully resistant throw?


Hey you found it! You posted my preferred takedown on another thread. Well done!


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9v0CUnYsVzc


----------



## drop bear (Mar 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> Well done, you have finally realised that I am training the same principles without the sparring people normally recognise as sparring.   That is exactly why I asked for a definition of sparring to which you posted the type of sparring you do. I don't do that. Your sparring is give and take where both parties are trying to engage to fight. My 'sparring' is waiting for you to attack and then once you are committed I can respond. Just a different approach.
> 
> 
> That is really similar to the Systema version we train. The Krav technique to get up from there is more a roll with one foot pulled in close to stop the guy on top posting and preventing the roll. Once on top it is not hard to get away. I have no idea what it is called but Bas Rutten taught the same escape when I attended his seminar last year.
> ...



And so sparring is not unrealistic dojo dancing but follows the same principles as self defence training method. Making sport training following the same principles as self defence training.

Good at sparring good at self defence.

And the one you are talking about is generally called the scissor sweep.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> Hey you found it! You posted my preferred takedown on another thread. Well done!
> 
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9v0CUnYsVzc



It is a high percentage move.


----------



## K-man (Mar 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> And so sparring is not unrealistic dojo dancing but follows the same principles as self defence training method. Making sport training following the same principles as self defence training.
> 
> Good at sparring good at self defence.
> 
> And the one you are talking about is generally called the scissor sweep.


Not sure that I totally agree but in principle yes. Our training includes techniques that you can't use in competition and obviously can't use in the ring. Yours is designed for the ring. Our training involves very short bursts whereas your sparring is continuous. But at the end of the day, yes both systems can be used for self defence. (Bugger! Having said that I will have to confront Chris P.  )


----------



## drop bear (Mar 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> Not sure that I totally agree but in principle yes. Our training includes techniques that you can't use in competition and obviously can't use in the ring. Yours is designed for the ring. Our training involves very short bursts whereas your sparring is continuous. But at the end of the day, yes both systems can be used for self defence. (Bugger! Having said that I will have to confront Chris P.  )



And after 14 pages we can actually start the argument.

Open sand box vs training dedicated concepts.

I think you need one to perform the other. And gain the best advantage from both.


----------



## K-man (Mar 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> And after 14 pages we can actually start the argument.
> 
> Open sand box vs training dedicated concepts.
> 
> I think you need one to perform the other. And gain the best advantage from both.


In your training a new person coming to train would not start from sparring. They would train the techniques then try to implement those techniques in a sparring situation that ultimately pretty closely resembles the environment that they will compete.

In our situation a new person will train the techniques then try to implement then under circumstances that try to mirror the situation a person might find on the street. Really there is no difference. We do train different things and we train towards different goals. Neither of us is really training solely for self defence but you are training to test your skills in competition and we are not.

Now where that puts us in the sand box I'm not sure, except to say I already have the sand in my hand!
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Mar 9, 2014)

K-man said:


> In your training a new person coming to train would not start from sparring. They would train the techniques then try to implement those techniques in a sparring situation that ultimately pretty closely resembles the environment that they will compete.
> 
> In our situation a new person will train the techniques then try to implement then under circumstances that try to mirror the situation a person might find on the street. Really there is no difference. We do train different things and we train towards different goals. Neither of us is really training solely for self defence but you are training to test your skills in competition and we are not.
> 
> ...



The open sand box is where you just put both people out there and say go.

Specific scenario is where you say they can't ground fight all the time. We have those sort of concept rules but they are breakable. Eg don't get off mount to do submissions.

One has an aim and the other sort of doesn't you make up you own aim.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 9, 2014)

K-man said:


> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9v0CUnYsVzc



That is similar to one I like to do, I do it from an inward palm block from the outside against a punch with a reverse knife hand (ridge hand) to the side of the neck and then slip my hand around the back of the neck for the choke, step behind, a quick twist of the hips and down they go.


----------



## K-man (Mar 9, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> That is similar to one I like to do, I do it from an inward palm block from the outside against a punch with a reverse knife hand (ridge hand) to the side of the neck and then slip my hand around the back of the neck for the choke, step behind, a quick twist of the hips and down they go.


Sounds very familiar.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 9, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For you SD guys, how will you develop your "hip throw (mother of all throws)"?
> 
> In
> 
> ...



Before coming back to your question, I'm going to make a suggestion. I've noticed that you have a tendency to look at the methods you use (commonly, though, just the techniques in isolation that you use), and make the assumption that the same things are used in all systems... it might behoove you to realise that that simply isn't the case. I mean, what if the system in question doesn't use a "hip throw"? Or has a different version to yours? Or has a different throw which is seen as the "mother of all throws"? In other words, why would other systems necessarily have to even have a hip throw, let alone have it fit your take on it's importance? 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> So nobody cares to answer my question?



The answer is the same for any other technique... which has been covered over and over again through the thread. But, if you want to deal with it specifically....



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just have to draw the conclusion that SD guys don't bother to "test" their skill such as "hip throw".



It's tested largely in the same way as in sporting systems, really... namely that, in "sport", you develop the throw by learning it mechanically, then test it by applying it with various degrees of resistance and response... applying it in a sporting context is an application, not a testing method... whereas in self defence training, you learn the technique (throw) mechanically first, then test it by applying it against varying levels of resistance and response. The difference is in the context that the throw is applied in... for sporting contexts, you often need to perform the throw a particular way in order for it to "count", there will be particular handholds that are available each and every time, the set up will be from a familiar attack (most commonly a similar one to what you are using), and the throw is often the end-result itself. For self defence, the exact method of applying the throw can change, the handholds are not consistent (as different attackers wear different clothes...), the set-ups are wildly different, and the throw is rarely the end of the situation.



drop bear said:


> Yeah I have been kind of spazzing around with this. But that becomes the basic core of the issue.
> 
> I could argue that if it does not happen in a fight then it is not realistic and therefore detrimental. I have read those argument as the basic premise against sparring. It is the core argument against sport.



You've misread the argument. The argument is that training specifically geared towards self defence (which rarely includes sports-style sparring) is better suited for self defence, and training specifically geared towards sports (which pretty much always includes sports-style sparring).



drop bear said:


> But what happens then?



Ignoring the fact that you've missed the argument, and assuming that you're asking what the next step is for self defence training, leaving off sparring, let's see.



drop bear said:


> Bag work?. Well you are not going to fight a bag.



All training devices are geared towards particular requirements, bag work included. There's no belief of fighting a bag, but it is a very good way of developing power, ensuring proper technique, and so on... of course, I feel you knew that... 



drop bear said:


> Kata? Not a real fight.



You've experienced very different kata to me, then.... it's a hell of a lot closer than sparring can hope to be, frankly....



drop bear said:


> Conditioning? Nope.



Again, everything has it's place... of course, the form of conditioning required for self defence training is different to the form of conditioning required for sports competition... 



drop bear said:


> Bare knuckle death matches? Well sorry but you are not covering being attacked by a sharknado so it is not applicable to self defence.



You're really just being deliberately facetious, aren't you?



drop bear said:


> Nothing. All martial arts training that is not being attacked in the street by the worst case scenario is not applicable to self defence training. And you cannot work with that premises.



And that, again, completely misses everything you've been told for 10 pages or so... 

No. Training that doesn't closely approximate or mimic realistic scenarios or eventualities are going to be less applicable as "self defence training" the further the disconnect is. And sports style sparring is really very removed from actual self defence realities.



drop bear said:


> The justification is that the drills I like can be called as closely relating to a real self defence. But how am I coming to that conclusion?
> 
> Is that being just pulled out of the air?



Er... not quite sure what you're saying, honestly... grammar appears to have been forgotten in the first sentence. But, if you're saying that you train drills, and feel that they are closely related to self defence, and want to know how you came to that conclusion, not knowing what your drills are, and knowing that you train MMA, as well as having read your posts here, honestly, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Perhaps a bit of blind faith and a false assumption about how close to reality what you're doing is?



drop bear said:


> It is nice people have real world experience. I have real world experience. But that is not a justification. I feel compelled to support my training based on its own merits.



What are those merits?



drop bear said:


> I am not bashing a style but bashing a premises. I cannot see how anybody can reasonable work form this idea.



You're bashing a training methodology by commenting on the systems that use it (or don't use your methodology), so.... 



drop bear said:


> By the way how did I come to this conclusion.
> 
> Testing my ideas against a resisting opponent.



So? I can test all kinds of things against resisting opponents, doesn't mean a thing about them being suited to or applicable for self defence. That's what I was meaning when I suggested blind faith and false assumptions... 



drop bear said:


> The best training for self defence is not to train.



Er... no. That's like saying the best way to avoid eating bad things is not to eat. Of course, I feel you're just being facetious again.... 



drop bear said:


> The best defence in self defence is to not be there in the first place.



Kinda... but you're missing exactly how that works.



drop bear said:


> So training to not be there is the most effective method.



Good.... now tell me, how do you train that? How do you test it? Is it in sparring?

Oh, and before you think I'm being facetious, that's pretty much exactly what I was teaching (and pressure testing) last month.



drop bear said:


> I proved this by not going to k mans gym and was therefore undefeated.



Of course, that's not exactly the same thing, is it? And you weren't undefeated, for the record.



drop bear said:


> I will in fact issue a challenge to the whole board that I will not go to all of their gyms and will remain undefeated. Demonstrating the power of my technique.



Hmm.... you do understand, of course, that you can be "beaten" when you're not in a school/gym, yeah (oh, and neither K-Man nor myself train in a "gym"... for the record...). Additionally, the idea of a challenge match (which is what it would be if you were to turn up somewhere) doesn't really mean anything about self defence... it's not about seeking out fights.... 



drop bear said:


> I have not been to Syria which is one of the most dangerous places on earth. That is how effective this technique is.
> 
> (I mean as a Stance I think it is almost unarguable)



Look, I get that you're trying to stretch what you think is the logical end-argument to demonstrate some form of problem with it, but you're really missing the entire point.



drop bear said:


> This is what got me thinking about the basic issue with the premis.
> 
> I did not agree with most of that critique and was going to eventually work through it picking it apart.
> 
> ...



What's unworkable about knowing what the likely realities are, and working towards that aim? Are you saying that unrealistic ideas and applications should be trained as well?



drop bear said:


> So how would you practice a fully resistant throw?



Firstly, I'd assess the throw and decide whether or not it's worth training... then I'd look at the best, most realistic applications in modern self defence situations. From there, it's a matter of recreating those situations (realistically), and practicing it in that context. Why, what were you expecting?



drop bear said:


> So someone is tryng take you down and then you are resisting you try to take them down they are resisting. They try to hold you down you try to get up and vica versa.
> 
> You are describing the same principles as sparring.



