# Martial Sport VS Self Defense



## TaiChiTJ

I am not involved in TFT. I did find this video interesting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

TaiChiTJ said:


> I am not involved in TFT. I did find this video interesting.


The gas station video is one that I often use to explain the difference between self-defense and sports fighting.  In sports fighting the object is to win.  The purpose of self-defense is to control a situation or manipulate the environment in a way that ensures safety.  If you are fighting then it means all other methods of self-defense has failed.  It's difficult for many people to understand this.  

Examples of not ensuring your safety.










Now for those doing the same thing and becoming the victim.  How are your sports fighting skills going to help in this situation?


----------



## Martial D

What people tend to overlook is the overlap. A punch in the face that will land in the ring vs a trained fighter will also probably land on untrained Joe six-pack in the bar.


----------



## drop bear

Yeah this is what happens when self defence instructors dont really understand how fights work.
And so they think that loosing to  multiple guys and a weapon is the fault of some sort of training issue. Rather than a multiple guys with a weapon issue.


----------



## Buka

JowGaWolf said:


> The gas station video is one that I often use to explain the difference between self-defense and sports fighting.  In sports fighting the object is to win.  The purpose of self-defense is to control a situation or manipulate the environment in a way that ensures safety.  If you are fighting then it means all other methods of self-defense has failed.  It's difficult for many people to understand this.
> 
> Examples of not ensuring your safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now for those doing the same thing and becoming the victim.  How are your sports fighting skills going to help in this situation?



I really enjoyed that. Working at an airport I deal with numb skulls walking while looking at their phone, or texting while walking, multiple times a day, every single day. Even walking into oncoming traffic, even while pushing a baby in a baby carriage. It's unbelievable.

But on a different note, one thing I've used to my advantage several times at work, is using my phone to approach somebody who's a problem, without them knowing it. I'll just walk along, looking at my phone, either making like I'm texting or looking like I'm smiling and nodding at a video. Just like other people are doing. Next thing he knows I'm right beside him, right there at his elbow with a "Hi, how you doing?"
it's worked every time.

As for that last video, of people snatching a phone from somebody's hand, that's just nuts. And I'm sure it works well in a crowd.


----------



## Mountie

drop bear said:


> Yeah this is what happens when self defence instructors dont really understand how fights work.
> And so they think that loosing to  multiple guys and a weapon is the fault of some sort of training issue. Rather than a multiple guys with a weapon issue.



The whole episode ignores many basic self-defense principles.  

It ended with multiple guys with a weapon, but there's more to it.  These are things any self-defense instructor will tell you, expect their friends to show up, expect that they may be armed, talk, de-escalate, disengage.  Only fight if you have to, and if you do win quickly then remove yourself from the situation.

They were arrogant.  They started an unnecessary fight.  Instead of looking to de-escalate or disengage, they got into their opponents faces, took the fight outside and continued to fight multiple opponents.  

I'm not saying ring-fighters can't transfer their skills into practical situations, but in this case they did very poorly.


----------



## Mountie

Martial D said:


> What people tend to overlook is the overlap. A punch in the face that will land in the ring vs a trained fighter will also probably land on untrained Joe six-pack in the bar.



One of the reasons I like my nephew's school is that while they train for sports-fighting 3 times a week, once a month they bring in a self-defense instructor and train for practical situations.  Sports fighting will give you an excellent set of self-defense tools, but it helps to get a little extra to apply those to a realistic situation.

And this works both ways.  I train almost entirely for practical situations, but will go and spar with sports fighter to help improve my skills against trained fighters.  I'm in their ring with their rules and often lose, but so what?  I'm learning.  Test your limits in a safe environment so you're ready for a dangerous one.


----------



## Steve

If someone tries to steal my phone I will knee him in the groin, then hit him at the base of the neck and then stomp him on the ground.  I practice that a lot and I'm pretty sure it will work.


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> If someone tries to steal my phone I will knee him in the groin, then hit him at the base of the neck and then stomp him on the ground.  I practice that a lot and I'm pretty sure it will work.



Note to self:  Don't try and steal Steve's phone.

Additional Note to self:  If you do try and steal Steve's phone where groin and neck protection.


----------



## drop bear

Mountie said:


> The whole episode ignores many basic self-defense principles.
> 
> It ended with multiple guys with a weapon, but there's more to it.  These are things any self-defense instructor will tell you, expect their friends to show up, expect that they may be armed, talk, de-escalate, disengage.  Only fight if you have to, and if you do win quickly then remove yourself from the situation.
> 
> They were arrogant.  They started an unnecessary fight.  Instead of looking to de-escalate or disengage, they got into their opponents faces, took the fight outside and continued to fight multiple opponents.
> 
> I'm not saying ring-fighters can't transfer their skills into practical situations, but in this case they did very poorly.



Which is not the point of the video. If avoid fights was the message then I wouldn't have an issue.

 There is this idea that if you can point out a method doesn't work. You don't have to show your method working.

If the argument is made that different training has a better result we have to see that result.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> If someone tries to steal my phone I will knee him in the groin, then hit him at the base of the neck and then stomp him on the ground.  I practice that a lot and I'm pretty sure it will work.



Don't forget to restomp the groin...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> What people tend to overlook is the overlap. A punch in the face that will land in the ring vs a trained fighter will also probably land on untrained Joe six-pack in the bar.


There is a huge overlap. Many of the skills (depending upon the type of competition) are applicable. If it's a full-contact sport (including most grappling), then application should translate. For _my_ definition of self-defense, there's a ton of overlap (the biggest disparity is really just stuff that isn't allowed in competition or would get you in trouble on the street). There's a difference in approach, as there's a range of attacks that are unlikely in a competition, and those attacks open up some other responses that aren't very useful for competition.

Now, if we step out to the wider definition of self-defense that JGW is using (what I refer to as self-protection), most of that isn't all that relevant to competition. If someone trains specifically and solely for competition, there'd be none of that in their training.

Here's my view: it is possible to train for competition with the intent of self-defense. Training solely for competition (depending upon the type of competition) can provide good skills for the physical self-defense, and those can even be tweaked by training to serve better outside the competition.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> There is a huge overlap. Many of the skills (depending upon the type of competition) are applicable. If it's a full-contact sport (including most grappling), then application should translate. For _my_ definition of self-defense, there's a ton of overlap (the biggest disparity is really just stuff that isn't allowed in competition or would get you in trouble on the street). There's a difference in approach, as there's a range of attacks that are unlikely in a competition, and those attacks open up some other responses that aren't very useful for competition.
> 
> Now, if we step out to the wider definition of self-defense that JGW is using (what I refer to as self-protection), most of that isn't all that relevant to competition. If someone trains specifically and solely for competition, there'd be none of that in their training.
> 
> Here's my view: it is possible to train for competition with the intent of self-defense. Training solely for competition (depending upon the type of competition) can provide good skills for the physical self-defense, and those can even be tweaked by training to serve better outside the competition.



Yeah if your aim is self defence. Competition is a training tool.


Otherwise real life happens everywhere. You need the tools to deal with that regardless what system you train.


----------



## TaiChiTJ

Getting hit with a two by four reminded me of Ron White talking about getting hit with a Volvo. (LOL)


----------



## Steve

If you've never used skills n the ring or on the job, you're kidding yourself if you think you're better prepared for self defense than someone who has. 

But the good news is that your chances of needing to defend yourself are very low, even if you engage in crazy, high risk behaviors, and that even then, most bad guys have no interest in killing you.   And more good news is that what will likely keep you safe has nothing to do with your technique.  People with no martial training at all successfully defend themselves all the time.


----------



## Andrew Green

drop bear said:


> Yeah this is what happens when self defence instructors dont really understand how fights work.
> And so they think that loosing to  multiple guys and a weapon is the fault of some sort of training issue. Rather than a multiple guys with a weapon issue.



That and there really is no way to prepare yourself mentally for someone swinging a 2x4 at your head full force.  

I highly doubt someone who is not used to the adrenaline dump and fight or flight aspect of a trained fighter trying to swing punches and kicks at you full force would do better when the stakes go up even higher to weapons.

That said, it also completely misses the point that the difference is in training methods, not rules.

If scenario based training alone was more effective for teaching people to fight, fighters would spend all their time on scenario based training for in the ring scenarios...  Which is partially true.  I would bet every top level fighter drills specific scenarios.  But those all get integrated back into sparring and live drills.

Get appropriate safety gear and training weapons and use the same methods combat athletes do and you'll get pretty good at dealing with weapons.  Of course someone coming at you with a real weapon is going to be very different, and multiple people with weapons means you are at a very, very severe disadvantage.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Yeah if your aim is self defence. Competition is a training tool.
> 
> 
> Otherwise real life happens everywhere. You need the tools to deal with that regardless what system you train.


Yeah I'm not a fan of him.  Not one bit. Not the best of attitudes.


----------



## drop bear

Andrew Green said:


> That and there really is no way to prepare yourself mentally for someone swinging a 2x4 at your head full force.
> 
> I highly doubt someone who is not used to the adrenaline dump and fight or flight aspect of a trained fighter trying to swing punches and kicks at you full force would do better when the stakes go up even higher to weapons.
> 
> That said, it also completely misses the point that the difference is in training methods, not rules.
> 
> If scenario based training alone was more effective for teaching people to fight, fighters would spend all their time on scenario based training for in the ring scenarios...  Which is partially true.  I would bet every top level fighter drills specific scenarios.  But those all get integrated back into sparring and live drills.
> 
> Get appropriate safety gear and training weapons and use the same methods combat athletes do and you'll get pretty good at dealing with weapons.  Of course someone coming at you with a real weapon is going to be very different, and multiple people with weapons means you are at a very, very severe disadvantage.



I tried it back in the day with a nerf bat and a friend who had no training whatever. And I ate a lot of nerf.

Again real time speed and timing makes weapons defence ridiculously hard.

Our scenarios for guys training to fight are not designed to be won. So we do it in sparring. And a person will call out a position and you have to stop and reset from that position. But then it is sparring again. If you don't get out. Tough.

I have done multiple opponent sparring in MMA. But I just got bashed. There was no trick to it.


----------



## Buka

Didn't know where to put this. Figured here was as good as any other place. Dealt with a lot of these things over the years.

There's just so many things wrong with this video. Personally, speaking entirely as a private citizen, I'd like to drown these guys in front of their parents. Including the victim. Harsh? Sure, but I consider it protection of our species.

Watch it until the end. There's a glitch/pause before it ends.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I tried it back in the day with a nerf bat and a friend who had no training whatever. And I ate a lot of nerf.
> 
> Again real time speed and timing makes weapons defence ridiculously hard.
> 
> Our scenarios for guys training to fight are not designed to be won. So we do it in sparring. And a person will call out a position and you have to stop and reset from that position. But then it is sparring again. If you don't get out. Tough.
> 
> I have done multiple opponent sparring in MMA. But I just got bashed. There was no trick to it.


Scenarios should be set up not to be won (beyond the beginner stage - they don't need help failing at that point). They should get progressively harder to win as the person's skill improves. Only movement drills and forms should be entirely winnable (you don't get a chance to fail at just "shrimping"). That's a flaw with how some places approach scenario training for self-defense. They don't progress the attacks much beyond beginner level. I've done "baseball bat" drills against those soft foam swords and against hard foam bats. I'm definitely not 100%, and if I find myself winning too often, I know someone's letting me win. But I have seen SD schools where it's really possible to "win" weapon defenses 99% of the time with a single response.


----------



## skribs

Regarding the overlap...I think one of the advantages with martial sports vs. self defense is that many self defense classes do things half speed, non-contact or light contact, and/or don't train for failure.  On the other hand, martial sports are all about reading your opponent and practical application of your technique.

(This is just to play devil's advocate as I feel both approaches have advantages and disadvantages).


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

skribs said:


> Regarding the overlap...I think one of the advantages with martial sports vs. self defense is that many self defense classes do things half speed, non-contact or light contact, and/or don't train for failure.  On the other hand, martial sports are all about reading your opponent and practical application of your technique.
> 
> (This is just to play devil's advocate as I feel both approaches have advantages and disadvantages).


I'm not a fan of this argument, and it's made all the time. To me, it's the same as when people say "TKD schools are mcdojos", or even "most TKD schools are mcdojos". It's discounting what the purpose of SD classes are, and how they can be done effectively, by focusing on the ineffective ones. SD can very easily be full-speed, moderate-heavy contact, and training for failure. SD classes also can teach someone how to read someones intentions before they become an 'opponent', along with outside of the gym. The only thing SD is inherently missing when done right, IMO, that competition has, is cross-school/out of school competition that ensures what you are learning against people A B and C will also be effective on people X Y and Z.


----------



## CB Jones

kempodisciple said:


> SD classes also can teach someone how to read someones intentions before they become an 'opponent', along with outside of the gym.



Like in Minority Report?


----------



## Steve

kempodisciple said:


> I'm not a fan of this argument, and it's made all the time. To me, it's the same as when people say "TKD schools are mcdojos", or even "most TKD schools are mcdojos". It's discounting what the purpose of SD classes are, and how they can be done effectively, by focusing on the ineffective ones. SD can very easily be full-speed, moderate-heavy contact, and training for failure. SD classes also can teach someone how to read someones intentions before they become an 'opponent', along with outside of the gym. The only thing SD is inherently missing when done right, IMO, that competition has, is cross-school/out of school competition that ensures what you are learning against people A B and C will also be effective on people X Y and Z.


Most important thing, I think, is managing expectations.  The best self defense training is to start out as a person who isn't a dick and does not engage in any high risk behaviors.  That works for just about everyone.  From there, a person who worked as a bouncer prior to enlisting in the military, and who is (or was) a cop, who also trains and competes in MMA, AND who has a particular interest in how all of these skills can apply in various contexts.   Now, that guy will be excellent at self defense. 

You could likely get by with just not being a dick and not engaging in high risk behaviors.  Having any one of the other elements above will help.

Bottom line, though, without one of the above elements, or something very similar (i.e., a gang enforcer or some other professionally violent person), you can train self defense all day long and be no better able to defend yourself.  Self defense isn't something you learn in a vacuum.  It's applying skills you already have in the context of personal safety.
Look at a relatively simple skill, like CPR.  It's generally performed incorrectly, and largely ineffective (as best as I can tell, people who receive bystander CPR have about the same survival rate and rate of recovery as those who do not receive help until the EMTs arrive).   Self defense is like that.  It makes people feel better, but otherwise, is more about feeling safer than being safer.

So, threads like this irritate me.  Not because it's X vs Y.  But because it's apples and apple pie.  Martial sports are probably the most accessible path to self defense skills for most people.  Self defense programs for regular, non-violent people, that don't include "martial sport" are deeply flawed, like an apple pie without apples.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> Most important thing, I think, is managing expectations.  The best self defense training is to start out as a person who isn't a dick and does not engage in any high risk behaviors.  That works for just about everyone.  From there, a person who worked as a bouncer prior to enlisting in the military, and who is (or was) a cop, who also trains and competes in MMA, AND who has a particular interest in how all of these skills can apply in various contexts.   Now, that guy will be excellent at self defense.
> 
> You could likely get by with just not being a dick and not engaging in high risk behaviors.  Having any one of the other elements above will help.
> 
> Bottom line, though, without one of the above elements, or something very similar (i.e., a gang enforcer or some other professionally violent person), you can train self defense all day long and be no better able to defend yourself.  Self defense isn't something you learn in a vacuum.  It's applying skills you already have in the context of personal safety.
> Look at a relatively simple skill, like CPR.  It's generally performed incorrectly, and largely ineffective (as best as I can tell, people who receive bystander CPR have about the same survival rate and rate of recovery as those who do not receive help until the EMTs arrive).   Self defense is like that.  It makes people feel better, but otherwise, is more about feeling safer than being safer.
> 
> So, threads like this irritate me.  Not because it's X vs Y.  But because it's apples and apple pie.  Martial sports are probably the most accessible path to self defense skills for most people.  Self defense programs for regular, non-violent people, that don't include "martial sport" are deeply flawed, like an apple pie without apples.



I don't agree that you can train self defense all day long and be no better able to defend yourself.
I don't mean just for a day, obviously.

Are you speaking of the stereotypical - one guy steps up and punches and just stands there like a statue. If so, okay, but I don't actually know anyone who does that. Or are you talking about self defense training in general, which includes a lot of fighting?


----------



## ScorpionShawn

TaiChiTJ said:


> I am not involved in TFT. I did find this video interesting.


*Tim Larkin 100% on point!*


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> I don't agree that you can train self defense all day long and be no better able to defend yourself.
> I don't mean just for a day, obviously.
> 
> Are you speaking of the stereotypical - one guy steps up and punches and just stands there like a statue. If so, okay, but I don't actually know anyone who does that. Or are you talking about self defense training in general, which includes a lot of fighting?


 You can teach a skill, but you can't learn it for someone.  E.g., you can teach a skill to an administrative assistant the same way you teach it to a cop, but you can't learn it for them and you can't do it for them.  You can, however, develop traits im folks who are receptive by teaching them behaviors.

I'm talking about the office worker, computer programmer, teacher, hair stylist or otherwise non-violent person who has never been a bouncer, soldier, cop, bodyguard or hitman.  Let's call this group "almost everyone."  These folks who take "self defense" classes aren't learning skills that will make them more safe.  Or to be fair, there is zero evidence that they are.  They MIGHT be learning behaviors that will help them be more safe, but I don't think these behaviors are specific to self defense training.  Skills development in a self defense class is going to be limited, regardless of how long they train.  

To be more specific, for these regular people, I think the aspects of a "self defense" course that actually help are not specific to self defense training.  In other words, among the traits they are developing are self-esteem, confidence, a sense of community, positive role models, a fighting spirit, fitness, and athleticism (well, those last two are not always intrinsic to self defense classes).  You can develop these same traits doing Zhumba or Tae Bo, or training for a Tough Mudder course.

Look at it like this, @Buka.  Look at all the tenuous leaps of faith one must take for which there is no supporting evidence, and in some cases, evidence to the contrary:

1:  You have to believe that the skills you are learning actually work for someone.
2:  ... that the techniques will actually help you and not make things worse.
3:  ... that you can perform a technique at all.
4:  ... under pressure, in the safety of training.
5:  ... outside of training, in some context (i.e., on the job, in a ring)
6:  ... AND then in the context of self defense.

There are some folks teaching self defense to other folks here who think they're at 6, but are really stuck at somewhere between 3 and 4.  The good news is, if you reach step 5, it's a relatively short leap to step 6.  

Going back to the point I led off with, we commonly see people teach a system and then build expertise in a system.  Can this work?   Hard to say.  And is there anything wrong with it?  Nothing at all.  If you have a system you teach, call it Buka-do, and you teach people to nutshot and curbstomp bad guys, it's up to you to establish the criteria for evaluating their performance.  You could absolutely teach someone to be an expert in Buka-do.  Will that make them able to fight off a bad guy?  Absolutely no way to know.

Now, I understand that some guys like Gerry insist that you can skip step 5, but Gerry has yet to offer an example of someone developing skill in something without ever actually doing it... other than self defense, of course.


----------



## skribs

kempodisciple said:


> I'm not a fan of this argument, and it's made all the time. To me, it's the same as when people say "TKD schools are mcdojos", or even "most TKD schools are mcdojos". It's discounting what the purpose of SD classes are, and how they can be done effectively, by focusing on the ineffective ones. SD can very easily be full-speed, moderate-heavy contact, and training for failure. SD classes also can teach someone how to read someones intentions before they become an 'opponent', along with outside of the gym. The only thing SD is inherently missing when done right, IMO, that competition has, is cross-school/out of school competition that ensures what you are learning against people A B and C will also be effective on people X Y and Z.



Hence why I used many qualifying statements like "many" and "just playing devil's advocate".


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> I'm not a fan of this argument, and it's made all the time. To me, it's the same as when people say "TKD schools are mcdojos", or even "most TKD schools are mcdojos". It's discounting what the purpose of SD classes are, and how they can be done effectively, by focusing on the ineffective ones. SD can very easily be full-speed, moderate-heavy contact, and training for failure. SD classes also can teach someone how to read someones intentions before they become an 'opponent', along with outside of the gym. The only thing SD is inherently missing when done right, IMO, that competition has, is cross-school/out of school competition that ensures what you are learning against people A B and C will also be effective on people X Y and Z.



Yeah? tentatively.

As soon as you are training in real time against resisting guys with pads and rules and junk. 

You are kind of doing sport.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I don't agree that you can train self defense all day long and be no better able to defend yourself.
> I don't mean just for a day, obviously.
> 
> Are you speaking of the stereotypical - one guy steps up and punches and just stands there like a statue. If so, okay, but I don't actually know anyone who does that. Or are you talking about self defense training in general, which includes a lot of fighting?



We call that the difference between being a martial artist and a fighter.

Same thing happens when someone goes from pads or drills to sparring.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Yeah? tentatively.
> 
> As soon as you are training in real time against resisting guys with pads and rules and junk.
> 
> You are kind of doing sport.