Sounds more like drilling to me, honestly.



drop bear said:


> In regards to mma ground work because off the added hitting on the ground the method is becoming very self defency.
> I will do a thread on it when I can put it together properly.



Not really.



drop bear said:


> As a taste
> I have never seen an rbsd style push this.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHveOzyEtc



We use it, but not in that situation, as it's too dangerous and takes too long. So, uh, hi. You've now met an RBSD practitioner that uses it.



drop bear said:


> But it falls into the rbsd method like a charm using the principle that standing up is better even the blocking is weapons based open blocks. It is super effective. Real ground fighters struggle to combat it. It is simple to learn you could add in bicycle kicks which I do and they work well from there.



Er... no, it doesn't necessarily fall into RBSD methods "like a charm", especially not for the reasons you're listing. "Super effective"? Hmm.... not the way it's shown there (when it comes to RBSD methodology).



drop bear said:


> And things like eye gouging actually works in your favour rather than engaging in a game where the person on top who has their entire body weight to eye gouge you back is a game I would not want to play.



Right.... not sure what you're talking about here.



K-man said:


> Not sure that I totally agree but in principle yes. Our training includes techniques that you can't use in competition and obviously can't use in the ring. Yours is designed for the ring. Our training involves very short bursts whereas your sparring is continuous. But at the end of the day, yes both systems can be used for self defence. (Bugger! Having said that I will have to confront Chris P.  )



Ha, nah.... no confrontation... I've always said that sports training can be used for self defence, often fairly easily, but that it's not really designed for it, and requires adaptation.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 9, 2014)

drop bear said:


> But how do you justify training in an artificial controlled manner?



This question doesn't make sense.  I don't think you have an understanding of what kata training actually involves.  An example of training in an artificial and controlled manner would be the MMA sparring video you posted a link to earlier in this thread.  Kata training on the other hand (and by kata training I'm referring to the in-depth training as I previously described as opposed to block/punch/kick) translates into bunkai drills which translates into very effective RBMA and scenario training.


----------



## K-man (Mar 9, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> This question doesn't make sense.  I don't think you have an understanding of what kata training actually involves.  An example of training in an artificial and controlled manner would be the MMA sparring video you posted a link to earlier in this thread.  Kata training on the other hand (and by kata training I'm referring to the in-depth training as I previously described as opposed to block/punch/kick) translates into bunkai drills which translates into very effective RBMA and scenario training.


Mate! I've just got one thing to say.

CAN OF WORMS!

(and BTW I agree with you totally regarding kata   )

:asian:


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 9, 2014)

K-man said:


> Mate! I've just got one thing to say.
> 
> CAN OF WORMS!
> 
> ...



I figure it's good for another 15 pages :bangahead:


----------



## drop bear (Mar 9, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> This question doesn't make sense.  I don't think you have an understanding of what kata training actually involves.  An example of training in an artificial and controlled manner would be the MMA sparring video you posted a link to earlier in this thread.  Kata training on the other hand (and by kata training I'm referring to the in-depth training as I previously described as opposed to block/punch/kick) translates into bunkai drills which translates into very effective RBMA and scenario training.



Does kata reflect a street attack? Is it artificial? Is it controlled?

Is scenario training artificial? Is that controlled?

Not my definition this is yours. Artificial controlled training is no good for self defence.

So if kata and scenario training are artificial how do you justify it?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 9, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Before coming back to your question, I'm going to make a suggestion. I've noticed that you have a tendency to look at the methods you use (commonly, though, just the techniques in isolation that you use), and make the assumption that the same things are used in all systems... it might behoove you to realise that that simply isn't the case. I mean, what if the system in question doesn't use a "hip throw"? Or has a different version to yours? Or has a different throw which is seen as the "mother of all throws"? In other words, why would other systems necessarily have to even have a hip throw, let alone have it fit your take on it's importance?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you are training in an artificial manner and a controlled environment as well. 

Maybe then it is not a good argument to base the ineffectiveness of sport then.


----------



## Kframe (Mar 9, 2014)

CP and Others. Its unfortunate there are not many good examples of the other types of kata out there. Not talking about the K/P/B dance kata that everyone not in TMA is familiar with.   

DB I have only just began to experience kata training, and coming from mma, it is not anything like you would expect.  Now I know that CP will probably Disagree with this, but to me, even at my beginner level with beginner kata,  they feel like a step between pad work and Sparring.  The anxiety and nervousness of not wanting to get hit and doing what your supposed to do, is there.   I hope that those here with more experience could chime in on "feeling" of the partnered kata/kata bunkai aspect of it. It really does feel different. 

It is different and POSSIBLY closer to a real situation because of the nature of the attack. It is fully committed. If you watch youtube many of the ambushes and assault type fights, tend to have one side that is just trying to get away or defend and one side that is just constantly committed to a attack. Both sides are not usually attacking each other.  It would be foolish to discount KSD's police experience in this discussion. Stuff on the streets does not typically happen like it does in the cage. 

Now I have no experience with this aspect of kata, but from my reading, there is a point were their is a element of randomness to it at later experience stages. Ill leave that to those with more experience in that area.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 9, 2014)

Kframe said:


> CP and Others. Its unfortunate there are not many good examples of the other types of kata out there. Not talking about the K/P/B dance kata that everyone not in TMA is familiar with.
> 
> DB I have only just began to experience kata training, and coming from mma, it is not anything like you would expect.  Now I know that CP will probably Disagree with this, but to me, even at my beginner level with beginner kata,  they feel like a step between pad work and Sparring.  The anxiety and nervousness of not wanting to get hit and doing what your supposed to do, is there.   I hope that those here with more experience could chime in on "feeling" of the partnered kata/kata bunkai aspect of it. It really does feel different.
> 
> ...



I thought the argument was that artificial and controlled training was no good for self defence.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 9, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Does kata reflect a street attack? Is it artificial? Is it controlled?



I do not know what your level of experience is with kata so let me see if I can expound a bit.  Kata can be considered a catalog of movements, principles, tactics and strategy.  These movements, as an example, contain strikes to be sure, but also locking, cavity pressing, throws, breaks etc.  Bunkai is where we take these movements from a kata to drill.  Both kata and bunkai can be trained solo which is useful for several reasons;  first it allows training in these movements when a partner is unavailable.  Think of it as shadow boxing in a way.  Secondly, it maintains this catalog for future students.  In regards to bunkai flow drills we can take several approaches;  it can be performed fairly static with a non-resisting opponent for the purposes of teaching the technique.  This reinforces training by rote so that the movement becomes instinctive.  Secondly, we can train in a more free-form fashion against an opponent offering resistance.  This puts the litmus test to the movement and allows the user to experience what it is like 'in the wild'.  Thirdly, it can be utilized in a dynamic situation such as scenario based training which allows for free transition from one movement to another quickly and spontaneously to the threat as it progresses.  This can entail a situation that provides as realistic a level of resistance as is still safely possible for the participants.  

Let me expound further.  Not every movement is going to work for everyone or on everyone.  A kata, when it is clearly understood and trained, takes this into account and can provide logical alternatives.  It also demonstrates that a movement is not limited to just 'what is seen'.  For example, and as a MMA you'll appreciate this; the opening movements to Pinan Shodan demonstrate what is often mistaken as a 'block' and punch.  I don't know if you're familiar with Pinan Shodan?  The movement however makes an excellent intercept and shoulder lock.  I've used variations of this in real world altercations and can attest to it's viability with a violent, resisting opponent.  But what makes this a really cool thing is that it isn't just demonstrating a 'movement' but also a principle.  Although the kata demonstrates the movement from a standing position, the principle of the lock works on the ground as well.  In other words, it is demonstrating not only a balance displacement principle, but a physiological principle of the movement of the shoulder girdle.  So this principle works standing as well as on the ground.   This is the wealth of kata.  All that you train for in MMA is also found in kata.  Does kata 'have' to be trained?  No.  Many arts do not utilize kata.  It is simply an effective training tool that can be employed if one wishes.  And like I mentioned earlier, like shadow boxing, it can be done solo when a training partner is unavailable. 



> Is scenario training artificial? Is that controlled?



Any training is going to have to have a measure of control to provide a margin of safety for the participants.  But it can be as 'real' as is possible within that consideration.  



> Not my definition this is yours. Artificial controlled training is no good for self defence.



I would say it differently (and I have in previous pages).  Self defense by it's very nature needs more than just the ability to hit or kick.  One needs options, both before, during and after an altercation and it's conclusion.  As I've detailed, scenario based training provides this.


----------



## K-man (Mar 9, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Does kata reflect a street attack? Is it artificial? Is it controlled?
> 
> Is scenario training artificial? Is that controlled?
> 
> ...


We have had some very spirited debates, predominantly with MMA exponents, about the merit o training kata. Most people equate 'kata' with what you see in competition. That is just the tip of the iceberg. 



drop bear said:


> I thought the argument was that artificial and controlled training was no good for self defence.


I think you just broadened the horizon substantially.
 :asian:


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 9, 2014)

K-man said:


> We have had some very spirited debates, predominantly with MMA exponents, about the merit o training kata. Most people equate 'kata' with what you see in competition. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> :asian:



Tip of the iceberg is a good way to describe it.  A kata can be trained superficially for the purposes of a demonstration or competition.  That isn't meant to be derogatory, rather the competitor doesn't need the depth of a kata.  He/she needs the movements.  They need speed, power, aesthetics and if we're honest...flash.   It is like a martial arts dance routine.  That unfortunately is what many see and then assume is the actual bulk of kata training.  It isn't.  It can be a dance or it can be an onion where the layers go very deep and provide a veritable encyclopedia of material to train with.  Where function trumps form.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 9, 2014)

K-man said:


> We have had some very spirited debates, predominantly with MMA exponents, about the merit o training kata. Most people equate 'kata' with what you see in competition. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> 
> I think you just broadened the horizon substantially.
> :asian:



No. There has just been a tendency to pick and choose where it is applicable.

Sparring is artificial and so unrealistic.

Kata is.

Um....... You are making the term to broad.