Eh. In my mind a sport has specific rules that do not change and you are actively competing with others. So if I have someone attack me with a foam bat while I try (and often fail) to escape or gain control/disarm him, that's a SD drill to me even though it's real time. If there was a circuit of foam bat fighting, with rankings and standardized scoring, that would turn the same exact activity from a SD drill into a sport.

Theres a benefit to the second one in having more people to compete against, likely develop better tactics from a larger school, and a better idea of how well I do, but i don' see it becoming all that popular. Not going to stop me from getting hit with foam bats though, or take away the benefit I do get from it.


----------



## Mountie

kempodisciple said:


> I'm not a fan of this argument, and it's made all the time. To me, it's the same as when people say "TKD schools are mcdojos", or even "most TKD schools are mcdojos". It's discounting what the purpose of SD classes are, and how they can be done effectively, by focusing on the ineffective ones. SD can very easily be full-speed, moderate-heavy contact, and training for failure. SD classes also can teach someone how to read someones intentions before they become an 'opponent', along with outside of the gym. The only thing SD is inherently missing when done right, IMO, that competition has, is cross-school/out of school competition that ensures what you are learning against people A B and C will also be effective on people X Y and Z.



TKD was my first martial art.  My cousins/nephews still take it.  

Love the art.  But then some schools give it a bad name....


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> You can teach a skill, but you can't learn it for someone.  E.g., you can teach a skill to an administrative assistant the same way you teach it to a cop, but you can't learn it for them and you can't do it for them.  You can, however, develop traits im folks who are receptive by teaching them behaviors.
> 
> I'm talking about the office worker, computer programmer, teacher, hair stylist or otherwise non-violent person who has never been a bouncer, soldier, cop, bodyguard or hitman.  Let's call this group "almost everyone."  These folks who take "self defense" classes aren't learning skills that will make them more safe.  Or to be fair, there is zero evidence that they are.  They MIGHT be learning behaviors that will help them be more safe, but I don't think these behaviors are specific to self defense training.  Skills development in a self defense class is going to be limited, regardless of how long they train.
> 
> To be more specific, for these regular people, I think the aspects of a "self defense" course that actually help are not specific to self defense training.  In other words, among the traits they are developing are self-esteem, confidence, a sense of community, positive role models, a fighting spirit, fitness, and athleticism (well, those last two are not always intrinsic to self defense classes).  You can develop these same traits doing Zhumba or Tae Bo, or training for a Tough Mudder course.
> 
> Look at it like this, @Buka.  Look at all the tenuous leaps of faith one must take for which there is no supporting evidence, and in some cases, evidence to the contrary:
> 
> 1:  You have to believe that the skills you are learning actually work for someone.
> 2:  ... that the techniques will actually help you and not make things worse.
> 3:  ... that you can perform a technique at all.
> 4:  ... under pressure, in the safety of training.
> 5:  ... outside of training, in some context (i.e., on the job, in a ring)
> 6:  ... AND then in the context of self defense.
> 
> There are some folks teaching self defense to other folks here who think they're at 6, but are really stuck at somewhere between 3 and 4.  The good news is, if you reach step 5, it's a relatively short leap to step 6.
> 
> Going back to the point I led off with, we commonly see people teach a system and then build expertise in a system.  Can this work?   Hard to say.  And is there anything wrong with it?  Nothing at all.  If you have a system you teach, call it Buka-do, and you teach people to nutshot and curbstomp bad guys, it's up to you to establish the criteria for evaluating their performance.  You could absolutely teach someone to be an expert in Buka-do.  Will that make them able to fight off a bad guy?  Absolutely no way to know.
> 
> Now, I understand that some guys like Gerry insist that you can skip step 5, but Gerry has yet to offer an example of someone developing skill in something without ever actually doing it... other than self defense, of course.



I think I was thinking something other than what you were actually saying. [wait, what?]

I was thinking "self defense' training as being actual Martial Arts training, you know, training every day, sparring all the time - fighting resisting partners, many of who are better than you.

A "self defense course"....not really too good unless it's a four day a week course for ten years. And you fight, a lot. I don't think many folks can defend themselves if they don't know how to fight.


----------



## Anarax

The premise of "Martial Art Sport Vs Self Defense" I think is flawed for a few reasons. 

All sport variants of a style have very different rule sets and some are further removed from real conditions of combat than others. For example; I left sport fencing because the rules became so convoluted to the point I was developing bad habits that were transferring over into Kali. Resetting after each strike, not using three-dimensional footwork, only staying at medio(medium) range were bad habits fencing was teaching me. It was becoming more of a hindrance than an asset in martial arts training. Kali sport competitions in the US aren't the best examples either, the WEKAF tournaments are just two guys swinging at each other in fully padded suits with zero emphasis on technique nor defense. However; competitions in the Philippines are much better and more realistic with very little to no loss of practicability. 

It's doesn't have to be an either or situation. Take a professional fighter and teach him situational awareness/self-defense tactics he's gonna perform pretty well in a self defense situation. Take an out of shape self-defense instructor and whip him into fighting shape he'll also perform very well in a self defense situation.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> I think I was thinking something other than what you were actually saying. [wait, what?]
> 
> I was thinking "self defense' training as being actual Martial Arts training, you know, training every day, sparring all the time - fighting resisting partners, many of who are better than you.
> 
> A "self defense course"....not really too good unless it's a four day a week course for ten years. And you fight, a lot. I don't think many folks can defend themselves if they don't know how to fight.


Think about it like this.  No one trains self defense . Everyone is training something else, and hoping that those skills will be there for them in a different context (self defense).  

If you think about it this way, things begin to click into place .


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> Regarding the overlap...I think one of the advantages with martial sports vs. self defense is that many self defense classes do things half speed, non-contact or light contact, and/or don't train for failure.  On the other hand, martial sports are all about reading your opponent and practical application of your technique.
> 
> (This is just to play devil's advocate as I feel both approaches have advantages and disadvantages).


As someone who trained primarily in SD schools, I agree. What you've pointed at is the major weakness of the common SD approach. Bringing in live sparring, at least occasional full opposition, and realistic expectations of failure rate is a big step.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah? tentatively.
> 
> As soon as you are training in real time against resisting guys with pads and rules and junk.
> 
> You are kind of doing sport.


I kind of agree. But if we accept that, then most SD schools have some level of "sport" in them, too. Not all, certainly (I've trained in some that had none), but most. Sparring/rolling/randori is not unheard of.

EDIT: Usually, the difference is points. Those usually get left out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Think about it like this.  No one trains self defense . Everyone is training something else, and hoping that those skills will be there for them in a different context (self defense).
> 
> If you think about it this way, things begin to click into place .


They are training skills intended for SD. A small distinction, but I agree that it's a significant one.


----------



## Anarax

Buka said:


> I'd like to drown these guys in front of their parents. Including the victim. Harsh?



Are you suggesting the father should have been responsible and shouldn't have taken his 4 year old daughter to a bar at night? How dare you suggest such a sensible approach to parenting. Next you'll tell us parents shouldn't take their kids to protests.


----------



## CB Jones

Anarax said:


> Are you suggesting the father should have been responsible and shouldn't have taken his 4 year old daughter to a bar at night? How dare you suggest such a sensible approach to parenting. Next you'll tell us parents shouldn't take their kids to protests.



Just for clarification....It actually was a pizza restaurant


----------



## Anarax

CB Jones said:


> Just for clarification....It actually was a pizza restaurant



It's hard to say exactly what category it would fall under. Their own website says "Crossroads Pub and Grill". They have a full bar but also have food as well. It's more the bar element that would deter me from taking my child there at 10 o'clock at night.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> They are training skills intended for SD. A small distinction, but I agree that it's a significant one.


And precisely where it all crumbles.  Self defense is about taking skills you've acquired and developed in one context and learning how they may apply in another. 

Look at it like this.  You can take a person who has learned to fight and, with very little effort, work through the transfer of those skills to a self defense situation.  For example, in BJJ, you learn to fight on the ground.  In a tournament, you want the fight to go to the ground.  In a street situation, that's not an ideal situation.  So, you take the skills you have and work through them in a new context.  Tony Dismukes and his experiments are a great example.

Going the other way, though, it is not possible.  You can't take a guy who has a lot of theoretical knowledge of a context, and then expect them to apply skills they don't have.  For example, you can't take a guy who understands all of the theory around why fighting from your back on the ground is a bad idea in self defense, and then expect that they can do it.  They aren't starting with a skill.

And, we really need to be very clear about what skills people are actually learning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> And precisely where it all crumbles.  Self defense is about taking skills you've acquired and developed in one context and learning how they may apply in another.
> 
> Look at it like this.  You can take a person who has learned to fight and, with very little effort, work through the transfer of those skills to a self defense situation.  For example, in BJJ, you learn to fight on the ground.  In a tournament, you want the fight to go to the ground.  In a street situation, that's not an ideal situation.  So, you take the skills you have and work through them in a new context.  Tony Dismukes and his experiments are a great example.
> 
> Going the other way, though, it is not possible.  You can't take a guy who has a lot of theoretical knowledge of a context, and then expect them to apply skills they don't have.  For example, you can't take a guy who understands all of the theory around why fighting from your back on the ground is a bad idea in self defense, and then expect that they can do it.  They aren't starting with a skill.
> 
> And, we really need to be very clear about what skills people are actually learning.


Somehow, you're assuming the training just falls apart if the formal competition event (the thing you enter and go to a location for) isn't there. My training was all intended for SD. But much of it looks an awful lot like stuff you'd see in a BJJ dojo where they train for competition (though they do it better there because it's their focus). My tight-distance throws come from training pretty similar to things you'd see in Judo dojo where they train for competition. 

There are only two differences: they (remember I'm referring to dojos training for competition) don't necessarily care whether something is a good idea outside the ruleset (and the reverse for me), and I don't actually step into BJJ or Judo competitions after training those skills.


----------



## hoshin1600

i am more self defense oriented then most and i would like to get in on this conversation but i dont even know where to begin.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> If you've never used skills n the ring or on the job, you're kidding yourself if you think you're better prepared for self defense than someone who has.



yes if you have only trained in the dojo you are less experienced then the guy who goes out every weekend looking for and getting into fights.
but you are better off training in the dojo then sitting on the couch eating snacks and watching TV.
 i really think you are missing the point of how training actually works.  i also think you have a defined vision of what self defense is that may not match what a lot of self defense training actually looks like.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> yes if you have only trained in the dojo you are less experienced then the guy who goes out every weekend looking for and getting into fights.
> but you are better off training in the dojo then sitting on the couch eating snacks and watching TV.
> i really think you are missing the point of how training actually works.  i also think you have a defined vision of what self defense is that may not match what a lot of self defense training actually looks like.


I think youre better off than the couch potato who does nothing, but are you better off than the guy who does cross fit or gains a similar level of fitness?  You're making the argument that something is better than nothing.  Generally, I agree .


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Somehow, you're assuming the training just falls apart if the formal competition event (the thing you enter and go to a location for) isn't there. My training was all intended for SD. But much of it looks an awful lot like stuff you'd see in a BJJ dojo where they train for competition (though they do it better there because it's their focus). My tight-distance throws come from training pretty similar to things you'd see in Judo dojo where they train for competition.
> 
> There are only two differences: they (remember I'm referring to dojos training for competition) don't necessarily care whether something is a good idea outside the ruleset (and the reverse for me), and I don't actually step into BJJ or Judo competitions after training those skills.


I'm sure your training is top notch.  But you're still missing the point I just made.  It's about the direction that people learn and develop skill to the point they can begin applying them to different situations. 

You think this is about BJJ training, which is weird.  This isn't about NGA vs BJJ or anything like that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I'm sure your training is top notch.  But you're still missing the point I just made.  It's about the direction that people learn and develop skill to the point they can begin applying them to different situations.
> 
> You think this is about BJJ training, which is weird.  This isn't about NGA vs BJJ or anything like that.


No, I didn’t say I thought it was about BJJ training. I think (because of the thread and our past discussions) it’s about the difference between sport and SD training. I used two specific arts (BJJ and Judo - you ignored one) that have strong competition presence and happen to be part of my background to different degrees. 

If a skill can be developed for competition, it can also be developed for SD. We (pretty much all of us here) know how human bodies work. The only big questions are relevance (of individual techniques and overall approach) and response under fear.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> are you better off than the guy who does cross fit or gains a similar level of fitness?


can you define what you think SD training is like.  i feel we have a different understanding of what SD training entails.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> Think about it like this.  No one trains self defense . Everyone is training something else, and hoping that those skills will be there for them in a different context (self defense).
> 
> If you think about it this way, things begin to click into place .



I disagree. I've been training with self defense in the forefront of my mind for a very long time. I've been teaching with self defense in mind as well. All I can base whether it's been a waste of time or not is in the abilities of those I've taught. Which lets me sleep very well at night. [or lately, during sunny afternoons on days off] 

This is one of the conversations that's very difficult to have online. It's not just the lack of immediate give and take and tone of voice......I'm Italian, I talk with my hands. Oh, if you could see me now on my laptop. Just inadvertently slapped myself upside the head trying to use a conjunction.


----------



## Buka

Anarax said:


> Are you suggesting the father should have been responsible and shouldn't have taken his 4 year old daughter to a bar at night? How dare you suggest such a sensible approach to parenting. Next you'll tell us parents shouldn't take their kids to protests.



And going in was just the preamble. Getting into a verbal confrontation while holding a baby....man, just so wrong.

That poor kid going forward. I'm picturing her asking dad for advice.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No, I didn’t say I thought it was about BJJ training. I think (because of the thread and our past discussions) it’s about the difference between sport and SD training. I used two specific arts (BJJ and Judo - you ignored one) that have strong competition presence and happen to be part of my background to different degrees.
> 
> If a skill can be developed for competition, it can also be developed for SD. We (pretty much all of us here) know how human bodies work. The only big questions are relevance (of individual techniques and overall approach) and response under fear.



The second part doesn't reflect reality from a competition point of view. So for example. I know how human bodies work. And am doing the same basic concept as my coach. So relevance is about the same. My technique isn't identifiably wrong.

But I get consistently beaten.

So there is an element of knowing something he has that I don't.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I disagree. I've been training with self defense in the forefront of my mind for a very long time. I've been teaching with self defense in mind as well. All I can base whether it's been a waste of time or not is in the abilities of those I've taught. Which lets me sleep very well at night. [or lately, during sunny afternoons on days off]
> 
> This is one of the conversations that's very difficult to have online. It's not just the lack of immediate give and take and tone of voice......I'm Italian, I talk with my hands. Oh, if you could see me now on my laptop. Just inadvertently slapped myself upside the head trying to use a conjunction.



It is like astronauts training for space.

But they are not actually in space.


----------



## Buka

That's a pretty good point right there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The second part doesn't reflect reality from a competition point of view. So for example. I know how human bodies work. And am doing the same basic concept as my coach. So relevance is about the same. My technique isn't identifiably wrong.
> 
> But I get consistently beaten.
> 
> So there is an element of knowing something he has that I don't.


I don't think any of that is contrary to what I'm saying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is like astronauts training for space.
> 
> But they are not actually in space.


The analogy I use is pilots training for emergencies. They train specific skills for emergencies, as well as how to apply skills they use for regular flying. They even do some simulations, so they can practice the emergency maneuvers, with the understanding that the simulation is only as real as it can be. Then they fly a lot. When an emergency happens, they quite often (but not always) manage to pull off those emergency maneuvers. Sometimes their judgment is off, and sometimes they lose their cool and mess up. But a lot of the time, they manage just fine the first time they hit heavy wind sheer, an engine goes out, or one of the other situations they trained for. They even do well in some situations they never trained for, at all.

SD physical training is similar. We train specific skills for emergencies, as well as how to apply more basic skills then. We use some simulations to get closer to how those emergencies can occur. We apply the basic skills over and over (sparring, randori, rolling, maybe actual competition). IME (from talking to folks who managed to use their skills), if that basic skill application exists (rather than only drills, especially only cooperative drills), there's a pretty good chance of the skills working when needed. Sometimes they won't work. Sometimes they'll fail because the situation called for different skills. Probably less reliable than pilots' emergency skills (mostly because commercial pilots are a selected population), but still predictable.

The analogy isn't perfect, of course - none ever are. But I think it's appropriate and shows a similar path of development.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> I think youre better off than the couch potato who does nothing, but are you better off than the guy who does cross fit or gains a similar level of fitness?  You're making the argument that something is better than nothing.  Generally, I agree .



I think you bring up an important point, Steve. About the cross fit guy, who, for the sake of this discussion, we're considering him to be "in shape."

I'm sometimes amazed to speak with guys who've been training for a couple of years in the Arts, regular training, not once a week training...and they're in no kind of shape. Not fighting shape, fitness shape, health shape, whatever kind of shape you want to call it.

You know that old adage, it's not the destination, it's the journey? The same is true of the Arts. That cross fit guy you mentioned? Give me him as a student any old day, but NOT once he's in shape from cross fit. Give me him BEFORE he got in shape. At least we know he'll take on the journey. Martial training will get you in shape. Should, anyway. Filthy, nasty, come and get it, sucker...shape. Getting in shape is not easy. It's a very difficult task.

Going through the_ get in shape journey_, gives you part of the wherewithal needed to actually defend yourself. One of my long time training partners always said, "Competition is easy, it's fun. Classwork can kill you if you ain't careful. It can make you quit. Classwork sucks."
I'm sorry he feels that way. I truly am. Probably why he quit training. Only lasted forty one years, full time. [pussy] 

So....the crossfit guy may be more able to defend himself than others, likely even, but he ain't even in the same conversation as an in shape Martial fighter as far as defending one self. Never mind being in the same conversation, he ain't even even on the same planet.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> I think you bring up an important point, Steve. About the cross fit guy, who, for the sake of this discussion, we're considering him to be "in shape."
> 
> I'm sometimes amazed to speak with guys who've been training for a couple of years in the Arts, regular training, not once a week training...and they're in no kind of shape. Not fighting shape, fitness shape, health shape, whatever kind of shape you want to call it.
> 
> You know that old adage, it's not the destination, it's the journey? The same is true of the Arts. That cross fit guy you mentioned? Give me him as a student any old day, but NOT once he's in shape from cross fit. Give me him BEFORE he got in shape. At least we know he'll take on the journey. Martial training will get you in shape. Should, anyway. Filthy, nasty, come and get it, sucker...shape. Getting in shape is not easy. It's a very difficult task.
> 
> Going through the_ get in shape journey_, gives you part of the wherewithal needed to actually defend yourself. One of my long time training partners always said, "Competition is easy, it's fun. Classwork can kill you if you ain't careful. It can make you quit. Classwork sucks."
> I'm sorry he feels that way. I truly am. Probably why he quit training. Only lasted forty one years, full time. [pussy]
> 
> So....the crossfit guy may be more able to defend himself than others, likely even, but he ain't even in the same conversation as an in shape Martial fighter as far as defending one self. Never mind being in the same conversation, he ain't even even on the same planet.


That's one of the things I miss in my training lately, brother. My connective tissue injuries have kept me from being able to train with any real intensity for more than a few minutes without re-injuring something (I know, because I keep re-injuring something). I got a lot of good sweat, toughness, and moxie out of my training when I was training hard, hitting the mats hard, and going home tired to get up sore (and sometimes bruised) the next day. I miss that, and I'm getting less in shape because of it. And that makes me whiny. And nobody likes whiny.


----------



## Buka

gpseymour said:


> That's one of the things I miss in my training lately, brother. My connective tissue injuries have kept me from being able to train with any real intensity for more than a few minutes without re-injuring something (I know, because I keep re-injuring something). I got a lot of good sweat, toughness, and moxie out of my training when I was training hard, hitting the mats hard, and going home tired to get up sore (and sometimes bruised) the next day. I miss that, and I'm getting less in shape because of it. And that makes me whiny. And nobody likes whiny.



Ah, but you have to keep something in mind, the fact that you once did that leaves a complete history on your hard drive, the hard drive inside your body and mind. That ability to defend anything is still there. It's like going through boot camp, or even going through SEAL hell week, years later the intensity of the training might not be the same, but the ability to use all you learned by going through said training is very much there, and used by all who went through it for the rest of both their careers and their lives.

Review your internal hard drive now and again. You're still the same fighter, just more efficient now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> Ah, but you have to keep something in mind, the fact that you once did that leaves a complete history on your hard drive, the hard drive inside your body and mind. That ability to defend anything is still there. It's like going through boot camp, or even going through SEAL hell week, years later the intensity of the training might not be the same, but the ability to use all you learned by going through said training is very much there, and used by all who went through it for the rest of both their careers and their lives.
> 
> Review your internal hard drive now and again. You're still the same fighter, just more efficient now.


I agree - I'm just being whiny. I miss that intensity. I keep thinking I'm 3 weeks from being able to get back to some of that (not all of it - that was 18 years ago, which is 36 in knee years). I've been three weeks away from that since last April.


----------



## Buka

gpseymour said:


> I agree - I'm just being whiny. I miss that intensity. I keep thinking I'm 3 weeks from being able to get back to some of that (not all of it - that was 18 years ago, which is 36 in knee years). I've been three weeks away from that since last April.



Yeah, I indulge in fine whine myself. Today's a day off, but I'm going in at five because we're seriously short handed today. It's only for four hours.....but I'll be on the cover of Food & Whine magazine that whole damn time.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The analogy I use is pilots training for emergencies. They train specific skills for emergencies, as well as how to apply skills they use for regular flying. They even do some simulations, so they can practice the emergency maneuvers, with the understanding that the simulation is only as real as it can be. Then they fly a lot. When an emergency happens, they quite often (but not always) manage to pull off those emergency maneuvers. Sometimes their judgment is off, and sometimes they lose their cool and mess up. But a lot of the time, they manage just fine the first time they hit heavy wind sheer, an engine goes out, or one of the other situations they trained for. They even do well in some situations they never trained for, at all.
> 
> SD physical training is similar. We train specific skills for emergencies, as well as how to apply more basic skills then. We use some simulations to get closer to how those emergencies can occur. We apply the basic skills over and over (sparring, randori, rolling, maybe actual competition). IME (from talking to folks who managed to use their skills), if that basic skill application exists (rather than only drills, especially only cooperative drills), there's a pretty good chance of the skills working when needed. Sometimes they won't work. Sometimes they'll fail because the situation called for different skills. Probably less reliable than pilots' emergency skills (mostly because commercial pilots are a selected population), but still predictable.
> 
> The analogy isn't perfect, of course - none ever are. But I think it's appropriate and shows a similar path of development.



The airplane guy is training emergency simulations. Not training emergencies.

I train skills that can be applied to self defence. I dont train self defence. 

Here is another analogy.

One person owns a knife. the other owns a tactical knife. Which one is better?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> If a skill can be developed for competition, it can also be developed for SD. .


This is not a given.  There's a false equivalency here.  You believe competition and self defense to be the same.  They are not.  This is why we continue to see these dumb threads pop up over and over.   Self defense is not an activity that people engage in.  It's closer to a concept, and you can't train for a concept without hitching it to some skills.

You like the pilot analogy.  Pilots learn to fly planes.  That's the foundation for their emergency preparedness.  The better they are at flying planes, the more effective their emergency training will be.  You can't expect a person with no experience as a pilot to train only how to crash land a plane to be successful.  It's like the old joke, "I learned to fly planes.  I never learned to land them." 

@Buka, whether the crossfit guy is a better fighter or not isn't the question.  Is the crossfit guy less likely to survive a self defense situation than a guy who trains only "self defense?"  My believe he's likely to handle the situation as well or better, because the self defense guys think they know things they don't.

And I really think it's worth noting that "martial fighter" is a subjective term you just kind of made up.


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> The airplane guy is training emergency simulations. Not training emergencies.
> 
> I train skills that can be applied to self defence. I dont train self defence.
> 
> Here is another analogy.
> 
> One person owns a knife. the other owns a tactical knife. Which one is better?



Uh....better for what? This is just a question of semantics. I train self defense. Which I'm pretty sure is what you call training skills that can be applied to self defense. Everything I've ever did in the Arts, be it good or bad, was for self defense. At least to me. And we probably train the same, you and I. More so than different, anyway.


----------



## hoshin1600

as i think about this topic for an analogy, i thought about puzzles.  a regular karate class would be a 2D flat puzzle.  MMA is more complex, more moving parts so i would liken that to a Rubix Cube.  but real self defense is a like a ShengShou megaminx.





each one would be more complex, but will still rely on the fundamentals learned from the previous one. however the overall strategies applied to one will not work for all.
the same for self defense.  a karate class will teach you certain fundamentals that apply to self defense,  MMA is more complex, the fundamentals remain constant but the strategies for MMA will not work so well for self defense.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> The airplane guy is training emergency simulations. Not training emergencies.
> 
> I train skills that can be applied to self defence. I dont train self defence.
> 
> Here is another analogy.
> 
> One person owns a knife. the other owns a tactical knife. Which one is better?


I'm glad someone gets it.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> My believe he's likely to handle the situation as well or better, because the self defense guys think they know things they don't.


ok what do i think i know,, that i dont really know?
and how come you think that self defense guys are not fit or even train at cross fit (if thats the gym of your choice)?  i put just as much importance on fitness.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> as i think about this topic for an analogy, i thought about puzzles.  a regular karate class would be a 2D flat puzzle.  MMA is more complex, more moving parts so i would liken that to a Rubix Cube.  but real self defense is a like a ShengShou megaminx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> each one would be more complex, but will still rely on the fundamentals learned from the previous one. however the overall strategies applied to one will not work for all.
> the same for self defense.  a karate class will teach you certain fundamentals that apply to self defense,  MMA is more complex, the fundamentals remain constant but the strategies for MMA will not work so well for self defense.


I think you're onto something.  The key is that everything informs this concept of self defense.  You learn MMA in a MMA gym.  You learn NGA aikido in Gerry's class.  Will the techniques help in a self defense situation?  Maybe... depends on the skills and how they are applied.  Will the techniques help YOU in a self defense situation?  Well, that depends on how YOU train and whether YOU apply the skills. 

And, like the ex-bouncer, combat veteran, cop, MMAist with a heart of gold I mentioned earlier, the more diverse your experience, the better prepared you will be.  

But you can't apply skills you don't have to self defense if you can't apply them in the context for which they are intended.  It's like replacing the puzzle you have above with a bouncy ball, drawing the pieces on it in marker, and saying that because it's the same shape and size of the puzzle, and bears a superficial resemblance, it's the same.


----------



## hoshin1600

@Steve 
are you also under the belief that the training our military goes through does not help them prepare effectively for combat?


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> ok what do i think i know,, that i dont really know?
> and how come you think that self defense guys are not fit or even train at cross fit (if thats the gym of your choice)?  i put just as much importance on fitness.


I don't.  I'm saying that fitness is an element of self defense that is not unique to a self defense school.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> @Steve
> are you also under the belief that the training our military goes through does not help them prepare effectively for combat?


They train for a purpose, but they don't confuse the training with the application.  Training for combat isn't combat.  You don't graduate from jump school as an expert, and training is the first step.  If our airborne infantry were to train the way some train self defense, they would 1: never graduate from Jump School, and 2: never actually jump out of a plane at all.  They would just simulate jumping over and over and over and over.  And might this prepare them to jump in a combat situation?  Maybe, although I would not count on it.  Would they ever be considered experts?  Well, in training for a jump, maybe.  Not in actually jumping out of planes.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> Maybe... depends on the skills and how they are applied. Will the techniques help YOU in a self defense situation? Well, that depends on how YOU train and whether YOU apply the skills.


agree.... they apply depending on how you train.  so  the question becomes ,,,is the way you train effective at transferring skills from training to actual self defense?  this is why i believe self defense orientated training is better than MMA.  MMA is aimed at sport and SD is aimed at being a functional link between training and real life.



Steve said:


> And, like the ex-bouncer, combat veteran, cop, MMAist with a heart of gold I mentioned earlier, the more diverse your experience, the better prepared you will be.


i do not think it is a matter of diversity as much as specific experiences that allow the transfer of skills.  the problem with most MA training is that the abilty to transfer skills to SD is hap hazzard and not thought out or proven.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> They train for a purpose, but they don't confuse the training with the application.


i call this mistaking the map for the terrain.   i dont do that.



Steve said:


> They would just simulate jumping over and over and over and over. And might this prepare them to jump in a combat situation? Maybe, although I would not count on it.


ok so SD prepares you for armed encounters.  i will assume you dont advocate getting into gun fights ,  so what is the solution you are advocating?


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> @Buka, whether the crossfit guy is a better fighter or not isn't the question.  Is the crossfit guy less likely to survive a self defense situation than a guy who trains only "self defense?"  My believe he's likely to handle the situation as well or better, because the self defense guys think they know things they don't.
> 
> And I really think it's worth noting that "martial fighter" is a subjective term you just kind of made up.



Perhaps the self defense guys that you train, or train with, think they know things they don't, it's not the case for the ones I've trained.

And, yes, I will take a bow [one with a flourish I might add, oh, to have a feathered hat like D'Artagnan] for coining the term "Martial Fighter." Although it's kind of been handed down to me by other fools.

And, Steve, it's not "Buka-Do" it's 'Buka-Fu".  Far more alliterative, no?


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> They would just simulate jumping over and over and over and over. And might this prepare them to jump in a combat situation? Maybe, although I would not count on it.


we know for a fact that training repetitions of drawing your firearm in a smooth manner and hitting the target works. the next step is to simulate shoot no shoot scenarios and the next step is live "kill  house" rooms to simulate live interactions.  these processes work. they ingrain good habits and good decision making.
the idea is to break down all of the parts of a SD encounter and train them as realistically as possible.  by separating the parts it allows you to focus on that one aspect. granted you cannot simulate life and death but sometimes "SIM" rounds work wonders.  mistakes are made under duress of scenario training. these are the same mistakes that the individual would make in real life, the consequences are less lethal but the mistakes are the same.  there are many issues with training for SD but a good program will address these.  a standard MMA program only addresses a few factors and a good SD program would address the same factors often in the same manner as MMA.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The airplane guy is training emergency simulations. Not training emergencies.
> 
> I train skills that can be applied to self defence. I dont train self defence.


I don't train self-defense, either. I train _for_ self-defense. It's not a huge difference between what you do (in concept) and what I do. Your training can be applied to self defense (probably not all of it - most competition rulesets will encourage at least a few things that aren't a good idea for SD, perhaps MMA least of those I know of). Even if I were training using the same basic methods and the same basic techniques, my training would still differ, but only in focus. Because you train at a gym that trains for competition (and I think specifically only for that, but I may be mistaken), and mine is focused toward SD (and not MMA competition), mine will include a look at some situations and solutions that aren't likely to be part of yours.

But I think that's a small difference, if we were using the same base arts/techniques. The bigger difference between your training and mine is not because your gym trains for MMA and my program teaches for SD. It's because of the different technique sets, and a few different drills we use, rather than the intent of the training (though the intent of training partners can contribute to the difference). A few tweaks could make yours SD focused (I suspect you do some of those tweaks, yourself). Excepting those techniques that wouldn't serve in competition, mine could be changed to focus toward competition. Surely there are places that actually do both - train with a SD orientation, using competition (and its preparation) as a tool toward that end.



> Here is another analogy.
> 
> One person owns a knife. the other owns a tactical knife. Which one is better?


I don't think it matters. If one is training for paper target throwing, and the other is training for throwing at rodents, there's probably a lot of overlap, but some difference in approach and application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You believe competition and self defense to be the same.


No, I don't. I believe there are skills that apply to both.



> You like the pilot analogy. Pilots learn to fly planes. That's the foundation for their emergency preparedness. The better they are at flying planes, the more effective their emergency training will be. You can't expect a person with no experience as a pilot to train only how to crash land a plane to be successful. It's like the old joke, "I learned to fly planes. I never learned to land them."


Once again, you somehow believe that someone applying their techniques against a resisting opponent/partner is not applying the technique. That baffles me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> as i think about this topic for an analogy, i thought about puzzles.  a regular karate class would be a 2D flat puzzle.  MMA is more complex, more moving parts so i would liken that to a Rubix Cube.  but real self defense is a like a ShengShou megaminx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> each one would be more complex, but will still rely on the fundamentals learned from the previous one. however the overall strategies applied to one will not work for all.
> the same for self defense.  a karate class will teach you certain fundamentals that apply to self defense,  MMA is more complex, the fundamentals remain constant but the strategies for MMA will not work so well for self defense.


I would argue that MMA competition is more complex in some ways, less complex in others. There are fewer environmental variables, but the average complexity of the person you face is higher.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

EDIT: Replied to the wrong person.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> we know for a fact that training repetitions of drawing your firearm in a smooth manner and hitting the target works. the next step is to simulate shoot no shoot scenarios and the next step is live "kill  house" rooms to simulate live interactions.  these processes work. they ingrain good habits and good decision making.
> the idea is to break down all of the parts of a SD encounter and train them as realistically as possible.  by separating the parts it allows you to focus on that one aspect. granted you cannot simulate life and death but sometimes "SIM" rounds work wonders.  mistakes are made under duress of scenario training. these are the same mistakes that the individual would make in real life, the consequences are less lethal but the mistakes are the same.  there are many issues with training for SD but a good program will address these.  a standard MMA program only addresses a few factors and a good SD program would address the same factors often in the same manner as MMA.


i don’t think anything is a given.   We know that training as you describe above led to a 18% accuracy rate for cops in New York City.   I posted evidence of this in another thread.   You know that training as you describe above leads to performance in training.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Once again, you somehow believe that someone applying their techniques against a resisting opponent/partner is not applying the technique. That baffles me.


That’s true.  I distinguish between training and application.   And I understand that this baffles you, although, as a professional trainer, I’m concerned that you do not understand the distinction.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I don't train self-defense, either. I train _for_ self-defense.


This gives me hope.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> That’s true.  I distinguish between training and application.   And I understand that this baffles you, although, as a professional trainer, I’m concerned that you do not understand the distinction.


So, what's the difference between a hip throw in a dojo and in a competition?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> This gives me hope.


Is this linguistic distinction what has us stuck, my friend?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> So, what's the difference between a hip throw in a dojo and in a competition?


In one you’re training and in the other you’re not.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> i don’t think anything is a given.   We know that training as you describe above led to a 18% accuracy rate for cops in New York City.   I posted evidence of this in another thread.   You know that training as you describe above leads to performance in training.


I'm not understanding what your saying.   What led to 18% accuracy?   Silouet training?  Or shoot no shoot ranges?  And was that 18% or %improvement?


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> I'm not understanding what your saying.   What led to 18% accuracy?   Silouet training?  Or shoot no shoot ranges?  And was that 18% or %improvement?


All of the training resulted in an 18% accuracy rate when the NYPD fired their weapons Outside of training. I’m watching Jessica jones now, or I’d go find the link to the report.  I posted it in another thread a week or so ago.


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> All of the training resulted in an 18% accuracy rate when the NYPD fired their weapons Outside of training. I’m watching Jessica jones now, or I’d go find the link to the report.  I posted it in another thread a week or so ago.



That was from 1998-2006.....over 10 years ago.

Back then police were only required to shoot one post course per year to re-qualify.  Now Police are required to train (drills, scenarios, situations, etc...) with firearms throughout the year as opposed to just shooting a re-qual course....the accuracy rate should be much improved.


Continued firearms training throughout an officers career used to be very pitiful back then


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> Uh....better for what? This is just a question of semantics. I train self defense. Which I'm pretty sure is what you call training skills that can be applied to self defense. Everything I've ever did in the Arts, be it good or bad, was for self defense. At least to me. And we probably train the same, you and I. More so than different, anyway.



It is the wrong way to address the qualities of the knife.

In the same way self defence is the wrong way to address the qualities of training.


----------



## Steve

CB Jones said:


> That was from 1998-2006.....over 10 years ago.
> 
> Back then police were only required to shoot one post course per year to re-qualify.  Now Police are required to train (drills, scenarios, situations, etc...) with firearms throughout the year as opposed to just shooting a re-qual course....the accuracy rate should be much improved.
> 
> 
> Continued firearms training throughout an officers career used to be very pitiful back then


Maybe.   When I read the report, the training sounded very much like what is described around here currently.  I take cops at their word that they are well trained.

And there are other, more recent, studies that conclude that expert marksman have a similar rate of accuracy as novice and intermediate shooters (cop study, not civilians).  Note, this appears to be at a range, which is not exactly the same, but still relevant.

http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> It is the wrong way to address the qualities of the knife.
> 
> In the same way self defence is the wrong way to address the qualities of training.



I'm not sure what you mean. Are we discussing what knives are better for what?


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> Maybe.   When I read the report, the training sounded very much like what is described around here currently.  I take cops at their word that they are well trained.
> 
> And there are other, more recent, studies that conclude that expert marksman have a similar rate of accuracy as novice and intermediate shooters (cop study, not civilians).  Note, this appears to be at a range, which is not exactly the same, but still relevant.
> 
> http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf



I think the 1st report was accurate and it showed the problem that in the past police where trained to shoot targets but put into a gunfight their ability was lacking.

This report is a little misleading in that it solely looks at shooting at strictly a static target whereas now (at least in my area) training has focused more on actual gunfighting (drawing, firing while moving, using cover and/or concealment, close quarter gun battles, force on force training, dynamic targets, etc...)

I grew up with guns (hunting, target, and trap shooting) prior to going into law enforcement, I could probably out shoot many new officers straight out of training when it came to shooting targets.  I had 10+ years of firearm experience as opposed to many officers that the academy was the first time they ever handled a gun.  What I did not have is experience in tactics and gunfighting.

I hope that put into a dynamic force on force gunfight that officers would have a much higher accuracy rate and rate of fire than the average citizen.


In the end, its how you train.  We do a lot of force on force training with simunitions so you get that resistance training and experience gunfighting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> In one you’re training and in the other you’re not.


So, your entire distinction is the location.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is the wrong way to address the qualities of the knife.
> 
> In the same way self defence is the wrong way to address the qualities of training.


I'm confused, DB. "Better for what" is the wrong way to address the qualities of the knife?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Maybe.   When I read the report, the training sounded very much like what is described around here currently.  I take cops at their word that they are well trained.
> 
> And there are other, more recent, studies that conclude that expert marksman have a similar rate of accuracy as novice and intermediate shooters (cop study, not civilians).  Note, this appears to be at a range, which is not exactly the same, but still relevant.
> 
> http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf


I'm not sure their distinction between "expert" and "intermediate" is valid. They appear to have decided someone completing a specific course is "expert", while someone who has "recreational experience" is not. It's quite possible those with "recreational experience" have a greater familiarity with weapons in general, and may have fired many more rounds than those in the course. I would qualify as one of the "recreational experience" people. At one time, it was not uncommon for me to fire 200-500 rounds a weekend. That false distinction is going to skew their results. The results inside 15' are not entirely unexpected. Excluding a few outliers, most people I've seen shoot for the first time can hit a target at that distance after the first few shots. The introduction of rapidity (which isn't factored in with the accuracy - not sure how it would be) might (or might not) account for the rest of the lack of difference in accuracy. Better shooters will often fire faster under those sorts of instructions, giving up some accuracy because they can afford to.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> Maybe.   When I read the report, the training sounded very much like what is described around here currently.  I take cops at their word that they are well trained.
> 
> And there are other, more recent, studies that conclude that expert marksman have a similar rate of accuracy as novice and intermediate shooters (cop study, not civilians).  Note, this appears to be at a range, which is not exactly the same, but still relevant.
> 
> http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf



now im not sure what your position is.  this paper proves and states everything i was saying.  did you actually read all of it?   are we actually in disagreement somehow?

this study paper says:
_"The primary purpose of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of academy firearms training,"  _but the actual study was to compare experienced vs novice shooters on silhouette targets in a shooting range.
i should add that while the paper was released in 2015 much of the reference data was from much earlier.  if the purpose of the study was to look at the effectiveness of academy training i would expect the study to actually look at and describe what that training entails and compare it to other options of training available.

however all of this does nothing to support what i think was your position and supports what i was saying.  that there has to be an escalation of training complexity. that some training is better than no training. that some types of training are BETTER  than other types of training and that the major question that needs to be addressed is what types of training function best at transferring applicable skills from the training floor to actual application.
there is also a level of complexity in SD training that we often call soft skills or self protection skills that are not addressed AT ALL in other venues of study. as example MMA does not teach emergency medical care.  sure maybe an MMA guy will take the knife or gun away and "beat up" the bad guy but how does he  deal with the life threatening wounds he received in the fight?

it just seems to me that different approaches have some overlap in the beginning but diverge more and more over time.  2 degrees of separation in the beginning is not much but over time that turns into a big gap in destination.


----------



## Anarax

Steve said:


> This is why we continue to see these dumb threads pop up over and over.



What exactly is so "dumb" about this thread? It's generating a discussion about an interesting topic. People from different backgrounds are sharing their knowledge and experience.


----------



## Anarax

Buka said:


> I think I was thinking something other than what you were actually saying. [wait, what?]
> 
> I was thinking "self defense' training as being actual Martial Arts training, you know, training every day, sparring all the time - fighting resisting partners, many of who are better than you.
> 
> A "self defense course"....not really too good unless it's a four day a week course for ten years. And you fight, a lot. I don't think many folks can defend themselves if they don't know how to fight.



Agreed, one reason why I don't believe in these one day "disarming" or "Real Self-Defense" courses that cost at least $50 a class. A lot of people who attend these courses are untrained and think they're gaining something that they'll use is a real life situation. I don't understand this considering how the untrained have no place to practice the limited techniques that they learn at these courses. Knowing the steps of a technique and having it ingrained in your muscles and pulling it off in a live situation are completely different. Learning to deal with the adrenaline and maintaining your motor skills to pull off a technique in real life is a major component of self-defense. I'm skeptical of how well a one day course can cover something so advance. 

Martial Arts seminars are different considering a lot of people who attend are trained and have an environment to practice the techniques. Seminars are also not usually the foundation of a martial artists training, but more so an addition to it.