There was one post there where warming up was artificial and unrealistic. I am not sure how you get any broader.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 9, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I do not know what your level of experience is with kata so let me see if I can expound a bit.  Kata can be considered a catalog of movements, principles, tactics and strategy.  These movements, as an example, contain strikes to be sure, but also locking, cavity pressing, throws, breaks etc.  Bunkai is where we take these movements from a kata to drill.  Both kata and bunkai can be trained solo which is useful for several reasons;  first it allows training in these movements when a partner is unavailable.  Think of it as shadow boxing in a way.  Secondly, it maintains this catalog for future students.  In regards to bunkai flow drills we can take several approaches;  it can be performed fairly static with a non-resisting opponent for the purposes of teaching the technique.  This reinforces training by rote so that the movement becomes instinctive.  Secondly, we can train in a more free-form fashion against an opponent offering resistance.  This puts the litmus test to the movement and allows the user to experience what it is like 'in the wild'.  Thirdly, it can be utilized in a dynamic situation such as scenario based training which allows for free transition from one movement to another quickly and spontaneously to the threat as it progresses.  This can entail a situation that provides as realistic a level of resistance as is still safely possible for the participants.
> 
> Let me expound further.  Not every movement is going to work for everyone or on everyone.  A kata, when it is clearly understood and trained, takes this into account and can provide logical alternatives.  It also demonstrates that a movement is not limited to just 'what is seen'.  For example, and as a MMA you'll appreciate this; the opening movements to Pinan Shodan demonstrate what is often mistaken as a 'block' and punch.  I don't know if you're familiar with Pinan Shodan?  The movement however makes an excellent intercept and shoulder lock.  I've used variations of this in real world altercations and can attest to it's viability with a violent, resisting opponent.  But what makes this a really cool thing is that it isn't just demonstrating a 'movement' but also a principle.  Although the kata demonstrates the movement from a standing position, the principle of the lock works on the ground as well.  In other words, it is demonstrating not only a balance displacement principle, but a physiological principle of the movement of the shoulder girdle.  So this principle works standing as well as on the ground.   This is the wealth of kata.  All that you train for in MMA is also found in kata.  Does kata 'have' to be trained?  No.  Many arts do not utilize kata.  It is simply an effective training tool that can be employed if one wishes.  And like I mentioned earlier, like shadow boxing, it can be done solo when a training partner is unavailable.
> 
> ...




So developing a catolog of techniques is now important.

Sparring develops a catalogue of techniques. That is one of their reasons you do it.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 9, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Tip of the iceberg is a good way to describe it.  A kata can be trained superficially for the purposes of a demonstration or competition.  That isn't meant to be derogatory, rather the competitor doesn't need the depth of a kata.  He/she needs the movements.  They need speed, power, aesthetics and if we're honest...flash.   It is like a martial arts dance routine.  That unfortunately is what many see and then assume is the actual bulk of kata training.  It isn't.  It can be a dance or it can be an onion where the layers go very deep and provide a veritable encyclopedia of material to train with.  Where function trumps form.



A competitor needs the basics that are applicable to self defence. And then the added depth of competition focused training.

And of course not a routine because not scripted.


----------



## K-man (Mar 9, 2014)

drop bear said:


> A competitor needs the basics that are applicable to self defence. And then the added depth of competition focused training.
> 
> And of course not a routine because not scripted.


*Kong *was referring to kata as you see it in competition. Like other things in competitions, competition kata is just that ... competition kata, flashy and precise.

The major part of our training now is based on kata, but nothing like the kata you might have seen, I would be sure. As *Kong *said, it has layers like an onion, the knowledge is deep and kata include all the principles and techniques of the particular martial art, in my case karate. I have been studying kata solidly for over 10 years now, even more so since switching styles. I know I have barely scratched the surface. 

Do you need kata for self defence? Definitely not. Can kata be used for self defence? Certainly. It contains virtually everything you could ever need and it is not choreographed. 
:asian:


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 9, 2014)

*I think way to many people* get caught up in their individual training and their systems approach.  Way too often they train a very specific way, against a specific set of attacks or circumstances.  Whether they be in a sporting martial system or a traditional one or a Reality Based Self Defense system, etc.  We tend to gravitate to some thing we like and stay in it in a comfort zone.  Maybe we are in Muay Thai and like to spar and think it is the end all be all of the Martial Sciences, or we enjoy Brazilian Jiujitsu so much that we place it at the apex of what is good martial practice, or we train in an obscure traditional system and once again we ingrain the training and companionship and next thing you know it is the ultimate martial system in our minds.  As a martial practitioner I am a specialist in a few areas and a generalist in others.  However, one thing I try to do is to stay "edgey" in that I never let myself get comfortable in my training.  I try to constantly push myself and experiment with new training opportunities.  I think if you are a serious martial practitioner that you should have experience sparring, training in kata, grappling, etc.  Do not put yourself into a box.  Instead train and enjoy what you do but always try to find a way to practice outside of your comfort zone and stay edgey.  That way when real violence happens you might have the ability to adapt in the moment!  Try to be well rounded and spar, grapple (ie. roll), practice two man kata/skill sets, go check out the local Reality Based Self Defense seminar, training, etc.  Enjoy what you do and also what others do.  Learn from everyone and try not to be on an island in your training.  Instead open your training up to all the possibilities that are around you!  Just my 02.


----------



## K-man (Mar 9, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Just my 02.


And I think you are selling the advice far too cheaply. Just your $100s worth would be closer to the mark.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 9, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Does kata reflect a street attack? Is it artificial? Is it controlled?
> 
> Is scenario training artificial? Is that controlled?
> 
> ...



I'm starting to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse.

All *training* necessarily incorporates some sort of flaw.  In paired kata, the receiver is given an out at the last moment before getting hurt.  In solo kata -- there is no physical opponent.  In scenario or simulation training, there's a script and a safety officer, as well as other safety gear.  In sparring, you and your partner agree to the level of contact, rules, etc.  Other exercises incorporate other flaws, like missing the target, or speed (slow exercises allow you to concentrate on the structure and choosing the best response at the cost of rapidity/instinctive movement), pads and heavy bags don't hit back and are limited in how they move, and so on.  Or do you try to KO everyone every time you spar? (If so -- I dare say you're not the most popular training partner, because sparring often takes place at lessened force or power in training so that you can continue to train...  For a pro or serious amateur, it'd sure suck to have to step out of a fight because of a concussion received during training...)  If your training doesn't incorporate some sort of flaw -- you're either sending folks to the hospital every time you train (and running out of playmates quickly...) or what you're practicing doesn't do what you claim it does.

Sparring has a place in preparing for real encounters -- but it also has major flaws.  One of the most glaring, in my opinion, is the idea of moving in and out and re-engaging your opponent.  In a self defense situation -- when you get free, you get gone!  You don't square up and begin to fight again.  (If you're a cop -- it's not get-gone, it's subdue, contain, and arrest.)  Sparring also doesn't require you to justify and articulate your actions -- which is a vital skill if you don't want to go to jail.  

Scenario or simulation training allows you to replicate many of the elements of an actual encounter, with controls for safety.  It's not perfect, of course, because you're not actually hurting each other, and you have a controller, referee, or safety officer stopping the action at points for the purposes of the training.  But it does require you to explain and justify your actions; it can allow you to repeat something until you find a way that does work or succeed.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 9, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *I think way to many people* get caught up in their individual training and their systems approach.  Way too often they train a very specific way, against a specific set of attacks or circumstances.  Whether they be in a sporting martial system or a traditional one or a Reality Based Self Defense system, etc.  We tend to gravitate to some thing we like and stay in it in a comfort zone.  Maybe we are in Muay Thai and like to spar and think it is the end all be all of the Martial Sciences, or we enjoy Brazilian Jiujitsu so much that we place it at the apex of what is good martial practice, or we train in an obscure traditional system and once again we ingrain the training and companionship and next thing you know it is the ultimate martial system in our minds.  As a martial practitioner I am a specialist in a few areas and a generalist in others.  However, one thing I try to do is to stay "edgey" in that I never let myself get comfortable in my training.  I try to constantly push myself and experiment with new training opportunities.  I think if you are a serious martial practitioner that you should have experience sparring, training in kata, grappling, etc.  Do not put yourself into a box.  Instead train and enjoy what you do but always try to find a way to practice outside of your comfort zone and stay edgey.  That way when real violence happens you might have the ability to adapt in the moment!  Try to be well rounded and spar, grapple (ie. roll), practice two man kata/skill sets, go check out the local Reality Based Self Defense seminar, training, etc.  Enjoy what you do and also what others do.  Learn from everyone and try not to be on an island in your training.  Instead open your training up to all the possibilities that are around you!  Just my 02.



Great point!  It's way too easy to get really good at defending against people who "attack properly."  We train with our classmates and we end up doing things according to unwritten expectations if we're not careful.  This is certainly one way to set yourself up for failure.

There was a video going round a while back that showed a security guard fighting someone on the street.  The fight last several minutes, and you see some very credible kickboxing/MMA stuff in it.  You also see that he was caught in that mindset rather than simply subduing the assailant.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 10, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Does kata reflect a street attack? Is it artificial? Is it controlled?
> 
> Is scenario training artificial? Is that controlled?
> 
> ...



You do realize that all training is artificial? That's why they call it 'training'.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 10, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> I'm starting to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse.
> 
> All *training* necessarily incorporates some sort of flaw.  In paired kata, the receiver is given an out at the last moment before getting hurt.  In solo kata -- there is no physical opponent.  In scenario or simulation training, there's a script and a safety officer, as well as other safety gear.  In sparring, you and your partner agree to the level of contact, rules, etc.  Other exercises incorporate other flaws, like missing the target, or speed (slow exercises allow you to concentrate on the structure and choosing the best response at the cost of rapidity/instinctive movement), pads and heavy bags don't hit back and are limited in how they move, and so on.  Or do you try to KO everyone every time you spar? (If so -- I dare say you're not the most popular training partner, because sparring often takes place at lessened force or power in training so that you can continue to train...  For a pro or serious amateur, it'd sure suck to have to step out of a fight because of a concussion received during training...)  If your training doesn't incorporate some sort of flaw -- you're either sending folks to the hospital every time you train (and running out of playmates quickly...) or what you're practicing doesn't do what you claim it does.
> 
> ...



I am being obtuse?

You are still using the argument that sparring is bad because it does not reflect what happens in a real fight after defending that that kind of critic is not really applicable to training anyway.

I don't think you can justify critiquing one while defending the other using the realism platform.

You will tie yourself in knots.

A constant between fighting and training is the other guy is fighting back or you are. That fighting back is more successful than not fighting back.

So training that includes fighting back is kind of important. 

Sparring is about fighting back. 

The concept of the sand box.

for every person that is unrealistically taking the fight to the ground there is a person realistically trying to fight them. For as much as fights may or may not re engage realistically.(and I have no idea why you would not train for that possibility) they have realistically disengaged.
For the idea that fights may not last 5 minutes well then you have just trained 300 ten second fights.