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> What exactly is so "dumb" about this thread? It's generating a discussion about an interesting topic. People from different backgrounds are sharing their knowledge and experience.





Anarax said:


> Agreed, one reason why I don't believe in these one day "disarming" or "Real Self-Defense" courses that cost at least $50 a class. A lot of people who attend these courses are untrained and think they're gaining something that they'll use is a real life situation. I don't understand this considering how the untrained have no place to practice the limited techniques that they learn at these courses. Knowing the steps of a technique and having it ingrained in your muscles and pulling it off in a live situation are completely different. Learning to deal with the adrenaline and maintaining your motor skills to pull off a technique in real life is a major component of self-defense. I'm skeptical of how well a one day course can cover something so advance.
> 
> Martial Arts seminars are different considering a lot of people who attend are trained and have an environment to practice the techniques. Seminars are also not usually the foundation of a martial artists training, but more so an addition to it.




why are they stupid?  i think you answered your own question in a round about way.
questions for you...
how many SD classes have you taken?  do you know what is actually taught in these classes?  what should the value of a SD be and how should it be priced?  why do you think there is nothing to be gained from them if you dont actually know what is covered in the cirriculum?  you openly admit you dont understand it ,,but then that doesnt stop you from having an opinion on something you dont understand.
see ...thats why the conversation is stupid.  i dont mean to pick on you personally its just common that people have opinions on something they have no knowledge of and lump small sections of valid concerns into a big pot and call it all worthless and then retort with ...DO MMA.


----------



## Anarax

hoshin1600 said:


> why are they stupid? i think you answered your own question in a round about way.


No, calling a thread "dumb" or "stupid" is what I object to. I've been seeing this more and more on MT and it's getting out of hand. This condescending attitude and name calling takes away from the meaningful discussion going on.



hoshin1600 said:


> how many SD classes have you taken? do you know what is actually taught in these classes?


Yes, I do. An SD instructor rents mat space at the Dojo I go to and I've seen many of his courses. I've watched other SD classes online out of curiosity, and friends who have asked my opinion on techniques they were taught in SD courses. 


hoshin1600 said:


> what should the value of a SD be and how should it be priced?


Comparable to an MA class. The upper end of monthly tuition for an MA class is usually 90-115 a month. On average a MA class will offer between 3-7 hours of instruction a week and maybe access to the gym equipment and open gym.


hoshin1600 said:


> why do you think there is nothing to be gained from them if you dont actually know what is covered in the cirriculum?


Refer to my answer above


hoshin1600 said:


> you openly admit you dont understand it ,,but then that doesnt stop you from having an opinion on something you dont understand.


No, I said





Anarax said:


> A lot of people who attend these courses are untrained and think they're gaining something that they'll use is a real life situation. I don't understand this considering how the untrained have no place to practice the limited techniques that they learn at these courses.


The context of what I said didn't simply mean I don't understand, but I disagree with them thinking they're going to use those techniques in live situations without training them beyond a few hours.


hoshin1600 said:


> see ...thats why the conversation is stupid. i dont mean to pick on you personally its just common that people have opinions on something they have no knowledge of and lump small sections of valid concerns into a big pot and call it all worthless and then retort with ...DO MMA.


The conversation isn't stupid. Your assumption that I knew nothing of SD course was premature and inaccurate though.


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> Your assumption that I knew nothing of SD course was premature and inaccurate though.


actually i didnt assume,,i only asked the questions.


Anarax said:


> calling a thread "dumb" or "stupid" is what I object to.


i agree with the sentiment, however it does get old when people discount others and offer "DO MMA" as an answer for everything.



Anarax said:


> (price should be) Comparable to an MA class.


  yes in some instances.  if it is local and ongoing i would agree. however if its someone like Rory MIller who traveled across the country to be there he deserves more for his travel and hotel costs plus the fact that your taking up 100 % of his time where the local guy probably went to his regular job earlier in the day.



Anarax said:


> Yes, I do. An SD instructor rents mat space at the Dojo I go to and I've seen many of his courses.


then you will have to admit there are good programs and bad ones just like there are good MA and mcdojo's.  which one is at your club?
my contention with your comment is that you lump all programs together and determine them to all be crap.  i will openly admit, a good amount ARE  crap but you cant put everyone in the same bucket.  it is better to dissect them into attributes and discuss each fraction on its own merits. making points as to what is good and what is bad.

if you had said your local SD class teaches an 8 hr course and the curriculum is 90% martial art skills taught poorly and your of the opinion that these skills are only retained for a short time, thus making the class ineffective .....you would have my full agreement.  but that is not really what you said.


----------



## Anarax

hoshin1600 said:


> i agree with the sentiment, however it does get old when people discount others and offer "DO MMA" as an answer for everything.


I've never said "DO MMA", but I understand your frustration with such a comment.



hoshin1600 said:


> yes in some instances. if it is local and ongoing i would agree. however if its someone like Rory MIller who traveled across the country to be there he deserves more for his travel and hotel costs plus the fact that your taking up 100 % of his time where the local guy probably went to his regular job earlier in the day.


I can see your point, a world renowned instructor who traveled far to teach probably should charge more. Who is actually paying for him and other financial factors should play into it as well.



hoshin1600 said:


> then you will have to admit there are good programs and bad ones just like there are good MA and mcdojo's.


It's not the quality(yes there's a gradient of good/bad techniques with SD courses) of techniques taught that I am skeptical of. It's not having ongoing training nor having an outlet(dojo) to practice the SD techniques. A course that's a few hours long isn't enough to develop muscle memory nor condition people to deal with the psychological stress of altercations.



hoshin1600 said:


> my contention with your comment is that you lump all programs together and determine them to all be crap.


Not what I said at all. It's the lack of ongoing training, sharpening and refining of techniques that I don't agree with.


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> Not what I said at all. It's the lack of ongoing training, sharpening and refining of techniques that I don't agree with.


but what you did say was....



Anarax said:


> one reason why I don't believe in these one day "disarming" or "Real Self-Defense" courses that cost at least $50 a class. A lot of people who attend these courses are untrained and think they're gaining something that they'll use is a real life situation



from this comment the presumed meaning is that short term training is crap.

now lets take a different view.
your basing your opinion on a presupposition that it is the martial art skills that are important. then deducing that since there is not enough time to gain "muscle memory" of these skills that the class is useless.
deep within this thought is an underlying assumption that either i am unaware of this fact or that i dont care and am just taking peoples money. (thus the $50 remark)

i would argue that  i am not ignorant and the martial arts skills (in short term training) is NOT  what is important and not the goal of the class.

there is always a fine line between what a student needs vs what they want.  my priority in short term training is to have the student  evaluate their susceptibility to being a victim.  what are their daily life choices like that either increase or decrease the probability of being a victim. i want them to be aware of the percentages based on their life choices and learn how to make corrections.  next important is , i want them to have the confidence to follow their gut feeling and respond in an appropriate manner, to get a sense for when things are not right.  situational awareness and pre attack indicators.    there is a lot more but this will give the idea.  but....all that stuff is not fun.  people want to enjoy the class and be active.  so to fill that "want"  i teach the martial art skills.  i teach it in a way that coincides with natural reactions so that it will have a better chance to actually work because a hammer fist is instinctual and really doesnt need to be trained but it helps the student understand and have confidence in how much power they can actually generate.  i know full well that the time restrictions will not allow them to be proficient in martial arts, and to a lessor degree this is the point i want them to innately understand for themselves.  this might lead them to further training.  but the martial arts is more for fun and what is expected by them and i teach it so that i can use it as a vehicle to give them what they need.


----------



## hoshin1600

i would also add that if a SD class is focused on 4 or 5 different ways to break a wrist grab, then strike back with a palm heel to the chin then knee to the groin.  and...WHAT TO DO IF.... 
then that class is a mcdojo SD class and the instructor is lacking in an actual SD curriculum and is just teaching martial arts as a default substitute for actual SD and self protection knowledge.


----------



## Anarax

hoshin1600 said:


> but what you did say was....
> 
> 
> 
> from this comment the presumed meaning is that short term training is crap.
> 
> now lets take a different view.
> your basing your opinion on a presupposition that it is the martial art skills that are important. then deducing that since there is not enough time to gain "muscle memory" of these skills that the class is useless.
> deep within this thought is an underlying assumption that either i am unaware of this fact or that i dont care and am just taking peoples money. (thus the $50 remark)
> 
> i would argue that  i am not ignorant and the martial arts skills (in short term training) is NOT  what is important and not the goal of the class.
> 
> there is always a fine line between what a student needs vs what they want.  my priority in short term training is to have the student  evaluate their susceptibility to being a victim.  what are their daily life choices like that either increase or decrease the probability of being a victim. i want them to be aware of the percentages based on their life choices and learn how to make corrections.  next important is , i want them to have the confidence to follow their gut feeling and respond in an appropriate manner, to get a sense for when things are not right.  situational awareness and pre attack indicators.    there is a lot more but this will give the idea.  but....all that stuff is not fun.  people want to enjoy the class and be active.  so to fill that "want"  i teach the martial art skills.  i teach it in a way that coincides with natural reactions so that it will have a better chance to actually work because a hammer fist is instinctual and really doesnt need to be trained but it helps the student understand and have confidence in how much power they can actually generate.  i know full well that the time restrictions will not allow them to be proficient in martial arts, and to a lessor degree this is the point i want them to innately understand for themselves.  this might lead them to further training.  but the martial arts is more for fun and what is expected by them and i teach it so that i can use it as a vehicle to give them what they need.



What I'm saying is a student attending a SD course that is a few hours long will not develop the muscle memory nor psychological conditioning of applying MA techniques in a live scenario. Having them perform a choke defense against a training partner in the course? Okay. Have them apply a choke defense against someone on the street that is stronger and 100% committed on killing you? Probably not. A huge premise of MA training is committing years of your life to conditioning your mind and body to naturally use techniques you have practiced countless times. Me _knowing_ how to do a choke defense is easy. Me _doing _a choke defense in a live scenario is a different story. 

Teaching people to not walk down dark alleys, keep your valuables out of sight and other important precautions are great. What I object to is giving people false confidence with Martial Arts techniques, convincing them that they'll be able to use a MA technique they practiced a few times in a live scenario. Judging by your post that's not what you do, but there are SD instructors that do.



hoshin1600 said:


> i would also add that if a SD class is focused on 4 or 5 different ways to break a wrist grab, then strike back with a palm heel to the chin then knee to the groin. and...WHAT TO DO IF....
> then that class is a mcdojo SD class and the instructor is lacking in an actual SD curriculum and is just teaching martial arts as a default substitute for actual SD and self protection knowledge.


Though this isn't exactly what I'm referring to, it's close.


----------



## Steve

CB Jones said:


> I think the 1st report was accurate and it showed the problem that in the past police where trained to shoot targets but put into a gunfight their ability was lacking.
> 
> This report is a little misleading in that it solely looks at shooting at strictly a static target whereas now (at least in my area) training has focused more on actual gunfighting (drawing, firing while moving, using cover and/or concealment, close quarter gun battles, force on force training, dynamic targets, etc...)
> 
> I grew up with guns (hunting, target, and trap shooting) prior to going into law enforcement, I could probably out shoot many new officers straight out of training when it came to shooting targets.  I had 10+ years of firearm experience as opposed to many officers that the academy was the first time they ever handled a gun.  What I did not have is experience in tactics and gunfighting.
> 
> I hope that put into a dynamic force on force gunfight that officers would have a much higher accuracy rate and rate of fire than the average citizen.
> 
> 
> In the end, its how you train.  We do a lot of force on force training with simunitions so you get that resistance training and experience gunfighting.


so can you point me to the current accuracy rate?  I'm interested in seeing how cops are doing now .


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> So, your entire distinction is the location.


Errr... No .


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> What I'm saying is a student attending a SD course that is a few hours long will not develop the muscle memory nor psychological conditioning of applying MA techniques in a live scenario. Having them perform a choke defense against a training partner in the course? Okay. Have them apply a choke defense against someone on the street that is stronger and 100% committed on killing you? Probably not


i agree but what your missing is that , that kind of stuff is just filler thrown in to the class for fun. something to peek their interest to maybe continue training.  without the MA stuff the class would be very dry and not exciting enough to get people off the couch.
but again like i said if that is the actual total of the class then its a poorly taught class.

so its a matter of intent on why someone is teaching that stuff.


----------



## Anarax

hoshin1600 said:


> so its a matter of intent on why someone is teaching that stuff.


That's part of it, but when dealing with the untrained it's the responsibility of the teacher to give context to the class. It's important they know that MA training is a lifelong endeavor and they'll need a lot of additional training if they want to use the course techniques in live situations. Just putting "filler"in but them not having context for the techniques and training is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> so can you point me to the current accuracy rate?  I'm interested in seeing how cops are doing now .



No

Just pointing out that the 1st report showed a problem and since then there has been a shift in training.

What we need is the same study from 1998-2006 re-done to see if current training has improved it and I don't know if it is being done or not.  It would be interesting to see the results.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> why are they stupid?  i think you answered your own question in a round about way.
> questions for you...
> how many SD classes have you taken?  do you know what is actually taught in these classes?  what should the value of a SD be and how should it be priced?  why do you think there is nothing to be gained from them if you dont actually know what is covered in the cirriculum?  you openly admit you dont understand it ,,but then that doesnt stop you from having an opinion on something you dont understand.
> see ...thats why the conversation is stupid.  i dont mean to pick on you personally its just common that people have opinions on something they have no knowledge of and lump small sections of valid concerns into a big pot and call it all worthless and then retort with ...DO MMA.



Exept when people teaching self defence courses dont have knowledge of self defence. Then they teach other people have no knowledge of self defence. Then basically nobody does any self defence to find out if the course has taught them anything.

I mean at least if you do MMA you Do MMA. By people who understand MMA and Do MMA themselves.

This is one of the huge disconects between training and aplicaction.

So self defence courses are stupid if you don't know at the end of the training if you have gained any skills..

Hey I am all for do self defense from instructors who do self defence. But who really does self defence?


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> Exept when people teaching self defence courses dont have knowledge of self defence. Then theach other people have no knowledge of self defence. Then basically nobody does any self defence to find out if the course has taught them anything.


we could also turn this around and say :   Except when people teaching MMA course dont have any knowledge of self defense. then teach other people who are under the assumption that it is effective as self defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Errr... No .


What else is it, then? I gave you a single technique applied in two locations. You said one is training and one is not. What is different other than the location?


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> we could also turn this around and say :   Except when people teaching MMA course dont have any knowledge of self defense. then teach other people who are under the assumption that it is effective as self defense.



What knowledge of self defence?

This I think is the issue. Everyone has pretty much the same grounding in self defence as everyone else.

A ballet dancer who defends herself has the same authenticity as a black belt who defends herself.

Because nobody actually does self defence. 

Where do you think this knowledge is coming from that separates a knowledgeable self defence instructor from a MMA fighter or even a ballerina?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, what's the difference between a hip throw in a dojo and in a competition?



The same difference between walking across a plank a foot off the ground.

And walking across one a hundred feet off the ground.

Which is still location. But it is really not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The same difference between walking across a plank a foot off the ground.
> 
> And walking across one a hundred feet off the ground.
> 
> Which is still location. But it is really not.


okay, so that assumes a high stress level for the competition that isn’t in the dojo. That not entirely unfounded. While not everyone finds competition stressful, and some folks find observation stressful, regardless of the venue, there is a higher stress level for most folks. I just don’t see where is application and the other isn’t, which appears to be Steve’s assertion.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> okay, so that assumes a high stress level for the competition that isn’t in the dojo. That not entirely unfounded. While not everyone finds competition stressful, and some folks find observation stressful, regardless of the venue, there is a higher stress level for most folks. I just don’t see where is application and the other isn’t, which appears to be Steve’s assertion.



Not really aplication. But it is a very complicated idea.

I like the scientific method idea a bit better.






And put sparrting as hypothosis and competition as experiment.


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> Not really aplication. But it is a very complicated idea.
> 
> I like the scientific method idea a bit better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And put sparrting as hypothosis and competition as experiment.


I like the scientific method myself.
I would say however that there are certain inherent flaws and limitations on competitive sparring if you are applying that as the "experiment" for self defense.  In SD training we use scenario training rather than competitive sparring. The two have completely different formats and what constitutes a "win".  In competitive sparring each participant MUST remain engaged with the other for the duration of the "experiment".  Reality and SD does not hold this as a rule. Both parties can withdraw at anytime. AND withdrawal is the primary goal for the non assailant participant.  I would set the "experiment" up so the the combatants fight in a similar way to competition but the non assailant participant has the primary goal to reach a "safety point" like a doorway. Or place a gun on the ground 20 ft away and the two must fight to get the gun and subdue the other with it.
The complexity level of SD training is higher than just sparring.  It's a matter of taking sparring and applying it to format where a "win" has more dimensions to it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not really aplication. But it is a very complicated idea.
> 
> I like the scientific method idea a bit better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And put sparrting as hypothosis and competition as experiment.


What has that to do with the difference between a hip throw in resistive sparring in a dojo versus resistive sparring in a competition?


----------



## CB Jones

hoshin1600 said:


> I like the scientific method myself.
> I would say however that there are certain inherent flaws and limitations on competitive sparring if you are applying that as the "experiment" for self defense.  In SD training we use scenario training rather than competitive sparring. The two have completely different formats and what constitutes a "win".  In competitive sparring each participant MUST remain engaged with the other for the duration of the "experiment".  Reality and SD does not hold this as a rule. Both parties can withdraw at anytime. AND withdrawal is the primary goal for the non assailant participant.  I would set the "experiment" up so the the combatants fight in a similar way to competition but the non assailant participant has the primary goal to reach a "safety point" like a doorway. Or place a gun on the ground 20 ft away and the two must fight to get the gun and subdue the other with it.
> The complexity level of SD training is higher than just sparring.  It's a matter of taking sparring and applying it to format where a "win" has more dimensions to it.





I look at it as whether you train SD or competition fighting you are learning individual skills and techniques and how to combine and utilize them in a fight.  How well you do this will be different for every individual depending on the individual.


----------



## hoshin1600

CB Jones said:


> I look at it as whether you train SD or competition fighting you are learning individual skills and techniques and how to combine and utilize them in a fight. How well you do this will be different for every individual depending on the individual.


i cant really disagree with what your saying but how well you do is also dependent on the methodology of the training.


----------



## CB Jones

hoshin1600 said:


> i cant really disagree with what your saying but how well you do is also dependent on the methodology of the training.



Is it?  Or is it dependent on the individual?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

CB Jones said:


> I look at it as whether you train SD or competition fighting you are learning individual skills and techniques and how to combine and utilize them in a fight.  How well you do this will be different for every individual depending on the individual.


And I don't think the two are necessarily separate. Some folks train for SD, using competition as one of their sharpening tools.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

CB Jones said:


> Is it?  Or is it dependent on the individual?


Both. Good training is better than bad training. A committed individual will gain more, faster than an uncommitted one. And some folks are just better predisposed to fighting (not meaning predisposed to fighting, but having a better natural disposition toward it).


----------



## CB Jones

gpseymour said:


> Good training is better than bad training.



Agree

I just don't see the point in arguing Sport v SD.

Both will give you skills you can rely on to defend yourself.  But regardless of which one you train or even training in both....neither guarantees success when sugar turns to shat. 

In the end, it comes down to the individual


----------



## Gerry Seymour

CB Jones said:


> Agree
> 
> I just don't see the point in arguing Sport v SD.
> 
> Both will give you skills you can rely on to defend yourself.  But regardless of which one you train or even training in both....neither guarantees success when sugar turns to shat.
> 
> In the end, it comes down to the individual


I tend to agree with you. I see differences in focus, rather than a huge chasm between them. For me, there's plenty of room to discuss what we can learn from a pure-competition focus and what we can learn from a pure-SD focus, and how to blend those two. I teach specifically with a SD focus, but I've actually trained people who were competing. I wasn't their "coach" - they were looking for something new to work with to try to improve their overall game. They all seemed to profit from someone who looked at the problems from a different angle, though they had to correct me on things I might recommend that would violate rules or otherwise cause problems in that context.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> What has that to do with the difference between a hip throw in resistive sparring in a dojo versus resistive sparring in a competition?



In sparring in the gym you are formulating a game plan. And in competition you are applying it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> In sparring in the gym you are formulating a game plan. And in competition you are applying it.


I don't think that's necessarily true. If I'm sparring full-resistance, I'm not formulating a game plan - I'm defending myself and trying to hit the other guy. That's the same thing I'd be doing if I entered a competition using similar rules. Of course, there are kinds of sparring I do that _are _about developing a game plan, but it's entirely possible for someone to spar in class in exactly the same mode they'd use in competition - whether it's grappling, striking, or mixed.

The distinction I see is one you've pointed out before: at a competition, I'm more likely to face someone I don't know (good thing) and a wider range of skills (good thing).


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> I like the scientific method myself.
> I would say however that there are certain inherent flaws and limitations on competitive sparring if you are applying that as the "experiment" for self defense.  In SD training we use scenario training rather than competitive sparring. The two have completely different formats and what constitutes a "win".  In competitive sparring each participant MUST remain engaged with the other for the duration of the "experiment".  Reality and SD does not hold this as a rule. Both parties can withdraw at anytime. AND withdrawal is the primary goal for the non assailant participant.  I would set the "experiment" up so the the combatants fight in a similar way to competition but the non assailant participant has the primary goal to reach a "safety point" like a doorway. Or place a gun on the ground 20 ft away and the two must fight to get the gun and subdue the other with it.
> The complexity level of SD training is higher than just sparring.  It's a matter of taking sparring and applying it to format where a "win" has more dimensions to it.



You can set any parameters you want though.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't think that's necessarily true. If I'm sparring full-resistance, I'm not formulating a game plan - I'm defending myself and trying to hit the other guy. That's the same thing I'd be doing if I entered a competition using similar rules. Of course, there are kinds of sparring I do that _are _about developing a game plan, but it's entirely possible for someone to spar in class in exactly the same mode they'd use in competition - whether it's grappling, striking, or mixed.
> 
> The distinction I see is one you've pointed out before: at a competition, I'm more likely to face someone I don't know (good thing) and a wider range of skills (good thing).



Do you spar full resistance?


----------



## hoshin1600

CB Jones said:


> I just don't see the point in arguing Sport v SD.



i dont see the point either.  i am confident in what i know works for me. others are confident in what they do but because we differ in opinions some people dont believe there can be an alternative truth and this causes arguments.



CB Jones said:


> Both will give you skills you can rely on to defend yourself. But regardless of which one you train or even training in both....neither guarantees success when sugar turns to shat.


i do believe the individual is the most important factor,  but to go back to my handgun training analogy.  if we compare todays complex training to the old circle/ dot targets there is a big difference in results.  EDIT:  (look back at the way the FBI used to advise to stand and shoot before Weaver came along.  it can make you giggle)   silhouette is better than circle/ dot targets,  3D gel or rubber dummy is better than silhouette.  target range practice is good but target practice with additional scenario training is better.  the old karate masters did kata...kata..kata. if we compare that to the way modern MMA fighters train there is a big difference in results.  how you train matters, that is all i am saying.


take a look at 10.00 min into the clip


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Do you spar full resistance?


Not often, but sometimes. More often than some folks compete, but likely less often than most competitors compete. Considerably less than I used to - I just don't tolerate the injuries well anymore.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Not often, but sometimes. More often than some folks compete, but likely less often than most competitors compete. Considerably less than I used to - I just don't tolerate the injuries well anymore.



And these were guys you didn't know. And didn't care if you hurt them?


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> i dont see the point either. i am confident in what i know works for me. others are confident in what they do but because we differ in opinions some people dont believe there can be an alternative truth and this causes arguments.



It is not a belief game.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> i do believe the individual is the most important factor, but to go back to my handgun training analogy. if we compare todays complex training to the old circle/ dot targets there is a big difference in results. EDIT: (look back at the way the FBI used to advise to stand and shoot before Weaver came along. it can make you giggle) silhouette is better than circle/ dot targets, 3D gel or rubber dummy is better than silhouette. target range practice is good but target practice with additional scenario training is better. the old karate masters did kata...kata..kata. if we compare that to the way modern MMA fighters train there is a big difference in results. how you train matters, that is all i am saying.



There is so much focus on training the wrong things that the individual gets blown out of proportion.

So for example. Really strong guys are going to have an individual advantage. And if you are not training strength in your martial art.

Of course the people who just happen to be strong tend to dominate.

And then it is "Oh it is not the art it is the guy"


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> okay, so that assumes a high stress level for the competition that isn’t in the dojo. That not entirely unfounded. While not everyone finds competition stressful, and some folks find observation stressful, regardless of the venue, there is a higher stress level for most folks. I just don’t see where is application and the other isn’t, which appears to be Steve’s assertion.


Yeah, I get that you don’t see it.  If skill development is like normal and healthy digestion, training self defense is like pancreatitis.  Normally, the training helps you accomplish skills in application, just as the pancreas releases enzymes that help you digest food.  When working correctly, you are satisfied and prepared fo eat again.

Pancreatitis is an autolytic disorder, where the something goes wrong and the enzymes actually start digesting the pancreas and not the food. In a similar manner, training for more training, for more training, and measuring skill development in that vacuum is like that. 

And it just seems wrong, which is why in martial arts, we see this debate recur over and over.   Some are more comfortable with the cognitive dissonance than others.  Generally, these are the people who actually have a venue for application (generally through competition or profession).  Simply put, the people most comfortable with self defense training tend to be cops or competitors.   Why do you think that is?  

And the occasional training consultant.


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> There is so much focus on training the wrong things that the individual gets blown out of proportion.
> 
> So for example. Really strong guys are going to have an individual advantage. And if you are not training strength in your martial art.
> 
> Of course the people who just happen to be strong tend to dominate.
> 
> And then it is "Oh it is not the art it is the guy"


I'm not really sure what your trying to point out here.
I already said the individual matters. There is no way I'm going to beat Bas Rutten in any venue at anything.  But for me as an individual if all I ever did was kata I would not be as good as if I did a lot of other training that we know works.  That's all I'm pointing out.


----------



## Buka

gpseymour said:


> And I don't think the two are necessarily separate. Some folks train for SD, using competition as one of their sharpening tools.



I always did that, Gerry. Both as a sharpening tool and because it was fun. I competed into my fifties, sorry I ever stopped, actually. Time got in the way, then my wife kind of put the kibosh on it.

But I think I'm going to sharpen some more. I ain't quite done yet.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And these were guys you didn't know. And didn't care if you hurt them?


There’s no such person as someone I don’t care if I hurt, except an actual attacker. I’ve mentioned before that’s one of the reasons I never got into competition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> And it just seems wrong


This is the issue, Steve. It seems to be more about seeming.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> This is the issue, Steve. It seems to be more about seeming.


I think you're starting to get a little punchy, Gerry, but that's how cognitive dissonance works.  I'm presuming you're familiar with the term.  There's a conflict, something that seems wrong.  

Try this.  You seem to be hung up on the application.  Another way to say what I've been saying is that training is preparing the student to do something.  Whatever you do with the training is where you are developing expertise.  The police academy will train cops.  The cops then go out and work as cops, applying the training.  And periodically, as their skill level increases, they receive different kinds of advance training.  If application weren't important, you should be able to take a recruit, run all of the training programs back to back to back, and then have expert cops on the other side.  Why don't they do that?   It would be a lot more cost effective to just get all of the training done up front and have a fully capable, expert cop right out of the gate.  Why just give them some of the information and some of the training?

Similarly, an MMA school trains MMAists.  The guys who compete are building a higher level of proficiency than the guys who don't.  And the more competition and the higher level of competition, the greater the proficiency.  So, just training MMA isn't necessarily going to create an expert.  It's about the training and the individual.  The training facilitates application, but the individual has to have the aptitude, interest and opportunity to compete. 

You train people to be expert students.  You train them, and then they train some more.  So, yeah, they are applying what they're learning.  The issue is they're applying it to become better trainees.  In this context, an expert Aikidoka isn't someone who can apply skills in a fight or in a competition or in a self defense situation.  Rather, the term refers to someone who is an expert Aikido student.

And, just to remind you, I agree that there is nothing wrong with that at all.  It only becomes a concern when you start believing (or worse teaching students to believe) that the skills can be reliably applied in other contexts, such as in an MMA ring or in a self defense situation. 

*Cognitive dissonance*




In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas,


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> I think you're starting to get a little punchy, Gerry, but that's how cognitive dissonance works.  I'm presuming you're familiar with the term.  There's a conflict, something that seems wrong.
> 
> Try this.  You seem to be hung up on the application.  Another way to say what I've been saying is that training is preparing the student to do something.  Whatever you do with the training is where you are developing expertise.  The police academy will train cops.  The cops then go out and work as cops, applying the training.  And periodically, as their skill level increases, they receive different kinds of advance training.  If application weren't important, you should be able to take a recruit, run all of the training programs back to back to back, and then have expert cops on the other side.  Why don't they do that?   It would be a lot more cost effective to just get all of the training done up front and have a fully capable, expert cop right out of the gate.  Why just give them some of the information and some of the training?
> 
> Similarly, an MMA school trains MMAists.  The guys who compete are building a higher level of proficiency than the guys who don't.  And the more competition and the higher level of competition, the greater the proficiency.  So, just training MMA isn't necessarily going to create an expert.  It's about the training and the individual.  The training facilitates application, but the individual has to have the aptitude, interest and opportunity to compete.
> 
> You train people to be expert students.  You train them, and then they train some more.  So, yeah, they are applying what they're learning.  The issue is they're applying it to become better trainees.  In this context, an expert Aikidoka isn't someone who can apply skills in a fight or in a competition or in a self defense situation.  Rather, the term refers to someone who is an expert Aikido student.
> 
> And, just to remind you, I agree that there is nothing wrong with that at all.  It only becomes a concern when you start believing (or worse teaching students to believe) that the skills can be reliably applied in other contexts, such as in an MMA ring or in a self defense situation.
> 
> *Cognitive dissonance*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas,



i understand what your saying.
i have thought the same concept for awhile now.  some people train in kata for the purpose of doing a good kata.  they focus on perfecting a kata.  kata for the sake of kata. rather than kata for the purpose of improving fighting skills.  the same idea applies to the entire martial art. perfecting the art for the sake of the art.
but i believe this is not an inevitable result.  it can be corrected but you do have to be aware of the paradigm shift in focus and purpose.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I think you're starting to get a little punchy, Gerry, but that's how cognitive dissonance works.  I'm presuming you're familiar with the term.  There's a conflict, something that seems wrong.
> 
> Try this.  You seem to be hung up on the application.  Another way to say what I've been saying is that training is preparing the student to do something.  Whatever you do with the training is where you are developing expertise.  The police academy will train cops.  The cops then go out and work as cops, applying the training.  And periodically, as their skill level increases, they receive different kinds of advance training.  If application weren't important, you should be able to take a recruit, run all of the training programs back to back to back, and then have expert cops on the other side.  Why don't they do that?   It would be a lot more cost effective to just get all of the training done up front and have a fully capable, expert cop right out of the gate.  Why just give them some of the information and some of the training?
> 
> Similarly, an MMA school trains MMAists.  The guys who compete are building a higher level of proficiency than the guys who don't.  And the more competition and the higher level of competition, the greater the proficiency.  So, just training MMA isn't necessarily going to create an expert.  It's about the training and the individual.  The training facilitates application, but the individual has to have the aptitude, interest and opportunity to compete.
> 
> You train people to be expert students.  You train them, and then they train some more.  So, yeah, they are applying what they're learning.  The issue is they're applying it to become better trainees.  In this context, an expert Aikidoka isn't someone who can apply skills in a fight or in a competition or in a self defense situation.  Rather, the term refers to someone who is an expert Aikido student.
> 
> And, just to remind you, I agree that there is nothing wrong with that at all.  It only becomes a concern when you start believing (or worse teaching students to believe) that the skills can be reliably applied in other contexts, such as in an MMA ring or in a self defense situation.
> 
> *Cognitive dissonance*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas,


My pilot analogy still offers an alternative view of this, and is valid for things we can’t predictably go do. You appear stuck on the term “application”. You and BD have both made a more cogent point in the past about the advantage of competition. I think that’s a much more useful point of discussion than whether it’s actually possible to train for SD and what technically constitutes “application”.

I don’t see a place here for cognitive dissonance, since you appear to be hanging an argument on a concept, rather than a practical point.


----------



## hoshin1600

gpseymour said:


> My pilot analogy still offers an alternative view of this, and is valid for things we can’t predictably go do. You appear stuck on the term “application”. You and BD have both made a more cogent point in the past about the advantage of competition. I think that’s a much more useful point of discussion than whether it’s actually possible to train for SD and what technically constitutes “application”.
> 
> I don’t see a place here for cognitive dissonance, since you appear to be hanging an argument on a concept, rather than a practical point.



i think i get what Steve means.  there is a difference between training for a concrete goal and one of abstract purpose.  many people train in martial arts with no real thought about having to actually use it. the idea of self defense is a far off in the future slim possibility .it doesnt seem real. where as a LEO has to go to work later that night and may actually have to use what he was just working on.  its a subtle difference in mentality but it can make a big difference in how you train and the results of that training.  ill have to think about this some more because i see it in my head but its not easy to describe in words or type.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> My pilot analogy still offers an alternative view of this, and is valid for things we can’t predictably go do. You appear stuck on the term “application”. You and BD have both made a more cogent point in the past about the advantage of competition. I think that’s a much more useful point of discussion than whether it’s actually possible to train for SD and what technically constitutes “application”.
> 
> I don’t see a place here for cognitive dissonance, since you appear to be hanging an argument on a concept, rather than a practical point.


I've taken different runs at this over the years.  I'm glad you like some, and it's not a surprise that some resonate more with you than others.  

And once again, your pilot analogy starts with a pilot.  You just sort of gloss over that.  In order for your analogy to work, your pilot needs to be a pilot, and not a flight simulator X expert, even if you have the ultimate setup.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> i think i get what Steve means.  there is a difference between training for a concrete goal and one of abstract purpose.  many people train in martial arts with no real thought about having to actually use it. the idea of self defense is a far off in the future slim possibility .it doesnt seem real. where as a LEO has to go to work later that night and may actually have to use what he was just working on.  its a subtle difference in mentality but it can make a big difference in how you train and the results of that training.  ill have to think about this some more because i see it in my head but its not easy to describe in words or type.


Yes.  Exactly.  And one more step... you need to ensure that the means for application is accessible.  IN other words, an office worker can't train "to be a cop" effectively without actually being a cop.  You can train "like a cop" but that's not the same thing. 

So, the application you are training for needs to be something that you will actually do repeatedly and often.


----------



## Anarax

I think the topic is rather simple which was more so the context of the OP's post. What the video illustrates is essentially a difference in the parameters of someone's training vs parameters they haven't trained. Meaning, one who trains in Karate semi-contact point "fighting" will probably not do well in a live situation. However; a Karateka that participates in full-contact Kyokushin tournaments in Japan will probably do much better in a live situation. Competition/sport is a double edged sword when it comes to self-defense. Depending on the training parameters, some competitions are further removed from live situations than others, like Karate point fighting. Competition rules, parameters, training, focus and goals are too broad to say "that won't work in a self-defense scenario" nor "all type of competitions are good to develop as a marital artist." As I mentioned before, "Self-defense courses" are not a good source to learn martial skills to defend oneself. Self-defense concepts? Yes, but not the physical skills. A good Marital arts school is a great place to train for martial skills, there are no shortcuts when it comes to learning how to fight/defend yourself. Though there are those that say otherwise.


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> As I mentioned before, "Self-defense courses" are not a good source to learn martial skills to defend oneself. Self-defense concepts? Yes, but not the physical skills.


i do wish you would clarify and define that statement a little more.  there are long term / on going self defense courses and systems.  i think you mean short term 8 hour type classes. but if that is what you mean then your statement should state that. otherwise readers lump all self defense classes into one negative opinion.


----------



## Steve

Anarax said:


> I think the topic is rather simple which was more so the context of the OP's post. What the video illustrates is essentially a difference in the parameters of someone's training vs parameters they haven't trained. Meaning, one who trains in Karate semi-contact point "fighting" will probably not do well in a live situation. However; a Karateka that participates in full-contact Kyokushin tournaments in Japan will probably do much better in a live situation. Competition/sport is a double edged sword when it comes to self-defense. Depending on the training parameters, some competitions are further removed from live situations than others, like Karate point fighting. Competition rules, parameters, training, focus and goals are too broad to say "that won't work in a self-defense scenario" nor "all type of competitions are good to develop as a marital artist." As I mentioned before, "Self-defense courses" are not a good source to learn martial skills to defend oneself. Self-defense concepts? Yes, but not the physical skills. A good Marital arts school is a great place to train for martial skills, there are no shortcuts when it comes to learning how to fight/defend yourself. Though there are those that say otherwise.


In general, I agree.  I'll also point out that clear application helps facilitate the evaluation.  In other words, if you apply what you're learning, you can evaluate how well it will work in another context and adapt (or change) if necessary.

Also, marital arts is always a super funny typo.  I like that almost as much as calling someone a rouge.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> i do wish you would clarify and define that statement a little more.  there are long term / on going self defense courses and systems.  i think you mean short term 8 hour type classes. but if that is what you mean then your statement should state that. otherwise readers lump all self defense classes into one negative opinion.


The only actual, scientific study I've ever seen on self defense did not focus on physical skills, wasn't very long, and was actually pretty effective.  It focused on things like esteem, judgment, high risk behaviors and such.


----------



## Anarax

hoshin1600 said:


> there are long term / on going self defense courses and systems.


Though I will say that long term SD courses are better than short term, I still place MA training above a "long-term" self defense course(s). A structured MA school will teach them not only to defend themselves, but how to fight trained combatants as well. I know there are SD certificates instructors can get, but there's nothing required to advertise yourself as an SD instructor. There's no level of authenticity nor history one can verify to see how legitimate an SD instructor is. Which differs from a Martial Artist who creates their own style because there's still a traceable background and authenticity one can verify with a new style founder.

I've encountered/trained with SD students throughout my training, consistent traits I found in all of them were they didn't know breakfalls, 2 dimensional footwork nor how to spar. In summary, I rather have three dimensional(MA) training and get lucky and only encounter 2 dimensional(untrained attackers) situations. Rather than the other way around.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> Also, marital arts is always a super funny typo. I like that almost as much as calling someone a rouge.


and cereal killer


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> Though I will say that long term SD courses are better than short term, I still place MA training above a "long-term" self defense course(s). A structured MA school will teach them not only to defend themselves, but how to fight trained combatants as well. I know there are SD certificates instructors can get, but there's nothing required to advertise yourself as an SD instructor. There's no level of authenticity nor history one can verify to see how legitimate an SD instructor is. Which differs from a Martial Artist who creates their own style because there's still a traceable background and authenticity one can verify with a new style founder.
> 
> I've encountered/trained with SD students throughout my training, consistent traits I found in all of them were they didn't know breakfalls, 2 dimensional footwork nor how to spar. In summary, I rather have three dimensional(MA) training and get lucky and only encounter 2 dimensional(untrained attackers) situations. Rather than the other way around.


but again your lumping all SD together and i keep trying to break you of your bias and explain to you that not everyone (read that as i am referring to myself)  is like that and i dont like being lumped into that bias.  i could easily say all traditional martial arts is garbage and could give multiple reasons why but it wouldnt be any more accurate than your statement.


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> I know there are SD certificates instructors can get, but there's nothing required to advertise yourself as an SD instructor. There's no level of authenticity nor history one can verify to see how legitimate an SD instructor is. Which differs from a Martial Artist who creates their own style because there's still a traceable background and authenticity one can verify with a new style founder.


i will agree with this but i will also point out that i know plenty of authentic high ranking karate teachers who suck.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> i will agree with this but i will also point out that i know plenty of authentic high ranking karate teachers who suck.


What do they suck at?


----------



## Anarax

hoshin1600 said:


> but again your lumping all SD together and i keep trying to break you of your bias and explain to you that not everyone (read that as i am referring to myself)  is like that and i dont like being lumped into that bias.  i could easily say all traditional martial arts is garbage and could give multiple reasons why but it wouldnt be any more accurate than your statement.


There's no bias, just reality. SD courses don't teach how to deal with trained combatants, this has nothing to do with quality, it's simply something they don't teach. Yes, you could use the argument that there are a lot of Traditional Martial Artists that "suck", but the training curriculum and the end results don't always coincide. Meaning, I could use the same logic of you statement and say "Lyoto Machida got knocked out, he trains Karate, thus Karate sucks". You've somehow misinterpreted any criticism for SD training to mean it's "crap" or it's "garbage"(both your choice of words). I said I place MA training above long-term SD training for developing martial art skills. From a technical standpoint there are things to gain from MA that you're not going to get from SD training. This isn't a personal attack on you nor your program, but it's simply stating the technical differences between MA and SD courses.


----------



## Anarax

hoshin1600 said:


> i will agree with this but i will also point out that i know plenty of authentic high ranking karate teachers who suck.



The same goes with medical doctors. Are there bad doctors? Absolutely. However; I still want my doctor to have an actual medical degree.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> i think i get what Steve means.  there is a difference between training for a concrete goal and one of abstract purpose.  many people train in martial arts with no real thought about having to actually use it. the idea of self defense is a far off in the future slim possibility .it doesnt seem real. where as a LEO has to go to work later that night and may actually have to use what he was just working on.  its a subtle difference in mentality but it can make a big difference in how you train and the results of that training.  ill have to think about this some more because i see it in my head but its not easy to describe in words or type.