And so on. I could address each point but it all seems to come from that one basic flawed premises. That training that does not reflect a self defence is not realistic.

Adding a false premise that training that does not reflect self defence is flawed uness we do it is not really going to help is it?

And exactly where are people pulling these ideas about self defence from anyway? Nobody has proved them or even tried to justify them it is just.

In a self defence situation if you separate and re engage you go to jail. And then nothing no proof no reasoning no concept there might just be conditions where you may re engage.

What is stopping me making any statement like? I don't have to justify it.

I have never encounter that sort of thinking it is a really different concept to me.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 10, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> You do realize that all training is artificial? That's why they call it 'training'.




No now it is artificial uness we do it. Which is apparently the new defence to that.

Otherwise sparring would be a legitimate exercise.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 10, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Great point!  It's way too easy to get really good at defending against people who "attack properly."  We train with our classmates and we end up doing things according to unwritten expectations if we're not careful.  This is certainly one way to set yourself up for failure.
> 
> There was a video going round a while back that showed a security guard fighting someone on the street.  The fight last several minutes, and you see some very credible kickboxing/MMA stuff in it.  You also see that he was caught in that mindset rather than simply subduing the assailant.




Was the assailant subdued?

You have another false premise there. You can't see a situation you are not involved in and then say I would have done xyz and won much more easily.

The biggest issue is you were not involved and did not do xyz and so dont really know.

I mean look speculate all you want but understand it is just speculation.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 10, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *I think way to many people* get caught up in their individual training and their systems approach.  Way too often they train a very specific way, against a specific set of attacks or circumstances.  Whether they be in a sporting martial system or a traditional one or a Reality Based Self Defense system, etc.  We tend to gravitate to some thing we like and stay in it in a comfort zone.  Maybe we are in Muay Thai and like to spar and think it is the end all be all of the Martial Sciences, or we enjoy Brazilian Jiujitsu so much that we place it at the apex of what is good martial practice, or we train in an obscure traditional system and once again we ingrain the training and companionship and next thing you know it is the ultimate martial system in our minds.  As a martial practitioner I am a specialist in a few areas and a generalist in others.  However, one thing I try to do is to stay "edgey" in that I never let myself get comfortable in my training.  I try to constantly push myself and experiment with new training opportunities.  I think if you are a serious martial practitioner that you should have experience sparring, training in kata, grappling, etc.  Do not put yourself into a box.  Instead train and enjoy what you do but always try to find a way to practice outside of your comfort zone and stay edgey.  That way when real violence happens you might have the ability to adapt in the moment!  Try to be well rounded and spar, grapple (ie. roll), practice two man kata/skill sets, go check out the local Reality Based Self Defense seminar, training, etc.  Enjoy what you do and also what others do.  Learn from everyone and try not to be on an island in your training.  Instead open your training up to all the possibilities that are around you!  Just my 02.



Which is nice but you did not really answer the OPs question.

Is sparring beneficial to self defence?

Is not sparring detrimental to self defence?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 10, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I am being obtuse?



Now you are just trying to be acute.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 10, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Now you are just trying to be acute.



Acute?

I am adorable.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 10, 2014)

This might take a bit... 



drop bear said:


> Does kata reflect a street attack? Is it artificial? Is it controlled?



No, yes, and yes... and I don't think you understand why in any of the three counts there.



drop bear said:


> Is scenario training artificial? Is that controlled?



Yes, and yes... and I don't think you understand why in either of those counts.



drop bear said:


> Not my definition this is yours. Artificial controlled training is no good for self defence.



Who said that? The only person I've seen even talking about "artificial" is you... 



drop bear said:


> So if kata and scenario training are artificial how do you justify it?



You really have entirely missed the argument.



drop bear said:


> So you are training in an artificial manner and a controlled environment as well.
> 
> Maybe then it is not a good argument to base the ineffectiveness of sport then.



Yeah... completely missed it. I'll try to explain once more.

Look, artificial is fine... it means "created", not "unrealistic". It often implies "created for a purpose", which is exactly what you want. Unrealistic is what we've been arguing against, not artificial... so I don't know where you got that from. Additionally, no one has said that sports training is ineffective, just that it's geared (designed) to be effective principally in the field of sports-competition. Which is, frankly, what you'd both expect and want.

The argument is that a sports car is great, unless you need to transport many people... or go off-roading. That doesn't make the sports car bad, just not ideal for other purposes. And it doesn't mean that the sports car and the four wheel drive are both bad, as they're both "artificial"....



Kframe said:


> CP and Others. Its unfortunate there are not many good examples of the other types of kata out there. Not talking about the K/P/B dance kata that everyone not in TMA is familiar with.



Oh, there are certainly very good examples of what I'm talking about (as kata)... thing is, they're experiential in nature, rather than observant... you need to be involved in them to understand what is good in them. Kata done very precisely and cleanly, with no real variation, is great, depending on the context... kata done very roughly and loosely is also great, depending on the context. Here's a couple of examples, see if we can tell which is which:























Kframe said:


> DB I have only just began to experience kata training, and coming from mma, it is not anything like you would expect.  Now I know that CP will probably Disagree with this, but to me, even at my beginner level with beginner kata,  they feel like a step between pad work and Sparring.  The anxiety and nervousness of not wanting to get hit and doing what your supposed to do, is there.   I hope that those here with more experience could chime in on "feeling" of the partnered kata/kata bunkai aspect of it. It really does feel different.



Actually, that's a fairly common way of approaching kata training at the beginning, so yeah, it's definitely "right" for you right now. No disagreement from me... until we start looking at more advanced ways of approaching it. But you ain't there yet.... and sadly, some never let themselves develop into it either. 



Kframe said:


> It is different and POSSIBLY closer to a real situation because of the nature of the attack. It is fully committed.



Partially.



Kframe said:


> If you watch youtube many of the ambushes and assault type fights, tend to have one side that is just trying to get away or defend and one side that is just constantly committed to a attack. Both sides are not usually attacking each other.


 
That's more like it.



Kframe said:


> It would be foolish to discount KSD's police experience in this discussion. Stuff on the streets does not typically happen like it does in the cage.



As well as JKS's comments, and more. 



Kframe said:


> Now I have no experience with this aspect of kata, but from my reading, there is a point were their is a element of randomness to it at later experience stages. Ill leave that to those with more experience in that area.



More than an element.... 



drop bear said:


> I thought the argument was that artificial and controlled training was no good for self defence.



No, that was you misunderstanding the argument and failing to listen to what you were being told.



drop bear said:


> No. There has just been a tendency to pick and choose where it is applicable.



No, there has been a failing on your part to recognize the distinctions.



drop bear said:


> Sparring is artificial and so unrealistic.



No, the argument is that the environment of sparring is unrealistic and doesn't match/mimic reality (when it comes to actual self defence/violence... it does match the reality of a competitive match quite well). The idea of "artificial" is your hang-up.



drop bear said:


> Kata is.
> 
> Um....... You are making the term to broad.



I really have a hard time sometimes trying to follow what you're trying to say... is the second line the follow on to the first ("Kata is... um... you are making the term too broad."), or are they separate? If they're separate, then "Kata is" what? This doesn't seem to actually make any sense.... what term is too broad?



drop bear said:


> There was one post there where warming up was artificial and unrealistic. I am not sure how you get any broader.



And you missed the point of that comment as well.... 



drop bear said:


> So developing a catolog of techniques is now important.
> 
> Sparring develops a catalogue of techniques. That is one of their reasons you do it.



No, it doesn't. And no, that isn't why you do it. If it is, you've jumped into sparring way, way too early.



drop bear said:


> A competitor needs the basics that are applicable to self defence. And then the added depth of competition focused training.
> 
> And of course not a routine because not scripted.



Yeah... you don't seem to be actually talking about the same thing that Kong Soo Do was... I have no idea what you think you were addressing there.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> *I think way to many people* get caught up in their individual training and their systems approach.  Way too often they train a very specific way, against a specific set of attacks or circumstances.  Whether they be in a sporting martial system or a traditional one or a Reality Based Self Defense system, etc.  We tend to gravitate to some thing we like and stay in it in a comfort zone.  Maybe we are in Muay Thai and like to spar and think it is the end all be all of the Martial Sciences, or we enjoy Brazilian Jiujitsu so much that we place it at the apex of what is good martial practice, or we train in an obscure traditional system and once again we ingrain the training and companionship and next thing you know it is the ultimate martial system in our minds.  As a martial practitioner I am a specialist in a few areas and a generalist in others.  However, one thing I try to do is to stay "edgey" in that I never let myself get comfortable in my training.  I try to constantly push myself and experiment with new training opportunities.  I think if you are a serious martial practitioner that you should have experience sparring, training in kata, grappling, etc.  Do not put yourself into a box.  Instead train and enjoy what you do but always try to find a way to practice outside of your comfort zone and stay edgey.  That way when real violence happens you might have the ability to adapt in the moment!  Try to be well rounded and spar, grapple (ie. roll), practice two man kata/skill sets, go check out the local Reality Based Self Defense seminar, training, etc.  Enjoy what you do and also what others do.  Learn from everyone and try not to be on an island in your training.  Instead open your training up to all the possibilities that are around you!  Just my 02.



Hmm, actually here, I'm going to be with Drop Bear... this really doesn't address anything in the thread at all, other than a "hey, can't we all just get along? Everyone's right in their own way, okay?" attitude.... I get the mentality, but it's (for one thing) fairly ignorant of the reality of why things are done a certain way for different systems... not everything is suited for everything.



jks9199 said:


> Great point!  It's way too easy to get really good at defending against people who "attack properly."  We train with our classmates and we end up doing things according to unwritten expectations if we're not careful.  This is certainly one way to set yourself up for failure.



Honestly, I'd say that all attacks need to be done "properly"... but exactly what that means is dependant on the type of attack you're dealing with. Over the last month, I've been taking my guys through fight avoidance and verbal de-escalation, with an emphasis on the differences between social and asocial violence, looking at which is most likely for each student, and so on. The "attacks" therefore weren't anything like what's seen in "martial arts" techniques... in fact, there wasn't really any physical attack at all... but the role of "attacker/aggressor" needed to be done properly, and authentically, in order for the training to be effective. However, I feel that you were meaning that it's easy to get good at handling a particular physical form of attack (which is particular to that martial art, and, in that context, "proper")... in which case, I agree that it can't just be that, unless that's all you're needing to deal with. And that brings us back to sports training versus self defence training... sports really only need to be able to handle the attacks/techniques found in that form of competition... a boxer doesn't have to deal with a knife, a wrestler doesn't need pistol disarms, an MMA guy doesn't need verbal de-escalation, and a Judoka doesn't have to worry about head-high kicks... whereas self defence needs to look at the likely forms of attack, which is going to be a lot broader, and have a very different approach to it (but, of course, won't need to really worry about traditional style attacks, swords, and the like...).



jks9199 said:


> There was a video going round a while back that showed a security guard fighting someone on the street.  The fight last several minutes, and you see some very credible kickboxing/MMA stuff in it.  You also see that he was caught in that mindset rather than simply subduing the assailant.



Here it is:








drop bear said:


> I am being obtuse?



Well, you're being obtuse, facetious, or just plainly failing to understand what you're being told. One of the above... if not more.



drop bear said:


> You are still using the argument that sparring is bad because it does not reflect what happens in a real fight after defending that that kind of critic is not really applicable to training anyway.



Yeah... that'd be one example of the obtuse behaviour you're being told about.... 



drop bear said:


> I don't think you can justify critiquing one while defending the other using the realism platform.
> 
> You will tie yourself in knots.



You can when you understand what they both are, and where the flaws are. Every training method has compromise and flaws, but that doesn't mean that they are all equally flawed in the same ways.



drop bear said:


> A constant between fighting and training is the other guy is fighting back or you are. That fighting back is more successful than not fighting back.



Sigh... scenario training, paired kata... what do you think is going on there?

Oh, but for the record, that's not really a constant in actual assaults.... so you know....



drop bear said:


> So training that includes fighting back is kind of important.



And you think sparring is the only, or even best way that is achieved? Sorry, nope. By a long shot. 



drop bear said:


> Sparring is about fighting back.



No, it's not. It's about exchanges. Different. 



drop bear said:


> The concept of the sand box.[/QOUTE]
> 
> Yeah.... what's that in reference to? The previous sentences, or the following ones? Syntax, dude, makes it easy to know what on earth you think you're saying....
> 
> ...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 10, 2014)

Unless the poster* is *your son, refrain from calling people, 'son.'  It's demeaning and pompous.


----------



## MJS (Mar 10, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For you SD guys, how will you develop your "hip throw (mother of all throws)"?
> 
> In
> 
> ...



Agreed with the sport approach.  For the SD approach...I test it using the sport approach, even though I personally don't compete nearly as much as others do.  It's simply a matter of starting off slow, getting the fine points down, and gradually adding in the heat, ie: more resistance, a harder, faster attack, etc.


----------



## MJS (Mar 10, 2014)

drop bear said:


> And after 14 pages we can actually start the argument.
> 
> Open sand box vs training dedicated concepts.
> 
> I think you need one to perform the other. And gain the best advantage from both.





drop bear said:


> The open sand box is where you just put both people out there and say go.
> 
> Specific scenario is where you say they can't ground fight all the time. We have those sort of concept rules but they are breakable. Eg don't get off mount to do submissions.
> 
> One has an aim and the other sort of doesn't you make up you own aim.



IMHO, I feel that both are very beneficial.  I do both in my training.  There are times when I work something specific and other times, when there isn't any special format.


----------



## MJS (Mar 10, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Does kata reflect a street attack? Is it artificial? Is it controlled?
> 
> Is scenario training artificial? Is that controlled?
> 
> ...



IMHO, everything is controlled, to an extent.  Short of going out to the bar and starting a fight on the street, then as I said, everything is controlled to a point.  As for kata...as I've said in other debates on the pros/cons of kata, I do it, mainly because in all of the arts I've either done or currently do, there's kata.  Personally, I feel that in many cases, people are just going through the moves, because the person teaching, has no clue what the moves are.  During my training years, I've ran into this many times.  Fortunately, that has changed.   No, of course we're not going to actually fight like we do the moves in kata, however, we can isolate certain moves and have an actual useful tech.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 10, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Which is nice but you did not really answer the OPs question.
> 
> Is sparring beneficial to self defence?
> 
> Is not sparring detrimental to self defence?



Actually if you look closely it does answer the question you just have to read between the lines but it is pretty obvious!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 10, 2014)

However, since reading between the lines is harder for some people I will make it more plain.

*Physical contact is essential for a martial practitioner interested in self-defense*.  Meaning, having consistent physical exposure to contact through multiple outlets such as sparring, weapon trainig and sparring, force on force airsoft training, two man kata, grappling, Scenario Based Training with predator armor or bulletman suits, etc. is all important and beneficial for self-defense.  Neglecting to have training in any of these areas may hurt your chances in a violent encounter.  Staying in your systems sand box where you only spar, only do forms, only do two man kata, etc. may put you in a position where you are only good at defending against that specific style of physical movement.  In IRT I opt for instead a well rounded approach of sparring, grappling, scenario based training, etc.  I also realize that practitioners need to experience other teachers in other systems and people that move differently.  Practitioner's should also stay up on what criminals are doing, utilizing and training in.  I personally myself have utilized what I know in real life work related situations and let me tell you that it never goes just like in the Training Hall.  That is why you need lots of variation in your training to prepare you.   

Now having said all of the above that is how I train and it allows you to have lots of experiences, adrenaline rushes, etc.  This type of training should keep you "edgy" and give you an advantage in a moment and hopefully that advantage will be enough but there are of course no guarantee's.

Also, I know people who have been effective in self-defense with no training at all.  However, they had the mind set to survive and that is exactly what they did!  Training should help but in the end it always comes down to each unique individual, their skill sets, their attributes and their will to survive!

*There are "no guarantee's" in anything and "no absolutes" in the realm of self-defense and personal protection!*


----------



## aznsparks (Mar 12, 2014)

The biggest issue is to not do anything on the street and essentially get beaten into the ground.
Sparring solves that because you're used to getting hit, and moreso in a high pressure situation than those who don't.

However, without sparring, it's still possible to do well on the street. You simply have to be prepared enough, which is easier to be if you spar. If you're ready to take hits and give them, you won't freeze up. 


 A lot of the time you can practise everything you would do in sparring without it, just a little more complicated.


----------



## K-man (Mar 12, 2014)

aznsparks said:


> The biggest issue is to not do anything on the street and essentially get beaten into the ground.
> Sparring solves that because you're used to getting hit, and moreso in a high pressure situation than those who don't.
> 
> However, without sparring, it's still possible to do well on the street. You simply have to be prepared enough, which is easier to be if you spar. If you're ready to take hits and give them, you won't freeze up.
> ...


First let me say welcome to MT. :wavey:

If you have been following the thread sparring means different things to different people. You don't have to sport spar to develop tolerance to being hit. We have a circle drill where we hit each other really hard, Systema have drills where we punch each other the same.

The hardest strike I have ever taken was in an aikido class two weeks ago, and I am used to taking some heavy hits. Please don't tell me you are going to be one of the people insisting that unless you are fighting in the ring you are not testing your technique.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Mar 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> First let me say welcome to MT. :wavey:
> 
> If you have been following the thread sparring means different things to different people. You don't have to sport spar to develop tolerance to being hit. We have a circle drill where we hit each other really hard, Systema have drills where we punch each other the same.
> 
> ...



Can you show us those drills?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> If you have been following the thread sparring means different things to different people. You don't have to sport spar to develop tolerance to being hit. We have a circle drill where we hit each other really hard, Systema have drills where we punch each other the same.



First of all, I question the use of the term, "sport spar."  What you call sport sparring is simply free, or undirected sparring.  

The commonality between free sparring and the kinds of training you see in arts that don't utilize it is that you have a resisting opponent who is actually trying to hit you.  

Depending on how you set up the training, you can add that element of randomness that sparring exponents often promote.

Personally, I find a mix of more directed practice and free practice to be the most beneficial.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 13, 2014)

aznsparks said:


> The biggest issue is to not do anything on the street and essentially get beaten into the ground.
> Sparring solves that because you're used to getting hit, and moreso in a high pressure situation than those who don't.
> 
> However, without sparring, it's still possible to do well on the street. You simply have to be prepared enough, which is easier to be if you spar. If you're ready to take hits and give them, you won't freeze up.
> ...



Welcome to the board as well 

If you haven't done so, I would suggest going back about 10 pages to get an idea of why many of us don't feel sparring is optimal training for real world altercations.  I for one go as far as saying sparring (in the general sense that 'sparring' is usually thought of) is detrimental because it uses an artificial rule set, a controlled environment and doesn't take the altercation to a conclusion.  

Here is an example:  (Courtesy of Iain Abernethy's article http://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/how-spar-street-part-1-iain-abernethy

Great for a sport competition.




Not so good in the street.


----------



## K-man (Mar 13, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Can you show us those drills?


I couldn't find any video but theses two sites describe close to what we do.



> Pushing Drill
> 
> 
> - Working as a group, circle up with one person in the middle.
> ...


The punches can be as hard or as soft as you like depending on who is in the middle.

... and this one is similar to what we did in Toronto.


> The drills were then about walking towards your partner along a line, and relaxing and letting your body move when you contact the person, not moving before but letting your body and breathing do the work, this was done in different ways eyes closed, backwards walking towards each other and with arm/fist out. i felt the fear building up before sometimes and continous breathing was again the key.
> 
> A nice rolling exercise was you both had to roll into each other, feel the flow and let your bodys contact and relaxing not resisting, very nice feeling, almost like roll- dancing.
> 
> ...


----------



## K-man (Mar 13, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> First of all, I question the use of the term, "sport spar."  What you call sport sparring is simply free, or undirected sparring.
> 
> The commonality between free sparring and the kinds of training you see in arts that don't utilize it is that you have a resisting opponent who is actually trying to hit you.
> 
> ...


Because of the need to define 'sparring' I am calling the type of sparring you normally see in competition or the clips *drop bear *posted 'sport sparring' because it is the give and take you see in the ring. So call it what you like, 'free sparring' is cool. Undirected sparring could include the type of training we do so that is a more generic term.

Your second para is spot on. You have a resisting opponent who is trying to hit you. In your 'free sparring' each one is normally trying to attack the other where in our training one person is attacking and the other is defending, or in our case engaging.

I agree totally that in many situations you could employ both types of training that you describe but for us the free sparring really is not relevant to what we do.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Mar 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> I couldn't find any video but theses two sites describe close to what we do.
> 
> The punches can be as hard or as soft as you like depending on who is in the middle.
> 
> ... and this one is similar to what we did in Toronto.




This?