If that has been his point, I missed it. I see nothing in that I’d argue with. Juany has made a similar point at times. A lot of people who train for SD go through phases where that’s not really the point of their training. For some, though it was their motivation for starting, it might never really be why they train. And even those who always have it as a motivation, it’s not usually an “I’m likely to need this tomorrow” kind of thing. Just not the urgency I’d have if I was working a door or wearing a badge.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I've taken different runs at this over the years.  I'm glad you like some, and it's not a surprise that some resonate more with you than others.
> 
> And once again, your pilot analogy starts with a pilot.  You just sort of gloss over that.  In order for your analogy to work, your pilot needs to be a pilot, and not a flight simulator X expert, even if you have the ultimate setup.



Actually, the pilot starts as a trainee. But that’s neither here nor there. Your comment com a back to what is technically “application”. Doing a hip throw against a resisting opponent is application. Some opponents are more serious in their resistance, and some situations are more chaotic. Just like a pilot flying sometimes has calm air and clear skies, and sometimes it’s stormy. Both times, he is flying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> SD courses don't teach how to deal with trained combatants


Not true of all SD courses.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> What do they suck at?


karate.


----------



## Anarax

gpseymour said:


> Not true of all SD courses.



I understand, I'm approaching it from a consistency standpoint. Meaning, I could find a Kali class that does Tornado Kicks, but I won't consistently find a lot of Kali classes that do. Each style has outliers


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Actually, the pilot starts as a trainee. But that’s neither here nor there. Your comment com a back to what is technically “application”. Doing a hip throw against a resisting opponent is application. Some opponents are more serious in their resistance, and some situations are more chaotic. Just like a pilot flying sometimes has calm air and clear skies, and sometimes it’s stormy. Both times, he is flying.


So, you’re saying executing a hip toss in training is the same as executing a hip toss in a “self defense” situation?  I’m trying to understand.

And the pilot does start as a trainee.  Yes.  And then eventually flies the plane.  The key is that the pilot doesn’t stay a trainee.   The more snarky you get, the more clear it is that you don’t really understand.   But you will.   

If you’re hip tossing training partners, you aren’t executing against an opponent.   You’re executing against your friend who is simulating resistance in the manner he has been trained to resist.  He may be an expert trainee.  But I would not call him an expert tosser.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> I understand, I'm approaching it from a consistency standpoint. Meaning, I could find a Kali class that does Tornado Kicks, but I won't consistently find a lot of Kali classes that do. Each style has outliers


My experience is that most schools that teach for SD start by training for the untrained attacker, and gradually move to include training for the skilled/trained attacker.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> So, you’re saying executing a hip toss in training is the same as executing a hip toss in a “self defense” situation?  I’m trying to understand.
> 
> And the pilot does start as a trainee.  Yes.  And then eventually flies the plane.  The key is that the pilot doesn’t stay a trainee.   The more snarky you get, the more clear it is that you don’t really understand.   But you will.
> 
> If you’re hip tossing training partners, you aren’t executing against an opponent.   You’re executing against your friend who is simulating resistance in the manner he has been trained to resist.  He may be an expert trainee.  But I would not call him an expert tosser.


I think I have caught our disconnect. You are talking about applying SD skills. I am talking about applying skills that can be useful for SD. In the former, that application requires a specific context. In the latter, it just requires someone who doesn’t want to be thrown (an opponent who could be a competitor, a member of the school, or an attacker).

While there is a risk that a training partner might learn to resist only partially, they is not a given. People in competition don’t magically NOT have that issue. They don’t (usually, I guess it’s possible) have it because they train not to. The approaches that avoid that can be used in a closed program, though it will be difficult to know how well they work. A program that isn’t closed (has visitors and trained “new blood”) is easier to do this. 

The best way to know people are really resisting is the failure rate. If my students can pull off a hip throw quite consistently against a resisting partner, that partner isn’t really resisting. That’s one of the biggest values of competition, IMO. If the competition is much harder to throw than training partners, something is off. Same goes for working out with folks outside the program.


----------



## hoshin1600

i think we have discussed this a bit before, about the disconnect between training and actually doing something in a SD situation.  and i think both of you @gpseymour  and @Steve  are correct.  your just not on the same page.
when you train a hip throw you are executing a motion. given time you have experienced enough variability (given the fact that you have progressed beyond having the person fall for you and your doing resitive training)   to learn to ingrain that motion. 

Procedural Memory: Definition and Examples
_"Procedural memory is a part of the long-term memory that is responsible for knowing how to do things, also known as motor skills. As the name implies, procedural memory stores information on how to perform certain procedures, such as walking, talking and riding a bike. Delving into something in your procedural memory does not involve conscious thought.

Procedural memory is a subset of implicit memory, sometimes referred to as unconscious memory or automatic memory. Implicit memory uses past experiences to remember things without thinking about them. It differs from declarative memory, or explicit memory, which consists of facts and events that can be explicitly stored and consciously recalled or "declared."
_
the problem is that the procedural memory has learned to fire the muscles in the correct order reliably (what Gerry is saying)   *but  *the disconnect and failure comes from the implicit memory having to orient itself to a SD situation, recognize it as "familiar"  and draw that motion from memory. (what Steve is saying). 
the ability for the brain to draw from memory the hip throw it needs to recognize the situation as similar the the training and that requires some kind of link or life line between the two.  this is fostered by either being immersed in actual SD situations *OR* training in such a way that the brain can recognize and make the link between training and real life.  example being scenario training.  there has to be a mind set present during the training that functions the same as in a real situation.


----------



## hoshin1600

gpseymour said:


> I think I have caught our disconnect. You are talking about applying SD skills. I am talking about applying skills that can be useful for SD. In the former, that application requires a specific context. In the latter, it just requires someone who doesn’t want to be thrown (an opponent who could be a competitor, a member of the school, or an attacker).
> 
> While there is a risk that a training partner might learn to resist only partially, they is not a given. People in competition don’t magically NOT have that issue. They don’t (usually, I guess it’s possible) have it because they train not to. The approaches that avoid that can be used in a closed program, though it will be difficult to know how well they work. A program that isn’t closed (has visitors and trained “new blood”) is easier to do this.
> 
> The best way to know people are really resisting is the failure rate. If my students can pull off a hip throw quite consistently against a resisting partner, that partner isn’t really resisting. That’s one of the biggest values of competition, IMO. If the competition is much harder to throw than training partners, something is off. Same goes for working out with folks outside the program.


but there has to be a certain mind set present for the training.  there is a book called Warrior Mindset  by Dr Michael Asken and Loren w. Chistenson  and as i remember it gets into this concept but at the moment i cant recall anything usefull from it   lol sorry.  guess i have to go read it again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> but there has to be a certain mind set present for the training.  there is a book called Warrior Mindset  by Dr Michael Asken and Loren w. Chistenson  and as i remember it gets into this concept but at the moment i cant recall anything usefull from it   lol sorry.  guess i have to go read it again.


I’ll add that to my (never ending) reading list. 

Mindset definitely matters. While that can be fostered by the environment, it largely depends upon the individual.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> i think we have discussed this a bit before, about the disconnect between training and actually doing something in a SD situation.  and i think both of you @gpseymour  and @Steve  are correct.  your just not on the same page.
> when you train a hip throw you are executing a motion. given time you have experienced enough variability (given the fact that you have progressed beyond having the person fall for you and your doing resitive training)   to learn to ingrain that motion.
> 
> Procedural Memory: Definition and Examples
> _"Procedural memory is a part of the long-term memory that is responsible for knowing how to do things, also known as motor skills. As the name implies, procedural memory stores information on how to perform certain procedures, such as walking, talking and riding a bike. Delving into something in your procedural memory does not involve conscious thought.
> 
> Procedural memory is a subset of implicit memory, sometimes referred to as unconscious memory or automatic memory. Implicit memory uses past experiences to remember things without thinking about them. It differs from declarative memory, or explicit memory, which consists of facts and events that can be explicitly stored and consciously recalled or "declared."
> _
> the problem is that the procedural memory has learned to fire the muscles in the correct order reliably (what Gerry is saying)   *but  *the disconnect and failure comes from the implicit memory having to orient itself to a SD situation, recognize it as "familiar"  and draw that motion from memory. (what Steve is saying).
> the ability for the brain to draw from memory the hip throw it needs to recognize the situation as similar the the training and that requires some kind of link or life line between the two.  this is fostered by either being immersed in actual SD situations *OR* training in such a way that the brain can recognize and make the link between training and real life.  example being scenario training.  there has to be a mind set present during the training that functions the same as in a real situation.


A good synopsis of the problem. I will add that the instances of sport competitors using their techniques in a SD context implies that - at least for some folks - the recognition is more generalized than we might expect. I think the larger issue is getting the mind to not freeze up in that moment of need.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> There’s no such person as someone I don’t care if I hurt, except an actual attacker. I’ve mentioned before that’s one of the reasons I never got into competition.



As a training tool. Competition is not about being in to it or not. 

But yeah..... That psychological difference is pretty important. And part of why competition has a different dynamic to fun sparring with friends.


----------



## drop bear

Anarax said:


> I think the topic is rather simple which was more so the context of the OP's post. What the video illustrates is essentially a difference in the parameters of someone's training vs parameters they haven't trained. Meaning, one who trains in Karate semi-contact point "fighting" will probably not do well in a live situation. However; a Karateka that participates in full-contact Kyokushin tournaments in Japan will probably do much better in a live situation. Competition/sport is a double edged sword when it comes to self-defense. Depending on the training parameters, some competitions are further removed from live situations than others, like Karate point fighting. Competition rules, parameters, training, focus and goals are too broad to say "that won't work in a self-defense scenario" nor "all type of competitions are good to develop as a marital artist." As I mentioned before, "Self-defense courses" are not a good source to learn martial skills to defend oneself. Self-defense concepts? Yes, but not the physical skills. A good Marital arts school is a great place to train for martial skills, there are no shortcuts when it comes to learning how to fight/defend yourself. Though there are those that say otherwise.



My issue is that people get the priorities of training wrong.

So someone who focuses on correct technical eye gouging get out eyegouged by a guy who is a better striker in general.

I had a friend of mine do Muay Thai with MMA gloves. And I asked him what sort of specialized training he did to fight.

And. Nothing. Just trained it like it was a Thai fight with 16 ounce gloves. 

There are these skills that will cover 90% of a situation and those that will cover 10%. 

You can't spend the bulk of your training time on that 10%.

You just get nowhere.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> but again your lumping all SD together and i keep trying to break you of your bias and explain to you that not everyone (read that as i am referring to myself)  is like that and i dont like being lumped into that bias.  i could easily say all traditional martial arts is garbage and could give multiple reasons why but it wouldnt be any more accurate than your statement.



OK.

Build a case for why you are different.

I mean you can't be part of an industry with absolutely zero standards and expect to have people assume you are the exception.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> As a training tool. Competition is not about being in to it or not.
> 
> But yeah..... That psychological difference is pretty important. And part of why competition has a different dynamic to fun sparring with friends.


The issue is that for me, competition with a real chance of hurting someone (striking or hard locks) isn’t a training tool I’ll ever use. I simply am not willing to purposefully hurt someone to train. I think I have an over-active empathy circuit. Thankfully, that seems to shut off almost entirely when I am threatened (based on experience). So, competition becomes very distant from real fighting for me, because I won’t really fight in it. As I’ve said before, I think this removes much of the training value. I’d go in knowing someone willing to hurt me would always be able to beat me if they were anywhere near my skill level. Since I’m not a training maniac, nor exceptionally gifted, I’d just lose a lot, and wouldn’t be able to draw the necessary lesson from it.

It limits my range of development, I’m certain. But it’s not something I think I’d ever be interested in changing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> My issue is that people get the priorities of training wrong.
> 
> So someone who focuses on correct technical eye gouging get out eyegouged by a guy who is a better striker in general.
> 
> I had a friend of mine do Muay Thai with MMA gloves. And I asked him what sort of specialized training he did to fight.
> 
> And. Nothing. Just trained it like it was a Thai fight with 16 ounce gloves.
> 
> There are these skills that will cover 90% of a situation and those that will cover 10%.
> 
> You can't spend the bulk of your training time on that 10%.
> 
> You just get nowhere.


Those that cover the 10% are often the interesting stuff for tinkering. Good for keeping in training long-term, but not high-priority stuff.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The issue is that for me, competition with a real chance of hurting someone (striking or hard locks) isn’t a training tool I’ll ever use. I simply am not willing to purposefully hurt someone to train. I think I have an over-active empathy circuit. Thankfully, that seems to shut off almost entirely when I am threatened (based on experience). So, competition becomes very distant from real fighting for me, because I won’t really fight in it. As I’ve said before, I think this removes much of the training value. I’d go in knowing someone willing to hurt me would always be able to beat me if they were anywhere near my skill level. Since I’m not a training maniac, nor exceptionally gifted, I’d just lose a lot, and wouldn’t be able to draw the necessary lesson from it.
> 
> It limits my range of development, I’m certain. But it’s not something I think I’d ever be interested in changing.



My view is it would be more of an important training tool for someone who doesn't want to compete than someone who does because it trains you not to be reliant on your mood at any given time.

If the pilot does not want to ever fly. Thats fine. But he is not a pilot.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Those that cover the 10% are often the interesting stuff for tinkering. Good for keeping in training long-term, but not high-priority stuff.



Self defence and martial arts in general is such a haphazard approach that people have been validating any old thing.

We have seen it in medicine for the same reasons.


----------



## Anarax

drop bear said:


> So someone who focuses on correct technical eye gouging get out eyegouged by a guy who is a better striker in general.


Ah yes, the "fight-enders". Eye-gouging, the always easily accessible groin in any scenario, the perfect throat shot. I forgot about those.


----------



## Anarax

gpseymour said:


> My experience is that most schools that teach for SD start by training for the untrained attacker, and gradually move to include training for the skilled/trained attacker.


Are you referring to MA schools that focus more so on the SD side of MA? Or an actual SD class/course?


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> OK.
> 
> Build a case for why you are different.
> 
> I mean you can't be part of an industry with absolutely zero standards and expect to have people assume you are the exception.



i dont really need to build a case, i wasnt aware i was on trial.   often traditional martial arts also have absolutely no standards as well. so that is not a valid point.
and that in itself is my point ...every negative opinion about SD can also be applied to traditional martial arts.  look i know there are issues with many SD courses im not saying there isnt but these same issues are just as true in traditional martial arts and then some.  
i know this is true because ive been in traditional martial arts for over 30 years. everything from TKD , karate. aikido BJJ to MMA ...granted some more that others. ill never claim to be proficient (until i am at some point)  at BJJ but ive trained and rolled enough to know how useful it is.
now if you or anyone has a specific critique about SD and want my opinion on how i deal with the issue i would be glad to address it but in general im not writing a dissertation for someones amusement.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> My view is it would be more of an important training tool for someone who doesn't want to compete than someone who does because it trains you not to be reliant on your mood at any given time.
> 
> If the pilot does not want to ever fly. Thats fine. But he is not a pilot.


That last sentence isn't really relevant. If a pilot doesn't want to fly deadstick, that doesn't mean he's not a pilot. 

I'm not really dependent upon my mood. I've just found that someone threatening me (or someone else) overrides empathy. It's pretty dependable. I have no real reason to want to bull through my empathy circuits to get into competition. Had my Judo instructor not moved to Jordan (or if I'd gotten into BJJ early in life), I'd probably have enjoyed that competition. Grappling doesn't have to require hurting someone, and I'd probably have just been a specialist at the methods less likely to injure. I just can't see myself being aggressive enough in a competition with strikes to be effective. And it would be impossible to tell where a flaw in my skills/technique was a reason for a loss, versus the low aggression.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> Ah yes, the "fight-enders". Eye-gouging, the always easily accessible groin in any scenario, the perfect throat shot. I forgot about those.


I lump all of those in with stuff like pressure points. They work, when they work. They are only dependable when you can get to them (to DB's point about a good striker), and some folks are taught to depend upon them MUCH too much.

In fact, when I show using a groin shot, I usually am using it to get them to move a leg to block me. Most men are pretty good at doing that, and do it without thought. Similar concept with eye pokes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> Are you referring to MA schools that focus more so on the SD side of MA? Or an actual SD class/course?


What's the distinction between those?


----------



## Steve

Yes, @gpseymour , I think the subtle but important difference between our views is that you see yourself as a pilot in your analogy.

You think you're doing this:






 When you're really doing this:






It's a killer setup, but it's still not actually flying a plane.  That's the difference between training and application.  The guys in the top picture are developing skills and expertise as pilots.  Using the bottom setup will develop skills and expertise in operating this simulation.  Could a person who is an expert in using the setup on the bottom fly a plane?  Maybe.  It's possible. Would you consider him an expert pilot?  Or even a competent pilot?  I wouldn't.  Not until he took the skills developed on the simulator and began to apply them in the context of actually flying a plane.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Yes, @gpseymour , I think the subtle but important difference between our views is that you see yourself as a pilot in your analogy.



If I'm on a plane and the person doing this:

 

dies, I'd prefer it if someone who has done this:

 

takes over, rather than someone who has done this:


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> If I'm on a plane and the person doing this:
> 
> View attachment 21327
> 
> dies, I'd prefer it if someone who has done this:
> 
> View attachment 21328
> 
> takes over, rather than someone who has done this:
> 
> View attachment 21329


Of course!  Not disputing this at all.  I'd say both of your images represent the spectrum of quality in self defense training that exists.  You have really great setups and some questionable ones.  But none of them are actually piloting a plane. 

The question is, would you consider guy #2 to be a pilot (much less an expert pilot)? 

And what would you think if person #2 began teaching flying lessons to other people using his killer simulator setup?


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Of course!  Not disputing this at all.  I'd say both of your images represent the spectrum of quality in self defense training that exists.  You have really great setups and some questionable ones.  But none of them are actually piloting a plane.
> 
> The question is, would you consider guy #2 to be a pilot (much less an expert pilot)?
> 
> And what would you think if person #2 began teaching flying lessons to other people using his killer simulator setup?



I think the spectrum is wider than that though - top end is the type of sim used in real training. The sim you pictured is well below that...

Bottom end is the equivalent of my tiger repellent trousers - y'know, I've got these trousers and never been attacked by a tiger whilst wearing them so they must work 

Now, if guy #2 was saying that him giving you 8 hours of training on his sim would give you a pilot's licence and you'd be ready to fly a commercial jet - I'd have to call bs.

If however he said it might give you a little head start if the hypothetical situation arose where you're called on to save a plane - yeah, that's possible.

Either way, he could be a pilot. The definition would be holding a licence and/or doing it for a living.

Being able to fly doesn't really come into it - I don't have a licence but I could probably be a pilot in some parts of the world.


There's quality of training, some is better than others - wouldn't dispute that.

There's also quality and truthfulness of advertising...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Yes, @gpseymour , I think the subtle but important difference between our views is that you see yourself as a pilot in your analogy.
> 
> You think you're doing this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you're really doing this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a killer setup, but it's still not actually flying a plane.  That's the difference between training and application.  The guys in the top picture are developing skills and expertise as pilots.  Using the bottom setup will develop skills and expertise in operating this simulation.  Could a person who is an expert in using the setup on the bottom fly a plane?  Maybe.  It's possible. Would you consider him an expert pilot?  Or even a competent pilot?  I wouldn't.  Not until he took the skills developed on the simulator and began to apply them in the context of actually flying a plane.


It depends what you think flying is. You are apparently convinced the only “flying” for me is defending myself in the wild. But pilots don’t train only to fly in emergencies. They train to fly, and learn how to apply those skills to emergencies. You are saying the only application is the emergency (or competition, I think, so barnstorming?).  So a pilot isn’t a pilot until they have an emergency?


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> I think the spectrum is wider than that though - top end is the type of sim used in real training. The sim you pictured is well below that...
> 
> Bottom end is the equivalent of my tiger repellent trousers - y'know, I've got these trousers and never been attacked by a tiger whilst wearing them so they must work
> 
> Now, if guy #2 was saying that him giving you 8 hours of training on his sim would give you a pilot's licence and you'd be ready to fly a commercial jet - I'd have to call bs.
> 
> If however he said it might give you a little head start if the hypothetical situation arose where you're called on to save a plane - yeah, that's possible.
> 
> Either way, he could be a pilot. The definition would be holding a licence and/or doing it for a living.
> 
> Being able to fly doesn't really come into it - I don't have a licence but I could probably be a pilot in some parts of the world.
> 
> 
> There's quality of training, some is better than others - wouldn't dispute that.
> 
> There's also quality and truthfulness of advertising...


okay, so top end guy... guy who uses the type of sim in real training.   

You’re making a great point, which is that great training makes the transition to application easier and more reliable.   But there is still a transition to make.  Right?  

And, that guy who trains on the highest end simulator... would you consider him qualified to teach pilots?  I wouldn’t. 

Regarding your definition of pilot, I don’t understand.  You’re saying that flying a plane isn’t a prerequisite to being a pilot?  I don’t agree.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> It depends what you think flying is. You are apparently convinced the only “flying” for me is defending myself in the wild. But pilots don’t train only to fly in emergencies. They train to fly, and learn how to apply those skills to emergencies. You are saying the only application is the emergency (or competition, I think, so barnstorming?).  So a pilot isn’t a pilot until they have an emergency?


flying is pretty self explanatory.   Lol.   What is flying?  A ridiculous question.