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tMNN5dINoFw


----------



## K-man (Mar 14, 2014)

drop bear said:


> This?
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tMNN5dINoFw


That vid is more turning and taking on whoever is there. Our circle is all against one but normally with the middle guy defending only. Then occasionally we'll give him a go at fighting back. We do the same in Krav but the Krav is a little more rigid than the Systema. That is because the Systema is also teaching you to respond from a relaxed posture and absorb the strike. 
More like this ... 
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SDRoZ_bnBlQ

In the Krav circle work it is all about fighting back and you are moving to get in one or two hard strikes before moving to another attacker. It can also include weapons in which case the guy in the middle has to decide quickly who to dispose of first.
:asian:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 14, 2014)

K-man said:


> Because of the need to define 'sparring' I am calling the type of sparring you normally see in competition or the clips *drop bear *posted 'sport sparring' because it is the give and take you see in the ring. So call it what you like, 'free sparring' is cool. Undirected sparring could include the type of training we do so that is a more generic term.


I agree.    You could also say the same of drills, kata, or scenarios; they also need to be defined.  You don't "spar," but as you say, undirected sparring could include the type of training that you do.  At the same time, step "sparring" is essentially kata.

The problem with discussions of this nature is that they begin on a false premise that kata, drills, scenarios, and sparring, are all separate entities and that one type of training is more 'real' or superior than others.  Which is really not the case.

The arguments made from both directions are generally made through the lens of how individual posters view the words.  How many people have you seen say 'kata,' specifically in reference to solo forms as one would do in karate, taekwondo, or tai chi with no clue that kata can also be partnered?  Or how many people view sparring strictly as training for contest fighting?

In fact, it is not drills, sparring or kata that makes the difference, but the elements of resistance and aliveness in training.  Yes, training to specific ends is important too, but without resistance and aliveness, it does not matter how specific the end are.  Which comes back to what was said earlier in this thread about good vs. bad scenarios and drills.  And of course, you have good vs. bad sparring, both of which can occur in the realm of sport. 

The* only *reason that I question the term, 'sport' sparring is that sport sparring is almost as generic as saying sparring, as what constitutes 'sport' differs from art to art. 

To be clear, I actually agree with the statement that you made; you don't need sparring to develop a tolerance to being hit.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 16, 2014)

Seeing as how it is coming up in other threads.

So far sparring is the best alternative I have seen. As people scoff at sparring they do not present their own evidence that what they do works at all

OK you train for the street. Then show evidence of that. Show your system tested in the street if that is the focus.

One question regarding sparring.

Without it how do you know if your instruction is any good?

All the theories in the world are fine. But if you can drop everybody in the room using a limited rule set. Then why are you even there?

Many instructors hide behind not sparring as a method of disguising their lack of ability.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 16, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I agree.    You could also say the same of drills, kata, or scenarios; they also need to be defined.  You don't "spar," but as you say, undirected sparring could include the type of training that you do.  At the same time, step "sparring" is essentially kata.
> 
> The problem with discussions of this nature is that they begin on a false premise that kata, drills, scenarios, and sparring, are all separate entities and that one type of training is more 'real' or superior than others.  Which is really not the case.
> 
> ...




So how do you develop a tolerance to being hit?


----------



## K-man (Mar 16, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So how do you develop a tolerance to being hit?


Perhaps you could read the posts in this thread where I, and others, have described alternate training for conditioning.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 17, 2014)

If you want good instruction on how to handle a streetfight, you might want to go to a seminar being taught by this guy Rory Miller. Do a google search and you can learn about him. I went to one of his seminars, he's a really smart guy and he really knows his stuff.


----------



## K-man (Mar 17, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> If you want good instruction on how to handle a streetfight, you might want to go to a seminar being taught by this guy Rory Miller. Do a google search and you can learn about him. I went to one of his seminars, he's a really smart guy and he really knows his stuff.


Thanks for the tip. The first on I looked at was this one ...
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XvlqicOBSjQ&list=PLNJlkYIxT5Vc93aaEpL1OSDZpRRA-hdwC
Which is pretty much what most of us have been saying anyway.
:asian:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 17, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So how do you develop a tolerance to being hit?



Really?  This has been addressed by others on this thread quite a few times over eighteen pages.

Arts that do not have sparring, fitness oriented programs not withstanding, generally have hard contact oriented drills/kata/waza/whatever term the art uses.  Additionally, they utilize drills that have a random element.  Again, this has been addressed several times in this thread.

One place I trained years ago had us lined up with partners delivering blows to each other's stomachs.  I'm not sure how good an idea it was at the time, but being an invincible teen, I did not question it.  And that was a TKD school.

Personally, I'm an advocate of sparring mixed with other training elements.  Aside from the advantages that have already been discussed, it's fun and students look forward to it.  I do think that when sparring reduces itself to two people going at it trying to dominate each other that it loses some of its benefit.  Sparring should be where you try specific things out.  

When my students spar, I tell them to utilize the things that we just trained on so that they can translate them from a drill/kata setting to a more random/alive setting.

Not saying that this is the only way to accomplish this, but I think that sparring does kill a lot of birds with one stone.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 17, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Really?  This has been addressed by others on this thread quite a few times over eighteen pages.
> 
> Arts that do not have sparring, fitness oriented programs not withstanding, generally have hard contact oriented drills/kata/waza/whatever term the art uses.  Additionally, they utilize drills that have a random element.  Again, this has been addressed several times in this thread.
> 
> ...




I think the head is the issue. I do advocate conditioning as a drill. But I have never met someone who would think standing there and getting punched in the head would be OK.

Somehow it is better if you are punching back.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 17, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I think the head is the issue.



The head is one target, but not the only target.  This brings up several other detrimental issues with sparring.  First, regardless of whether it is kick boxing, boxing or MMA the stand up portion is basically boxing i.e. punches to the head.  While a punch to the head 'can' be effective, it isn't the only viable target or even the preferred target.  Secondly, as per your video, the two guys sparring had on gloves.  Why?  The answer is to protect their hands.  But you don't wear gloves on the 'street'.  Now this gets into the whole controversy of open hand strikes vs. closed handed strikes.  Some things to consider with this;  although sparring with MMA gloves would allow the use of open hand strikes, how often to you actually see it done?  Not often if ever.  It is basically, as far as the stand up portion, a boxing match.  However, in my professional opinion, closed handed strikes in a SD situation is less than optimal.  The hand, even with gloves (and the other person wearing head gear) can be broken/cut.  This self-inflicted injury can limit further SD options such as manipulating (under duress) keys, tools, weapons, cell phone.  Additionally, it can cause a cut on the opponent which brings in the danger of a blood-borne pathogen being introduced into the situation.  And this is a MAJOR concern.  Other targets, with other body parts can be more effective i.e. elbow/forearm/EOH to the side of the neck/under the armpit etc.  



> I do advocate conditioning as a drill.



I don't think you have an understanding of the type of conditioning Daniel is speaking of in his post.  MMA normally doesn't conduct the hard body conditioning of other types of arts i.e. kicking tires, using bowling pins on the shins, punching/kicking each other in specific areas of the bodies, banging the arms, hand conditioning, breaking boards with the forearm etc.  Some go as far as conditioning the neck/throat.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 17, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> The head is one target, but not the only target.  This brings up several other detrimental issues with sparring.  First, regardless of whether it is kick boxing, boxing or MMA the stand up portion is basically boxing i.e. punches to the head.  While a punch to the head 'can' be effective, it isn't the only viable target or even the preferred target.  Secondly, as per your video, the two guys sparring had on gloves.  Why?  The answer is to protect their hands.  But you don't wear gloves on the 'street'.  Now this gets into the whole controversy of open hand strikes vs. closed handed strikes.  Some things to consider with this;  although sparring with MMA gloves would allow the use of open hand strikes, how often to you actually see it done?  Not often if ever.  It is basically, as far as the stand up portion, a boxing match.  However, in my professional opinion, closed handed strikes in a SD situation is less than optimal.  The hand, even with gloves (and the other person wearing head gear) can be broken/cut.  This self-inflicted injury can limit further SD options such as manipulating (under duress) keys, tools, weapons, cell phone.  Additionally, it can cause a cut on the opponent which brings in the danger of a blood-borne pathogen being introduced into the situation.  And this is a MAJOR concern.  Other targets, with other body parts can be more effective i.e. elbow/forearm/EOH to the side of the neck/under the armpit etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you have an understanding of the type of conditioning Daniel is speaking of in his post.  MMA normally doesn't conduct the hard body conditioning of other types of arts i.e. kicking tires, using bowling pins on the shins, punching/kicking each other in specific areas of the bodies, banging the arms, hand conditioning, breaking boards with the forearm etc.  Some go as far as conditioning the neck/throat.



Punching is high percentage which is the issue. So you could be giving up strikes that could end a fight to protect your hands. The straight one two combination is increadably hard to counter with other strikes. 

You cannot break a cycle of centerline punches easily and you cannot compete if you are trying to throw techniques that go around.

So for example if I am throwing say brachial stuns they take just a bit longer to get there than those straight one twos. If I sit in the pocket trying to trade blows it is likely I will loose. 

Elbows new to have negotiated that punching space before they can be deployed.

For beginning fighters this is rule one. Punching straight vs punching around the straight puncher will win. To throw around corners you need superior footwork.

Now there is a risk to hands punching. And there is no reason you can't throw palm heels except I don't think they have as much pep.

I have thrown both.

In a fight that may be very quick you are trying to get three or four shots off at the same time avoiding those three or four shots. So the risk to hands competes with the risk to being overwhelmed.

We train in static conditioning. So I stand there and get wailed on by a guy. Then he stands there and gets wailed on by me.

That progresses to Dutch drills. Which is conditioning with defence.

Then sparring.

Sort of. It is done in different orders. But a round kick check drill is pretty good for conditioning shins.

I have mentioned I train with karate guys who are mad keen for that sort of thing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 17, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I think the head is the issue. I do advocate conditioning as a drill. But I have never met someone who would think standing there and getting punched in the head would be OK.
> 
> Somehow it is better if you are punching back.


I try to develop an "anti-striking" model that to deal with the "head punch".

 Hold both of your hands into a big fist.
- Hide your head behind it.
- Extend your arms toward at your opponent's face.
- Run toward your opponent like a mad man and try to use your big fist to hit on his face.
- Let your opponent to try to hit your head.
- You use your big fist along with both of your arms to deflect your opponent's head shots.
- When your hands are close to your opponent's elbow, shoulder, neck, use arm wrap, over hook, under hook, head lock, ... and prevent your opponent from punching you again.

If 

- your opponent's punch can hit your head, he wins that round.
- you can use your big fist to hit on your opponent's face, or get him into a clinch (such as arm wrap, under hook, over hook, head lock, ...) before he can hit you, you win that round. 