----------



## pdg

Here's my take, using the pilot/flying analogy...

You can watch 'enter the dragon' - that's mr. tiger proof trousers, or 1980s atari flight game.

Do a short course - low level simulator.

Participate in an ongoing course or take up an MA with no sparring - mid level simulator (ish, if you only ever do line work you're going lower).

MA or SD, ongoing, with regular sparring - very good sim.

Competition level - qualified pilot.


Now the waters get muddied...

In a given situation (guy jumps you with knife / you lose the engine) then the higher up that scale you get the better your chances. But, it doesn't necessarily mean that a lower level has no chance - 1980s flight game guy might land the plane, you might get a lucky punch in.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> And, that guy who trains on the highest end simulator... would you consider him qualified to teach pilots? I wouldn’t.



Some of the 'best' simulators don't always have qualified pilots running them - you can be qualified to run the sim without a pilot's licence...



Steve said:


> Regarding your definition of pilot, I don’t understand. You’re saying that flying a plane isn’t a prerequisite to being a pilot? I don’t agree.



To be a pilot, you need a licence.

You can obtain various levels of licence, some of which require very very little flight. You can hold that licence and never fly again, but you have to have flown a bit at some point.

I meant more along the lines of - being a pilot (holding a licence) isn't a prerequisite to flying a plane...


----------



## hoshin1600

the problem i see here is that you all are trying to make a computer program which acts as a simulator the same as martial arts.  by this level of comparison you would be comparing an actual fight to sitting on the couch playing Grand Theft Auto.
these are not fair and balanced comparisons.  now if you want to compare a guy actually on a plane with controls in hand but is sitting next to his instructor,, then that is a fair comparison to hip throwing someone on the street vs in the dojo.


----------



## pdg

hoshin1600 said:


> by this level of comparison you would be comparing an actual fight to sitting on the couch playing Grand Theft Auto.



Ah, but that could be a valid comparison...

Let's say in the game you do a sequence of moves so your character does block-punch-kick-grab-run.

That might work in an actual fight 

It doesn't mean you've done it in person against someone who actually wants to hurt you, but nor does a few throws in class.


----------



## hoshin1600

pdg said:


> It doesn't mean you've done it in person against someone who actually wants to hurt you, but nor does a few throws in class.


a few throws in class...well ok no.  but hundreds?   i already gave my opinion on this.   procedural memory is procedural memory. to actually grab someone and throw them....the brain doesnt care if they are your dojo mate or not.


----------



## pdg

hoshin1600 said:


> a few throws in class...well ok no.  but hundreds?   i already gave my opinion on this.   procedural memory is procedural memory. to actually grab someone and throw them....the brain doesnt care if they are your dojo mate or not.



I wouldn't fundanentally disagree with that.

But if it's hundreds of the same throw with the same entry, that might not work for you in a different situation.


----------



## hoshin1600

pdg said:


> I wouldn't fundanentally disagree with that.
> 
> But if it's hundreds of the same throw with the same entry, that might not work for you in a different situation.


you would have to go back to my previous post ..i had said something to the effect that after hundreds of throws you have probably had enough variability to ingrain the muscles to fire properly


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> flying is pretty self explanatory.   Lol.   What is flying?  A ridiculous question.


Now you're being condescending, Steve. 

What is flying in the analogy? I train to do hip throws on people who don't want to be thrown. When I do drills with hip throws, that's "training to fly". When I do a hip throw on a resisting person, that's "flying". I learn how that can be applied to SD situations and do some simulations to work on that. That's the "emergency flying" training pilots get (and hope never to have to apply).

See, the issue is you're assuming I'm training self-defense. I'm training skills FOR self-defense. If I don't ever have to defend myself, I'm never applying them _*in that context*_. But I'm still applying them in other contexts, and there are several models of training (which I and others have pointed out) that show this does work. It's less effective than when you can experience the application repeatedly in the context, but it is effective and we recognize the limitations as part of the problem inherent in training those things.


----------



## hoshin1600

your not building procedural memory by playing a video game, regardless how violent it is.


----------



## hoshin1600

im not a big fan of being shot at ,,,so i can practice not being shot at.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> I wouldn't fundanentally disagree with that.
> 
> But if it's hundreds of the same throw with the same entry, that might not work for you in a different situation.


That's why resistive training is so useful. An opponent (or even training partner) who reists even a little dramatically changes the learning.

Here's the issue - it's really no harder to throw a resisting person with a hip throw than a non-resisting person, if you recognize the right opportunity. It just takes resistive training to ensure you recognize what is NOT the right opportunity and don't get yourself in trouble. The problem comes when you try to do a hip throw against someone who is specifically trying to resist a hip throw or you give them an opening to counter it. The throw itself isn't the issue - the situation (and the other person) are what change.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> you would have to go back to my previous post ..i had said something to the effect that after hundreds of throws you have probably had enough variability to ingrain the muscles to fire properly


And, if the experiences have been varied enough, your pattern recognition is probably ingrained enough to step into the throw at the right opportunity.


----------



## pdg

hoshin1600 said:


> im not a big fan of being shot at ,,,so i can practice not being shot at.



I practice that every day


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> Some of the 'best' simulators don't always have qualified pilots running them - you can be qualified to run the sim without a pilot's licence...
> 
> 
> 
> To be a pilot, you need a licence.
> 
> You can obtain various levels of licence, some of which require very very little flight. You can hold that licence and never fly again, but you have to have flown a bit at some point.
> 
> I meant more along the lines of - being a pilot (holding a licence) isn't a prerequisite to flying a plane...


You're getting a little mixed up and starting to focus on certification and not skill development.  Certification is an important topic, but not really all that relevant to the current discussion.  

The license is the ceremonial acknowledgment that you have been certified.  I mean, if we want to continue to mine the pilot analogy, I guess a question could be, can one receive a license without ever flying an actual plane in the real world?   Is flying a plane in a simulator equivalent to flying an actual plane?  

I would say no to both questions.  Which leads to more questions.  If we set the topic of certification to the side for a moment and focus on skill development:

Would you be comfortable if you knew that the person flying your plane had never before flown an actual plane, but had a killer simulator at home? 

If yes, would you be comfortable if you learned that the person who is now flying your plane above had learned to fly his simulator from a guy who also learned to fly a simulator and had never flown an actual plane?  

Personally, I'd be very uncomfortable with the above situations.   The reason I would be uncomfortable is because I don't believe that experience of piloting a simulator can replace the experience of actually piloting a plane.  I don't see them as being the same thing.

And, to bring this back around, I think that a person who pilots a simulator, and cannot appreciate the difference between what he does and what a pilot does, is dangerous.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> the problem i see here is that you all are trying to make a computer program which acts as a simulator the same as martial arts.  by this level of comparison you would be comparing an actual fight to sitting on the couch playing Grand Theft Auto.
> these are not fair and balanced comparisons.  now if you want to compare a guy actually on a plane with controls in hand but is sitting next to his instructor,, then that is a fair comparison to hip throwing someone on the street vs in the dojo.


I disagree.  I'd say all training is like a simulator.  Some is better than others.  It really depends on what application you're specifically talking about.

A pro-MMA fighter is an expert MMA fighter.  He is analogous to an expert pilot in this area.  When you get into fighting on the street, he's like a guy who has a professional level simulator.  The transition from fighting in a cage to fighting on the street isn't far, and someone who has developed a lot of skill in the former will likely be able to transfer the skills to the latter. 

This is true for all martial artists who have a means of applying their skills.  Judoka, Kyokushin Karate, TKD.  These guys are all developing real skill.  The question is, how applicable are those skills to self defense?  But in every case, there is a gap.  The key is that, because there's application, the gap is known. 

Now, things get really dicey when you don't even apply your own style.  You end up moving another step further away.  For example, a guy who trains Aikido and practices skills against a "resisting" opponent in class is never actually applying the skills.  Rather than becoming an expert Aikidoka, he's becoming an expert Aikido Student.  And what's the result?  Well, we see it whenever we see an expert aikido student try to apply the skills against someone other than another expert aikido student.  It never goes well.  And it's here where you really run into people who don't know what they can and can't actually do.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> The license is the ceremonial acknowledgment that you have been certified. I mean, if we want to continue to mine the pilot analogy, I guess a question could be, can one receive a license without ever flying an actual plane in the real world? Is flying a plane in a simulator equivalent to flying an actual plane?



I'm not mixed up, I'm (badly) highlighting a huge flaw in the analogy.

You cannot be a pilot without the certification.

You can certainly get certified as a flight simulator instructor without ever setting foot on a real plane.

Likewise, you can do thousands of hours of real flying, but unless you get that certificate you're not a pilot - even if you have more real life experience than someone who has the certificate.


Actually, it might not be such a flaw...

I've seen adverts for course run by, and I quote "certified self defence instructors", also "licenced self defence instructors".

What have they done to get certified and licenced?

Probably simulated training...


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> flying is pretty self explanatory.   Lol.   What is flying?  A ridiculous question.


it's not a ridiculous question?  You're getting yourself all twisted around, @gpseymour .  

I've never said you need to defend yourself in the wild (whatever that means).  Quite the opposite.  I've said that people who compete or use skills professionally are applying the skills.  People who don't apply the skills, well, aren't applying them.  You think "flying" is training.  I think that's ridiculous, but you're pot committed, I guess.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> I disagree.  I'd say all training is like a simulator.  Some is better than others.  It really depends on what application you're specifically talking about.
> 
> A pro-MMA fighter is an expert MMA fighter.  He is analogous to an expert pilot in this area.  When you get into fighting on the street, he's like a guy who has a professional level simulator.  The transition from fighting in a cage to fighting on the street isn't far, and someone who has developed a lot of skill in the former will likely be able to transfer the skills to the latter.
> 
> This is true for all martial artists who have a means of applying their skills.  Judoka, Kyokushin Karate, TKD.  These guys are all developing real skill.  The question is, how applicable are those skills to self defense?  But in every case, there is a gap.  The key is that, because there's application, the gap is known.
> 
> Now, things get really dicey when you don't even apply your own style.  You end up moving another step further away.  For example, a guy who trains Aikido and practices skills against a "resisting" opponent in class is never actually applying the skills.  Rather than becoming an expert Aikidoka, he's becoming an expert Aikido Student.  And what's the result?  Well, we see it whenever we see an expert aikido student try to apply the skills against someone other than another expert aikido student.  It never goes well.  And it's here where you really run into people who don't know what they can and can't actually do.



I have no choice but to agree with that.

But, it doesn't mean I completely disagree with certain other, slightly conflicting, views either...


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> I have no choice but to agree with that.
> 
> But, it doesn't mean I completely disagree with certain other, slightly conflicting, views either...


Fair enough.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I'd say all training is like a simulator.


This is the part where we really disagree, Steve. A simulator simulates. A person trying to throw me while I try to throw them is not simulating. Their intention can be exactly the same as the person in a competition. In fact, it can be the same person as in the competition.

I'd be willing to accept the argument that resistive sparring in one's own dojo is like flying with a skilled person (whether trainer, co-pilot, or simply a skilled pilot as passenger) in the seat next to you. It's still flying, but with a measure of control not present in solo flying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> For example, a guy who trains Aikido and practices skills against a "resisting" opponent in class is never actually applying the skills.


I've asked this before, and didn't understand the answer, so what's the clear distinction to you among these four?

Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in class with a known opponent (a student you've trained with before).
Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in class with an unknown opponent (another student you've never met).
Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in someone else's class with a known or unknown opponent (visiting another school, for instance).
Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in a competition with a known or unknown opponent (maybe someone you've competed against before, maybe not).
The way you've voiced it in these threads, only #4 constitutes "application", regardless of whether the opponent is a known quantity or not. It seems arbitrary, at best.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> it's not a ridiculous question?  You're getting yourself all twisted around, @gpseymour .
> 
> I've never said you need to defend yourself in the wild (whatever that means).  Quite the opposite.  I've said that people who compete or use skills professionally are applying the skills.  People who don't apply the skills, well, aren't applying them.  You think "flying" is training.  I think that's ridiculous, but you're pot committed, I guess.


You're getting increasingly condescending, and starting to ignore actual points, Steve. I pointed out the problem with the question - a problem you ought to have been aware of before asking it.

You've drawn an  arbitrary line in the sand, and declared that everything on one side of it is application, while nothing on the other side can ever be. Without a logical reason for the placement of that line, I can't really learn from your position or debate it. You seem to just think that's a crystal clear delineation. Perhaps my previous post will point out why I don't see it as such. If not, I just don't know what you're missing.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That last sentence isn't really relevant. If a pilot doesn't want to fly deadstick, that doesn't mean he's not a pilot.
> 
> I'm not really dependent upon my mood. I've just found that someone threatening me (or someone else) overrides empathy. It's pretty dependable. I have no real reason to want to bull through my empathy circuits to get into competition. Had my Judo instructor not moved to Jordan (or if I'd gotten into BJJ early in life), I'd probably have enjoyed that competition. Grappling doesn't have to require hurting someone, and I'd probably have just been a specialist at the methods less likely to injure. I just can't see myself being aggressive enough in a competition with strikes to be effective. And it would be impossible to tell where a flaw in my skills/technique was a reason for a loss, versus the low aggression.



Which is generally a reflection of your training. And that missing element of application.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> I've asked this before, and didn't understand the answer, so what's the clear distinction to you among these four?
> 
> Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in class with a known opponent (a student you've trained with before).
> Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in class with an unknown opponent (another student you've never met).
> Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in someone else's class with a known or unknown opponent (visiting another school, for instance).
> Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in a competition with a known or unknown opponent (maybe someone you've competed against before, maybe not).
> The way you've voiced it in these threads, only #4 constitutes "application", regardless of whether the opponent is a known quantity or not. It seems arbitrary, at best.



In the spirit of open discussion, I'm going to give my answer and also wait to see what Steve thinks...

From a self defence perspective, I wouldn't consider any of them "application".

To continue with the whole flight sim analogy though:

1 - would be like a limited sim. You'll get to know the challenges and possible situations they present quite quickly.

2 - a slightly better sim, until or unless you get to know them at which point they downgrade to 1.

3 - another step up on the sim scale, a whole new set of people and challenges with relatively unknown outcomes.

4 - between 2 and 3. Possibly/probably a more restricted ruleset than class training, but set to a higher difficulty.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Which is generally a reflection of your training. And that missing element of application.


So, you would also assert that there's a key difference between an unknown training opponent and an unknown competitor? What is that key difference?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> In the spirit of open discussion, I'm going to give my answer and also wait to see what Steve thinks...
> 
> From a self defence perspective, I wouldn't consider any of them "application".
> 
> To continue with the whole flight sim analogy though:
> 
> 1 - would be like a limited sim. You'll get to know the challenges and possible situations they present quite quickly.
> 
> 2 - a slightly better sim, until or unless you get to know them at which point they downgrade to 1.
> 
> 3 - another step up on the sim scale, a whole new set of people and challenges with relatively unknown outcomes.
> 
> 4 - between 2 and 3. Possibly/probably a more restricted ruleset than class training, but set to a higher difficulty.


So, what is the difference between the known person in class (part of 2) and out of class (part of 3). And what is the difference between the unknown person in an outside location (part of 3) and the same in an official competition (4)?

This is the disconnect for me. Competition isn't magic. If there's a key difference other than the one I've pointed out, the folks making the argument haven't made reference to it that I've seen.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, you would also assert that there's a key difference between an unknown training opponent and an unknown competitor? What is that key difference?



What is the difference between the fully resisted sparring you have done and competition you won't do because you don't have the tools.

Because I think it is the same answer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What is the difference between the fully resisted sparring you have done and competition you won't do because you don't have the tools.


Firstly, you've placed something in that question that's not in evidence. I do have the tools, I just lack the interest in hurting someone. I could probably have competed in Judo back in my 30's, when my body was more resilient. I just never had the interest in competition (an interest I find in myself lately, oddly), so never pursued it. How good were my tools? Good enough for the resistive sparring I did that had no clearly defined rules except the understanding that we'd back off if someone got hurt (which is part of most competitions, too). The difference in general (can't speak to all types of competition, of course) was that there were few restrictions and we all knew to respond to something that hurt enough that we knew an injury was the next step. We also held back some of our tools because we couldn't figure out how to apply them in that context without risking injury (the kinds of tools as are omitted from most competition, for the same reason).



> Because I think it is the same answer.


So, does any of that address what you're referring to?

Now, if we speak of full-contact striking competition (a much more narrow band), then there is a key difference, but it wouldn't apply to Judo or BJJ competitions. That key difference is that the competitors are actually trying to hurt each other (not out of malice, but because hitting people causes pain and some injury, and that's what it takes to win those). Mind you, that can be done without the need for the formal competition, too. People can spar hard from time to time in classes and with friends. They can even use the same rules as a competition. So, how does it differ?

But the argument put forth is that competition (not just striking competition) is application, while an arguably identical situation without the prize is not. That's the part that baffles me. I could make a strong argument (and have made it in passing on MT before - probably in discussion with you) that there are specific benefits to competition that those of us not competing miss out on. I just don't see this artificial line of application as one of them.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> So, what is the difference between the known person in class (part of 2) and out of class (part of 3). And what is the difference between the unknown person in an outside location (part of 3) and the same in an official competition (4)?
> 
> This is the disconnect for me. Competition isn't magic. If there's a key difference other than the one I've pointed out, the folks making the argument haven't made reference to it that I've seen.



I can't tally the numbers...

But, a person who has attended the same class as you that you've never sparred (say they usually do Thursday but you don't...) is likely to have been taught by the same instructor so will be likely to have the same application of the same techniques.

A newcomer (or someone transferring from another school) is like going to another school, but there's only one of them...

Going to another school means probably a different instructor, with different skillsets, teaching slightly different interpretations of the same techniques.

For competition comparison - we train things in class that aren't legal techniques in our system competition. But in competition things tend to heat up a bit - so it's both easier and more difficult...

To me, the only real thing that competition adds is the stress of motivation.

In comp, you want to win. A little like 'street', but it's still not the same.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Firstly, you've placed something in that question that's not in evidence. I do have the tools, I just lack the interest in hurting someone. I could probably have competed in Judo back in my 30's, when my body was more resilient. I just never had the interest in competition



So you could do it. You just don't want to?

Look mate seriously have a think about how you are mentally processing that. Because I think you are being dishonest with yourself.

Because there is a difference between don't want to and unable to.

And self defence centers around that difference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> I can't tally the numbers...
> 
> But, a person who has attended the same class as you that you've never sparred (say they usually do Thursday but you don't...) is likely to have been taught by the same instructor so will be likely to have the same application of the same techniques.
> 
> A newcomer (or someone transferring from another school) is like going to another school, but there's only one of them...
> 
> Going to another school means probably a different instructor, with different skillsets, teaching slightly different interpretations of the same techniques.
> 
> For competition comparison - we train things in class that aren't legal techniques in our system competition. But in competition things tend to heat up a bit - so it's both easier and more difficult...
> 
> To me, the only real thing that competition adds is the stress of motivation.
> 
> In comp, you want to win. A little like 'street', but it's still not the same.


Just a note, when I referred to other schools, I didn't distinguish between "same style" and "other styles". I probably should have. I agree that a same-style school is pretty similar to a student you haven't worked with at the same school you train at. Going to a different style loses all that familiarity, assuming you're working against a student you haven't worked against before.

As for wanting to win, when I spar - unless it's a specific drill - I tend to want to come out on top. I have to temper that with students and lower ranks, of course, so I limit myself. But with someone I consider near my ability, it is my intention to "win" unless I have another purpose in that sparring session (working on defense, finding a way to get to a clinch, etc.).


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> Going to another school means probably a different instructor, with different skillsets, teaching slightly different interpretations of the same techniques



This is the point of an open mat. Have you attended one?


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> In comp, you want to win. A little like 'street', but it's still not the same.



A comp can be very much wanting to not loose. Which is very much like a self defence situation.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> So you could do it. You just don't want to?
> 
> Look mate seriously have a think about how you are mentally processing that. Because I think you are being dishonest with yourself.
> 
> Because there is a difference between don't want to and unable to.
> 
> And self defence centers around that difference.



Out of interest, where do I fit in your interpretation, based on the following:

I am yet to officially compete.

I want to, but the events I've been allowed to enter so far have either clashed with other commitments or I've not had the spare cash to cover the entry...

I've 'beaten' others in class sparring "mini competition" that have been placed in "real" competition.

So I've been unable to compete, but not due to competency (in my and my instructor's opinion)...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you could do it. You just don't want to?


Could have (not can) with grappling. Doubt I could anymore. I actually thought about whether I could compete if I started BJJ (which is something I'm hoping to have time and money to do sometime in the next couple of years). I just don't see my legs allowing it. When I roll, I have to make rather dramatic concessions to my arthritic toes, so competition probably isn't something I'll get to do. Wish I'd done it when I was able - would have been nice to know how I'd have fared.