My guys had tried this model for 3 rounds yesterday in the class. The score was:

- 3 clinches to 0 head shot, and
- 2 clinches to 1 head shot. 

The only round that the head shot was scored was because one guy used the body shot to set up a head shot. If his opponent just took that body shot and traded with clinch, that round won't even be scored.

My guys will test this strategy in local MMA gym and accumulate the testing result until I have enough data to have more faith in this approach.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 17, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I try to develop an "anti-striking" model that to deal with the "head punch".
> 
> Hold both of your hands into a big fist.
> - Hide your head behind it.
> ...




John will has a version of that.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-WC8Lh8k-Ic


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 17, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I think the head is the issue. I do advocate conditioning as a drill. But I have never met someone who would think standing there and getting punched in the head would be OK.


That has little to do with sparring vs. not sparring; not all sparring styles allow for punches to the head/face.  But they're still "sparring."



drop bear said:


> Somehow it is better if you are punching back.


I agree.  And that has been addressed regarding non-sparring arts several times in this thread by a number of people.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 17, 2014)

drop bear said:


> John will has a version of that.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-WC8Lh8k-Ic



His approach is similar but there are some differences. His arms are so close to his own head which is no different from a boxing guard. His opponent has plenty of space to generate speed and punching power. His approach is like to guide his castle when his opponent's army is outside of his castle gate. He has to "defend himself in his own territory".

My approach is to use "big fist wedged arms" by extending your arms as far as you can. Since your hands are closer to your opponent's head, you don't give your opponent enough space to generate speed and punching power. My approach is like to send my troop to be outside of my opponent's castle. When my opponent open his gate door and send his soldiers out, my soldiers will attack. You fight "in your opponent's territory".


----------



## drop bear (Mar 17, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> That has little to do with sparring vs. not sparring; not all sparring styles allow for punches to the head/face.  But they're still "sparring."
> 
> 
> I agree.  And that has been addressed regarding non-sparring arts several times in this thread by a number of people.




Most contact sparring allows strikes to the head though. Kyokashin for example has head contact.

And just another fun example of how sparring transfers to the street.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cr84-Wwq63U

Sometimes a fight does look like a sparring match. Notice by the way that when you control the grappling space you control whether or not you wind up on the ground.

Here is a fight on a train. Less to do with sparring and more to do with environment.

Two things both people are making decisions during this. The idea that in a street fight you become a robot and can only apply your training does not seem apparent.

And it does not appear that anybody is using much more than what would be trained in a flat space.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?debug_pr...has_verified=1&layout=tablet&client=mv-google
Basic fight mechanics are transferable into different environments.


----------



## K-man (Mar 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Most contact sparring allows strikes to the head though. Kyokashin for example has head contact.


Mmm! No punches or elbows to the head allowed in most Kyokoshin, like in TKD.



> In most Kyokushin organisations, hand and elbow strikes to the head or neck are prohibited. However, kicks to the head, knee strikes, punches to the upper body, and kicks to the inner and outer leg are permitted. In some Kyokushin organizations, especially outside of a tournament environment, gloves and shin protectors are worn.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyokushin



As to the videos. The first was more street sparring and in the second the marine could have been charged with assault if he did that here.

But back to the OP. Two of the guys in your videos were trained and two were not. Is it a surprise that those who trained were more effective than those who didn't?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Punching is high percentage which is the issue.



Depends on how well you punch.



drop bear said:


> The straight one two combination is increadably hard to counter with other strikes.



Easy to block and counter, especially if you are standing side on.



drop bear said:


> You cannot break a cycle of centerline punches easily



Sure you can, move off the centerline, then they're no longer centerline. 



drop bear said:


> So for example if I am throwing say brachial stuns they take just a bit longer to get there than those straight one twos.



It would depend upon your hand position at the time.



drop bear said:


> In a fight that may be very quick you are trying to get three or four shots off at the same time avoiding those three or four shots. So the risk to hands competes with the risk to being overwhelmed.



Sounds a lot like trading blows, OK for competition, not so much for self defense.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Most contact sparring allows strikes to the head though. Kyokashin for example has head contact.



Kyok*u*shin has the same amount of head contact as TKD; kicks, but no arm/hand strikes to the head.  The only substantive difference in that regard is the lack of head protection in kyokushin.



drop bear said:


> And just another fun example of how sparring transfers to the street.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cr84-Wwq63U
> 
> Sometimes a fight does look like a sparring match. Notice by the way that when you control the grappling space you control whether or not you wind up on the ground.
> ...


You don't have to sell me on the benefits of sparring.  Nor do you have to sell me on being restricted to your sparring style if you are involved in a violent encounter, which I have argued against many times on this forum.

I was specifically responding to your query about how one learns to receive blows without sparring.  I have already made my case for sparring mixed with other training methodologies.


----------



## MJS (Mar 18, 2014)

No head contact in Kyokushin other than from kicks.  No punching to the face is allowed.  However, most recently, they are bringing that aspect back, into some tournaments.  A year ago, my teacher brought one of his Black belts to Japan, to compete in one of those tournaments.  He performed well, but lost by decision.  

As for the lack of head protection that Dan mentioned...that is true, however, despite the no punching rule, at least in my dojo, we still work drills against strikes to the face, both punches and kicks.  Of course, even when sparring, it would be wise to keep your hands up.  Never know when your opponent is going to throw a roundhouse kick and connect with your head.


----------



## MJS (Mar 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Punching is high percentage which is the issue. So you could be giving up strikes that could end a fight to protect your hands.



I agree, it is high percentage, however, it's not the only high percentage thing out there.  



> The straight one two combination is increadably hard to counter with other strikes.



Interestingly enough, in the Arnis, Kenpo and Kyokushin that I train, we've done defenses against that.  



> You cannot break a cycle of centerline punches easily and you cannot compete if you are trying to throw techniques that go around.



IMO, if the person trains for such a thing, there is a defense.  




> Elbows new to have negotiated that punching space before they can be deployed.



I'm sorry...what are you saying here?




> We train in static conditioning. So I stand there and get wailed on by a guy. Then he stands there and gets wailed on by me.
> 
> That progresses to Dutch drills. Which is conditioning with defence.
> 
> ...



Agreed!


----------



## drop bear (Mar 18, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Kyok*u*shin has the same amount of head contact as TKD; kicks, but no arm/hand strikes to the head.  The only substantive difference in that regard is the lack of head protection in kyokushin.
> 
> 
> You don't have to sell me on the benefits of sparring.  Nor do you have to sell me on being restricted to your sparring style if you are involved in a violent encounter, which I have argued against many times on this forum.
> ...




Yeah I had one thought leading in to another and just posted them together. There are still some ideas about the sparring to fight transition that people have posted that did not make sense. And your post just sort of sparked that point for me.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 18, 2014)

MJS said:


> I agree, it is high percentage, however, it's not the only high percentage thing out there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK punching is probably the highest percentage hand attack that can be done not counting some close range ambush stuff like head butts.

Saying you can just negotiate quality straight punches means you haven't faced them. Of course there are defences but the person who is throwing has ways of countering those.

I would suggest go find a decent striker and experience how overwhelming good striking can be.

Elbows.
Elbows are really good but you have to have moved through punching range to throw them. It is no good having that as a super weapon if you have to eat shots before you can use it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 18, 2014)

MJS said:


> As for the lack of head protection that Dan mentioned...that is true, however, despite the no punching rule, at least in my dojo, we still work drills against strikes to the face, both punches and kicks.


This is an example of my comment about sparring in conjunction with other training methodologies.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 18, 2014)

K-man said:


> Mmm! No punches or elbows to the head allowed in most Kyokoshin, like in TKD.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Kyokashin head contact is not a joke.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a9XzrOe_WkY

Yes it was more like street sparring both fights had the elements of sports fights. And shows sports fighting and its transferability to self defence.

The basic mechanics of fighting being applied.

So no it was no surprise to me.

Oh and that is 4 to 1 I think mma working in self defence vs it not working.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 18, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Depends on how well you punch.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Just stand side on you think and there is nothing to worry about?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah I had one thought leading in to another and just posted them together. There are still some ideas about the sparring to fight transition that people have posted that did not make sense. And your post just sort of sparked that point for me.


One of the things about sparring that I feel is beneficial is that it can address a multitude of things.  Taking and receiving of blows, distance management, resistance, and aliveness among them.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Just stand side on you think and there is nothing to worry about?



That's not at all what he said.  He said that standing side on facilitates the blocking and countering of the combination you mentioned.


----------



## MJS (Mar 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> OK punching is probably the highest percentage hand attack that can be done not counting some close range ambush stuff like head butts.



I'm not disputing that punching isn't high percentage.  I'm saying that there are other things that are equally high.  



> Saying you can just negotiate quality straight punches means you haven't faced them. Of course there are defences but the person who is throwing has ways of countering those.



Actually, I have faced them.  I hate to burst your MMA bubble, but just because I don't train MMA, does not mean that a) I can't strike, b) that I can't defend strikes and c) that I haven't trained with quality strikers.  And I'm well aware that everything has a counter, and a counter to the counter, and so forth.  



> I would suggest go find a decent striker and experience how overwhelming good striking can be.



Been there, done that.  See my above comment. 



> Elbows.
> Elbows are really good but you have to have moved through punching range to throw them. It is no good having that as a super weapon if you have to eat shots before you can use it.



You're preaching to the choir.  Furthermore, nobody said anything about having to eat shots before getting in.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 18, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> That's not at all what he said.  He said that standing side on facilitates the blocking and countering of the combination you mentioned.



"Easy to block and counter especially if you are standing side on." Were the words used.

I still think that is a bit optimistic to be honest.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 18, 2014)

MJS said:


> I'm not disputing that punching isn't high percentage.  I'm saying that there are other things that are equally high.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The comment about having done defences to combinations is a bit misleading. I have done defences to straight combinations I still eat punches. The reason being they are a high percentage attack. Especially if the other guy is any good.

What else are you suggesting are alternatives?


This is an old clip but 
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi49w3__L98


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> "Easy to block and counter especially if you are standing side on." Were the words used.



Yes, they were.  To which you responded:



drop bear said:


> Just stand side on you think and there is nothing to worry about?


Which is a different premise from "Easy to block and counter, especially if you're standing side on.



drop bear said:


> I still think that is a bit optimistic to be honest.


Then you feel that his assessment is optimistic, which is something you can take up if you wish (I have no dog in this race).  But optimistic is different from nothing to worry about.


----------



## MJS (Mar 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> The comment about having done defences to combinations is a bit misleading. I have done defences to straight combinations I still eat punches. The reason being they are a high percentage attack. Especially if the other guy is any good.
> 
> What else are you suggesting are alternatives?
> 
> ...



Ah, the beauty of online discussion. See how easy it is to misunderstand things?   No worries, I'll clarify.   I'm not some superior MAist that can do anything.  I'm just like anyone else...I've been hit..hard, I've hit others, I've avoided shots.  I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who hasn't been hit.  

Many times, my teacher has devoted a large portion of the class, to drills.  Over and over and over, and then we'd spar and try to apply these drills.  As I said, I'm not disputing that strikes aren't good...they are very good.  I'm simply saying that some people, no matter how hard I've tried to hit them, have avoided the strikes, and countered with strikes of their own or just kept me at a distance with kicks.


----------



## K-man (Mar 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Kyokashin head contact is not a joke.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a9XzrOe_WkY
> 
> Yes it was more like street sparring both fights had the elements of sports fights. And shows sports fighting and its transferability to self defence.
> ...


I'm not sure why you are telling me Kyokushin head contact is not a joke. I never for one moment considered that it was. I was just pointing out to you that *strikes* to the head were not part of Kyokushin sparring. My quote went on to say that kicks to the head are permitted and I likened that type of contact to TKD. 

Your next para makes no sense. There was *no* self defence in either clip you showed. What part of it did you think was self defence?

And finally, I'm not sure how well you can comprehend my writing style. I have *never* said that MMA cannot be used on the street or for self defence. I have no problem with MMA or MMA practitioners unless they misrepresent what I have written.
:asian:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 18, 2014)

K-man said:


> I'm not sure why you are telling me Kyokushin head contact is not a joke. I never for one moment considered that it was. I was just pointing out to you that *strikes* to the head were not part of Kyokushin sparring. My quote went on to say that kicks to the head are permitted and I likened that type of contact to TKD.


You are correct.  

Just a clarification regarding terminology, kicks are strikes also.


----------



## K-man (Mar 18, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> You are correct.
> 
> Just a clarification regarding terminology, kicks are strikes also.


Maybe it's me being pedantic but in Japanese terminology we have 'tsuki' for punches, 'ate' for smashes, 'uchi' for strikes and 'geri' for kicks or knees ('tsuki' being self explanatory, 'ate' as elbows and 'uchi' as in back fist or forearm).

So agreed, within the wider scheme of things a kick is a strike with the foot. I'm not sure that was the context in which *drop bear* was using 'strike' though.
:asian:


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 19, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Just stand side on you think and there is nothing to worry about?



I will clarify a bit. Standing side on presents your opponent with a smaller front-on target, blocking (deflecting) a straight punch to the head may only mean moving your arm 2 or 3 inches. If they want to hit you in the head or body then they have to go around your arms and your elbow protects your ribs from front kicks (ever copped an elbow to the top of the foot or the shin?, Very painful, not much good for the elbow either). To hit the front of your body with a kick or hand strike they have to come from the side, which takes longer. When standing side on one hand is in front of the other, which gives you two lines of defense, if the front hand is trapped or knocked away you have the rear hand as backup. If you are standing completely front on, usually both hands will be roughly the same distance in front (I see it all the time in MMA fights, not taking a dig, just an observation), this means that both hands can be trapped or knocked away at the same time and also leaves a convenient gap between the arms for those one-two punch combinations to get through which just isn't there when you are standing side on. So not "nothing to worry about", just less.



drop bear said:


> I have done defences to straight combinations I still eat punches.



It pays to watch what you eat, I would suggest that either you practice more or change your tactics so that you eat less and stay healthy. In a self defense situation you can not afford the get hit, not even once. That one hit could be the one that knocks you on your back and causes you to hit your head on the concrete or causes brain damage or breaks a rib and collapses a lung etc.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 19, 2014)

K-man said:


> Maybe it's me being pedantic but in Japanese terminology we have 'tsuki' for punches, 'ate' for smashes, 'uchi' for strikes and 'geri' for kicks or knees ('tsuki' being self explanatory, 'ate' as elbows and 'uchi' as in back fist or forearm).
> 
> So agreed, within the wider scheme of things a kick is a strike with the foot. I'm not sure that was the context in which *drop bear* was using 'strike' though.
> :asian:



If you whack someone over the head with an artificial leg are you striking them or kicking them?


----------



## K-man (Mar 19, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> If you whack someone over the head with an artificial leg are you striking them or kicking them?


Excellent question!
:hmm:

i suspect if it is attached it is a kick. If it is unattached I go to my fallback position ... it depends. If it is my artificial leg, then I don't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 19, 2014)

K-man said:


> Maybe it's me being pedantic but in Japanese terminology we have 'tsuki' for punches, 'ate' for smashes, 'uchi' for strikes and 'geri' for kicks or knees ('tsuki' being self explanatory, 'ate' as elbows and 'uchi' as in back fist or forearm).
> 
> So agreed, within the wider scheme of things a kick is a strike with the foot. I'm not sure that was the context in which *drop bear* was using 'strike' though.
> :asian:


I'm familiar with the Japanese terms, but 'striking' in English is just ... striking.  You can strike with punches, kicks, canes, or frying pans.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 19, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> If you whack someone over the head with an artificial leg are you striking them or kicking them?



Yes.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 19, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> If you whack someone over the head with an artificial leg are you striking them or kicking them?



Depends if it is your artificial leg or his.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 19, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> I will clarify a bit. Standing side on presents your opponent with a smaller front-on target, blocking (deflecting) a straight punch to the head may only mean moving your arm 2 or 3 inches. If they want to hit you in the head or body then they have to go around your arms and your elbow protects your ribs from front kicks (ever copped an elbow to the top of the foot or the shin?, Very painful, not much good for the elbow either). To hit the front of your body with a kick or hand strike they have to come from the side, which takes longer. When standing side on one hand is in front of the other, which gives you two lines of defense, if the front hand is trapped or knocked away you have the rear hand as backup. If you are standing completely front on, usually both hands will be roughly the same distance in front (I see it all the time in MMA fights, not taking a dig, just an observation), this means that both hands can be trapped or knocked away at the same time and also leaves a convenient gap between the arms for those one-two punch combinations to get through which just isn't there when you are standing side on. So not "nothing to worry about", just less.
> 
> 
> 
> It pays to watch what you eat, I would suggest that either you practice more or change your tactics so that you eat less and stay healthy. In a self defense situation you can not afford the get hit, not even once. That one hit could be the one that knocks you on your back and causes you to hit your head on the concrete or causes brain damage or breaks a rib and collapses a lung etc.



Your head size wont change side on or front on.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 19, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Depends if it is your artificial leg or his.



Good point.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 19, 2014)

And yes when I said strikes I meant punches and kicks specifically to include arts that don't punch to the head. No head contact does not mean you only get kicked in the face.

Even grappling tends to have incidental head striking.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 19, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Your head size wont change side on or front on.



Depends on how many compliments you get.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 19, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Your head size wont change side on or front on.



No, but profiling does put your head at greater distance from your opponent.  And as RTKDCMB points out, you also present a smaller target overall.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 19, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Depends on how many compliments you get.



I am a man who eats punches. I don't get compliments sometimes I get sympathy.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Mar 19, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> If you whack someone over the head with an artificial leg are you striking them or kicking them?



If you throw it...does that make it a flying kick?:lfao:


----------



## MJS (Mar 19, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> I will clarify a bit. Standing side on presents your opponent with a smaller front-on target, blocking (deflecting) a straight punch to the head may only mean moving your arm 2 or 3 inches. If they want to hit you in the head or body then they have to go around your arms and your elbow protects your ribs from front kicks (ever copped an elbow to the top of the foot or the shin?, Very painful, not much good for the elbow either). To hit the front of your body with a kick or hand strike they have to come from the side, which takes longer. When standing side on one hand is in front of the other, which gives you two lines of defense, if the front hand is trapped or knocked away you have the rear hand as backup. If you are standing completely front on, usually both hands will be roughly the same distance in front (I see it all the time in MMA fights, not taking a dig, just an observation), this means that both hands can be trapped or knocked away at the same time and also leaves a convenient gap between the arms for those one-two punch combinations to get through which just isn't there when you are standing side on. So not "nothing to worry about", just less.



I used to spar in this type of stance.  I also used more of a boxing type stance as well.  I had success with both.   When I started to spar in Kyokushin, I found myself in that side stance at one point, mainly due to force of habit.  I ate more than my share of kicks to the leg because of that stance.  I was told by my teacher, as well as my class mates, that I needed to change that stance, as it wouldn't allow me to have much success with blocking the low line roundhouse kick.  

Now, I'm not saying this is a bad stance, that's not the case at all.  I'm simply saying that in that situation, it didn't work for me.  I assume that you use this side stance yourself?  If so, is it the only one you use or do you have others?  Are you able to deal with leg kicks from that side stance?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 19, 2014)

MJS said:


> Now, I'm not saying this is a bad stance, that's not the case at all.  I'm simply saying that in that situation, it didn't work for me.  I assume that you use this side stance yourself?  If so, is it the only one you use or do you have others?  Are you able to deal with leg kicks from that side stance?



Like anything, you have to adapt to your circumstances.  Profiling doesn't work as well in kendo, but is an absolute necessity in epee.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 20, 2014)

MJS said:


> I used to spar in this type of stance.  I also used more of a boxing type stance as well.  I had success with both.   When I started to spar in Kyokushin, I found myself in that side stance at one point, mainly due to force of habit.  I ate more than my share of kicks to the leg because of that stance.  I was told by my teacher, as well as my class mates, that I needed to change that stance, as it wouldn't allow me to have much success with blocking the low line roundhouse kick.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying this is a bad stance, that's not the case at all.  I'm simply saying that in that situation, it didn't work for me.  I assume that you use this side stance yourself?  If so, is it the only one you use or do you have others?  Are you able to deal with leg kicks from that side stance?



The main defensive stance I use during sparring is the basic back stance with a weight distribution of 60/40 in favor of the back leg, the exact same stance as used in the basics and patterns. The stance gives me agility and enables me to lift my front leg easily for a leg check, leg block, kick or to simply move it out of the way. I can also bring the front leg back into a cat stance if I don't want to step back completely. I tend to not stay in one place for too long and change stance between left and right regularly. Kicks to the thigh are withing the range of the arms for blocking/deflecting but usually I just either use a leg check, step back or away or, on rare occasions, move in and jam. For attacking movements I usually use a slightly modified forward stance which is temporary. For a self defense situation it would probably be over quickly so if there was a leg kick to contend with it would probably be only one and I would either deal with it or get kicked.


----------