I still could with striking. I don't see where my legs would hold me back from competing (just slow me down, so I'd have to be better defending). I just don't have any interest in taking the head shots needed to compete, nor in handing them out. I suppose I could find something that doesn't allow head shots or only allows very light contact, but I'm not seeing much advantage over good sparring. The real advantage in striking sparring comes with hard sparring (competition or otherwise), and that's something I prefer to limit for the reasons I just gave. I'm pretty honest with myself that I don't want to give or take head shots, and that this limits my training experience (because competition is still just training, to me).



> Look mate seriously have a think about how you are mentally processing that. Because I think you are being dishonest with yourself.


Nothing dishonest about it. Back then, I never really had an interest in competition of any sort, even when I was training for it in Judo. That's probably why I stayed long-term with an art that doesn't train for competition. 



> Because there is a difference between don't want to and unable to.


Yep.



> And self defence centers around that difference.


Hmm...need to think that through, using what you think I was saying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> A comp can be very much wanting to not loose. Which is very much like a self defence situation.


I tend to have that same reaction without going to a competition. I used to say I wasn't competitive, but looking back at my own approach to sparring (especially after some of our discussions last year), I realize I've always been competitive when working with resistance.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> Out of interest, where do I fit in your interpretation, based on the following:
> 
> I am yet to officially compete.
> 
> I want to, but the events I've been allowed to enter so far have either clashed with other commitments or I've not had the spare cash to cover the entry...
> 
> I've 'beaten' others in class sparring "mini competition" that have been placed in "real" competition.
> 
> So I've been unable to compete, but not due to competency (in my and my instructor's opinion)...



You would have to compete to know one way or the other.

I have out sparred guys who would roll me in competition. Just through mental toughness and drive to Finnish.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I tend to have that same reaction without going to a competition. I used to say I wasn't competitive, but looking back at my own approach to sparring (especially after some of our discussions last year), I realize I've always been competitive when working with resistance.



Fighting to win and fighting not to loose are two different animals.

Loosing publicly sucks. It is a hard thing to face. Look at ronda rousey. It mentally crippled her for ages.

Self defence is such a mental game that these tools are vital to develop.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> This is the point of an open mat. Have you attended one?



No. I don't know of any that are held within any sort of reasonable distance of me...



drop bear said:


> You would have to compete to know one way or the other.
> 
> I have out sparred guys who would roll me in competition. Just through mental toughness and drive to Finnish.



Fair enough.

I'm aiming to compete this year so I'll be sure to report back


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> No. I don't know of any that are held within any sort of reasonable distance of me...
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> I'm aiming to compete this year so I'll be sure to report back



Yeah tell us how you go.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Fighting to win and fighting not to loose are two different animals.
> 
> Loosing publicly sucks. It is a hard thing to face. Look at ronda rousey. It mentally crippled her for ages.
> 
> Self defence is such a mental game that these tools are vital to develop.


I can only talk about my experience in other competition, since I've never competed in MA. The public nature of a win or loss has never had much effect on me - it's the win/loss itself that seems to affect me, and how much importance I put on the event. It might be different with MA, but I'm not sure why it would be.

You are correct that there's a difference between trying to win and trying not to lose. I tend to confuse them in my comments, because there's an overlap. When sparring (and sports), I don't like losing against someone I think is better than me - I go into "don't lose" mode. With someone who feels like a good challenge but not better, I tend to focus on winning. I'm not sure there's a clear line between those two, though they are different things. When I coached soccer, I coached not to lose, and never did. We won a lot, but I always refer to those as "undefeated" seasons, because that's how I see them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> This is the point of an open mat. Have you attended one?


I'd love to offer open-mat. I've only had a chance to participate in them a couple of times (they are hard to find outside an MMA gym, IME, and not always available even there). It would be good for both me and my students. I'd have to look into the insurance and liability for that. It's one of the items on my "ideal dojo" list.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> I'd love to offer open-mat. I've only had a chance to participate in them a couple of times (they are hard to find outside an MMA gym, IME, and not always available even there). It would be good for both me and my students. I'd have to look into the insurance and liability for that. It's one of the items on my "ideal dojo" list.



Actually, I wasn't entirely truthful before.

I do know of one place that holds open sessions, all welcome deal.

But, it's boxing. Normal modern western boxing.

I'd probably be able to get something out of it as I'm fully aware my hand striking is very much my weak point - but it doesn't hold much attraction for me over that.

Maybe someday I'll give it a go.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> This is the part where we really disagree, Steve. A simulator simulates. A person trying to throw me while I try to throw them is not simulating. Their intention can be exactly the same as the person in a competition. In fact, it can be the same person as in the competition.
> 
> I'd be willing to accept the argument that resistive sparring in one's own dojo is like flying with a skilled person (whether trainer, co-pilot, or simply a skilled pilot as passenger) in the seat next to you. It's still flying, but with a measure of control not present in solo flying.


It’s a simulated fight.  Their intention will never be the same as someone in a competition, nor someone who is trying to hurt you.  Sparring isn’t about beating or defeating your fellow student,   Shoot, man, they’re even called sparring partners, not sparring villains or sparring opponents.  

I get that you won’t accept it, but you’re acting like we are negotiating now.   Training is training.   Good training will facilitate the transition to application, but it will never replace it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'd love to offer open-mat. I've only had a chance to participate in them a couple of times (they are hard to find outside an MMA gym, IME, and not always available even there). It would be good for both me and my students. I'd have to look into the insurance and liability for that. It's one of the items on my "ideal dojo" list.



MMA should be the most suitable though as it offers the most rulesets.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> It’s a simulated fight. Their intention will never be the same as someone in a competition, nor someone who is trying to hurt you. Sparring isn’t about beating or defeating your fellow student, Shoot, man, they’re even called sparring partners, not sparring villains or sparring opponents



Competition could be viewed as simulated fighting too though - depending on ruleset.

Unless the competitions you attend are vastly different from the ones I've seen, your opponent isn't planning to kill you in the face with a chainsaw and steal your car...

I'm making a big assumption here as I have no frame of reference for either, but I imagine actual real self defence in a situation that's reached the physical altercation level is a different stress profile to trying to win a shiny trophy.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I've asked this before, and didn't understand the answer, so what's the clear distinction to you among these four?
> 
> Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in class with a known opponent (a student you've trained with before).
> Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in class with an unknown opponent (another student you've never met).
> Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in someone else's class with a known or unknown opponent (visiting another school, for instance).
> Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in a competition with a known or unknown opponent (maybe someone you've competed against before, maybe not).
> The way you've voiced it in these threads, only #4 constitutes "application", regardless of whether the opponent is a known quantity or not. It seems arbitrary, at best.


The fourth isn’t sparring, rolling or randori.  It’s the application of the skills and techniques practiced while sparring.  In the same way, arresting a bad guy is the application of skills learned in the police academy.   Or Managing employee performance is the application of the skills learned in a new supervisor training.  

The training isn’t the application.  So, if you’re never applying the training outside of training, you have created an abnormal situation where the training itself is your application.  And the results are that the skills are underdeveloped and unreliable.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> Competition could be viewed as simulated fighting too though - depending on ruleset.
> 
> Unless the competitions you attend are vastly different from the ones I've seen, your opponent isn't planning to kill you in the face with a chainsaw and steal your car...
> 
> I'm making a big assumption here as I have no frame of reference for either, but I imagine actual real self defence in a situation that's reached the physical altercation level is a different stress profile to trying to win a shiny trophy.


  Competition isn’t street fighting.  Sure.   That is an important point.   I’m not suggesting that they are the same.  I’m suggesting that it is developing reliable skills.  What skills are being developed will depend on the nature of the competition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Actually, I wasn't entirely truthful before.
> 
> I do know of one place that holds open sessions, all welcome deal.
> 
> But, it's boxing. Normal modern western boxing.
> 
> I'd probably be able to get something out of it as I'm fully aware my hand striking is very much my weak point - but it doesn't hold much attraction for me over that.
> 
> Maybe someday I'll give it a go.


I do think the boxing/wrestling/BJJ gym (clearly MMA gym) I've looked at has open mat time. I keep meaning to drop by and see what goes on then, to see if it looks inviting to folks outside those styles or if it's just boxing (which I somehow took it to be from the website). Stupid stuff like life and work keep interfering with that plan.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> It’s a simulated fight.  Their intention will never be the same as someone in a competition, nor someone who is trying to hurt you.  Sparring isn’t about beating or defeating your fellow student,   Shoot, man, they’re even called sparring partners, not sparring villains or sparring opponents.
> 
> I get that you won’t accept it, but you’re acting like we are negotiating now.   Training is training.   Good training will facilitate the transition to application, but it will never replace it.


Okay, so competition is also a simulated fight. See, I don't really have a problem with calling sparring a simulation of a fight, but I fail to see the stark line you appear to see between training and competition (which I see as a training tool).


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> So, what is the difference between the known person in class (part of 2) and out of class (part of 3). And what is the difference between the unknown person in an outside location (part of 3) and the same in an official competition (4)?
> 
> This is the disconnect for me. Competition isn't magic. If there's a key difference other than the one I've pointed out, the folks making the argument haven't made reference to it that I've seen.


The key difference is that one is like college and the other is like a job.   One is like boot camp and the other is like what happens after you get to your first duty station.  One is like learning to do something, and the other is like doing that thing.  One is like reading cook books, and the other is like cooking a recipe.   

It’s a logical, reasonable, and very predictable delineation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> MMA should be the most suitable though as it offers the most rulesets.


Agreed. My point was only that there are a lot more MA places (including MMA) than MAA places. Most other MA places don't seem to offer open-mat, so that limits the number of places. I think MMA is more inviting to outsiders (in general, there are exceptions) than most other groups, but those of us outside that group tend to either not know or to forget that.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Okay, so competition is also a simulated fight. See, I don't really have a problem with calling sparring a simulation of a fight, but I fail to see the stark line you appear to see between training and competition (which I see as a training tool).


There is still a difference.  An important one.   The competitor spars to prepare for competition. You spar to... what again?

So, if the competitor is trying to be a self defense expert, sure, the competition is a training tool.   Doesn’t change the nature of the competition any more than LEO training changes the nature of working as a cop.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> The fourth isn’t sparring, rolling or randori.  It’s the application of the skills and techniques practiced while sparring.  In the same way, arresting a bad guy is the application of skills learned in the police academy.   Or Managing employee performance is the application of the skills learned in a new supervisor training.


See, here's where you lose me, Steve. How is competition (a controlled fight with rules and safety) not a simulation of fighting? Perhaps it's all about perspective. Since my primary focus has always been SD, I see competition as a simulation, and don't see how it can NOT be one but other, nearly identical, situations still are.

To me, competition is part of the training. I think that's the real disconnect for us.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> There is still a difference.  An important one.   The competitor spars to prepare for competition. You spar to... what again?
> 
> So, if the competitor is trying to be a self defense expert, sure, the competition is a training tool.   Doesn’t change the nature of the competition any more than LEO training changes the nature of working as a cop.


Okay, I think we're actually on the same page now. Our disconnect is that we're each arguing from our point of view. From my point of view, competition is training, so not a distinct difference from some of the other sparring/rolling/randori options. You're looking at competition as the end point, which makes it not training. In that context, I mostly agree with you, though I still don't see a stark distinction of any real substance between two people from different schools sparring with rules, versus two people from different schools sparring with the same rules in a formal competition.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> I do think the boxing/wrestling/BJJ gym (clearly MMA gym) I've looked at has open mat time. I keep meaning to drop by and see what goes on then, to see if it looks inviting to folks outside those styles or if it's just boxing (which I somehow took it to be from the website). Stupid stuff like life and work keep interfering with that plan.



If it's MMA and BJJ as well, it's likely to have a broader range than the boxing one near me.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against boxing - it just doesn't appeal to me much.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> See, here's where you lose me, Steve. How is competition (a controlled fight with rules and safety) not a simulation of fighting? Perhaps it's all about perspective. Since my primary focus has always been SD, I see competition as a simulation, and don't see how it can NOT be one but other, nearly identical, situations still are.
> 
> To me, competition is part of the training. I think that's the real disconnect for us.


I truly believe someday you’ll just get it.  It often occurs when a person realizes that they can’t do what they always thought.   Like the unfortunate kids on American idol who were always told they sang like angels.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> though I still don't see a stark distinction of any real substance between two people from different schools sparring with rules, versus two people from different schools sparring with the same rules in a formal competition.



I seem to be between these viewpoints...

These two people in a class or sparring session environment are probably less motivated to win than the same people meeting on the mat in front of an audience with a title of some sort at stake.

I see a potentially large difference, but not a stark delineation.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Okay, I think we're actually on the same page now. Our disconnect is that we're each arguing from our point of view. From my point of view, competition is training, so not a distinct difference from some of the other sparring/rolling/randori options. You're looking at competition as the end point, which makes it not training. In that context, I mostly agree with you, though I still don't see a stark distinction of any real substance between two people from different schools sparring with rules, versus two people from different schools sparring with the same rules in a formal competition.


The difference is that one has some consequence for losing and represents a culmination of training.   The other isn’t. 

Why is this important?  There’s a reason.  You’ve said it yourself .   You are training for self defense.  Otherwise, it doesn’t matter.  If you want to do what you do in class, great.   If you want to do what you do outside of class, you need to apply the skills outside of class.


----------



## Anarax

gpseymour said:


> I lump all of those in with stuff like pressure points. They work, when they work. They are only dependable when you can get to them (to DB's point about a good striker), and some folks are taught to depend upon them MUCH too much.
> 
> In fact, when I show using a groin shot, I usually am using it to get them to move a leg to block me. Most men are pretty good at doing that, and do it without thought. Similar concept with eye pokes.


Agreed. I'm not saying they're not useful, but I think there are those that are taught "just do this and it'll end the fight".


----------



## Anarax

gpseymour said:


> What's the distinction between those?



A Martial Art style that is taught with more emphasis on an already existing component, for example SD. However; it's still a style that has many other components to teach. For example; in Kali we have our SD component that is based on Kali concepts, but Kali has a lot more than just SD. Opposed to SD courses and classes, that are *only *SD and isn't a particular style.


----------



## Anarax

hoshin1600 said:


> i dont really need to build a case, i wasnt aware i was on trial.


It's not about being on trial. However; when you repeatedly state how you're a different kind of SD instructor and how your course is better, some will naturally inquire on how you are. When you dictate how someone should word their posts you also open yourself up to criticism, as with any other forum.


hoshin1600 said:


> often traditional martial arts also have absolutely no standards as well. so that is not a valid point.


The lack of standards in MA is a deviation from what it came from though. I agree that a lot of MA schools are watered down and have problems. However; I know the watered down nature of some MA styles taught in some schools isn't how the Samurai, Okinawans warriors, Lapu Lapu, etc trained in them. What you're referring to is more so the training culture of schools and not the actual structure nor design of the MA styles themselves. That's the biggest difference between SD and MA criticism. There's no traceable history with SD, not only lineage, but history. I have faith that the Filipino's needed their Kali to be top notch given their lives depended on it, and they still do considering more than 80% of murders in the Philippines are done with blades. Same goes for other historical groups that had to develop effective fighting styles for survival. That doesn't guarantee every MA school is going to be great, but the doesn't mean the source material is the problem, it's usually the school culture.     


hoshin1600 said:


> now if you or anyone has a specific critique about SD and want my opinion on how i deal with the issue i would be glad to address it but in general im not writing a dissertation for someones amusement.


It's not for amusement, when you involve yourself into a thread people are bound to ask questions about your credentials. It's not always out of disrespect.


----------



## Buka

In a lot of ways, competing is a whole lot easier than training. And, many times, especially as to how it relates to this thread, the self defense aspects of your training get put aside in competitions. I'm not talking about eye gouges and what not, I mean the very approach, strategies, techniques etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I truly believe someday you’ll just get it.  It often occurs when a person realizes that they can’t do what they always thought.   Like the unfortunate kids on American idol who were always told they sang like angels.


You are assuming, though, that I can't. My skills have held up reasonably well working with people from different disciplines - as well as you might expect for a hobbyist (as Tony puts it). I try to be pretty honest with myself about my limitations, and from time to time I seek out someone who can show up some of my weaknesses. I do those things because I knew some folks who did them and were surprised by some of their weaknesses - I took that as a cautionary tale for myself.

Competition is a training tool for SD in my eyes (because SD is the underlying purpose of my training). It can't be the end point unless it's the point of your training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> I seem to be between these viewpoints...
> 
> These two people in a class or sparring session environment are probably less motivated to win than the same people meeting on the mat in front of an audience with a title of some sort at stake.
> 
> I see a potentially large difference, but not a stark delineation.


I can certainly see that. I do think (as DB pointed out) that most people are more affected by loss in front of a group than in private (though that doesn't compute for me - I'd be more interested in not losing in front of a few people who know me than 1,000 strangers). That probably means the opponent is likely to be fighting harder. I agree there's a potentially large difference, but not a clear delineation. If I didn't make that clear, that's on me. I see them as potentially (not necessarily) variations of the same thing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> Agreed. I'm not saying they're not useful, but I think there are those that are taught "just do this and it'll end the fight".


I have definitely heard people say that. I give some of those people a pass, since I heard them say it before YouTube. There's really no excuse for saying it now - there's too much evidence that they sometimes have little positive effect. They sometimes work spectacularly, but training should center around the contingency.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> The difference is that one has some consequence for losing and represents a culmination of training.   The other isn’t.
> 
> Why is this important?  There’s a reason.  You’ve said it yourself .   You are training for self defense.  Otherwise, it doesn’t matter.  If you want to do what you do in class, great.   If you want to do what you do outside of class, you need to apply the skills outside of class.


What is the consequence for losing in a competition that doesn't exist in an unofficial sparring session? As for representing "a culmination of training", that's only if you trained specifically for the competition and with the competition as the point. If the competition is just seen as a training tool, then it's no more a culmination than the sparring session. Whether a point is a culmination depends how one sees it. I just don't see it that way. Maybe a really big competition, after a long series of competitions and preparing for each, but that really just goes back to my point that it depends whether that competition is the point of your training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> A Martial Art style that is taught with more emphasis on an already existing component, for example SD. However; it's still a style that has many other components to teach. For example; in Kali we have our SD component that is based on Kali concepts, but Kali has a lot more than just SD. Opposed to SD courses and classes, that are *only *SD and isn't a particular style.


Okay, so what I teach is a SD course, by that calculation, unless you include some of the self-development that occurs (which will occur to some extent in any focused endeavor). My teaching is centered around SD. I use NGA as a primary tool toward that, and the style itself is focused on SD. I've blended in other techniques and approaches from other sources to improve the SD focus. I evaluate every technique (and teach my students to do so) for its strengths and weaknesses as a SD tool, or as a tool for learning principles useful in SD.

All of the personal development focus I bring to classes (the purposeful stuff) is designed to prevent the need for SD.

I'm not sure how much more SD oriented a SD course can be.


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> when you repeatedly state how you're a different kind of SD instructor and how your course is better, some will naturally inquire on how you are. When you dictate how someone should word their posts you also open yourself up to criticism, as with any other forum.



as far as dictating how people should word their posts,  it has been a running theme on this web sight for years and something that is just common logic that broad brush statements are usually incorrect and do tend to be corrected here on this sight.  so yeah you were making generalized comments. based on your own experiences and thats fine but that is not everyones experiences.  and its not about me, i believe you and i have "gotten into it" before about this same kind of misunderstanding. you seem to think that because i said something i am talking about myself ONLY....on the contrary i am nothing special so if i am doing something...
A....i must have learned it somewhere and from someone
B...logically i can not be the only one doing it
C.... it would then be a logical conclusion that a generalized statement would not hold true.

you were expressing your opinion based on your experience, i was stating that my experience has been different.



Anarax said:


> What you're referring to is more so the training culture of schools and not the actual structure nor design of the MA styles themselves. That's the biggest difference between SD and MA criticism. There's no traceable history with SD, not only lineage, but history.


no traceable history???  so what people just pulled stuff out of their butts??

does this look familiar??





almost everything in SD training and combatives comes from traditional martial arts.  there is nothing in traditional martial arts that cannot be found (or a similar equivalent to) in combatives or SD training, except the white pajama's and the foreign words and bowing and stuff.


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> I agree that a lot of MA schools are watered down and have problems. However; I know the watered down nature of some MA styles taught in some schools isn't how the Samurai, Okinawans warriors, Lapu Lapu, etc trained in them. What you're referring to is more so the training culture of schools and not the actual structure nor design of the MA styles themselves. That's the biggest difference between SD and MA criticism.


so let me rephrase your words to see if i understand your view point.
  that a degradation in martial arts is a result of being watered down over time and that this only happens on a school to school basis and does not reflect the style as a whole because there is a history in a style that maintains its integrity ..

do i have that right???
do you wish to correct me before i respond to this?


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> as far as dictating how people should word their posts,  it has been a running theme on this web sight for years and something that is just common logic that broad brush statements are usually incorrect and do tend to be corrected here on this sight.  so yeah you were making generalized comments. based on your own experiences and thats fine but that is not everyones experiences.  and its not about me, i believe you and i have "gotten into it" before about this same kind of misunderstanding. you seem to think that because i said something i am talking about myself ONLY....on the contrary i am nothing special so if i am doing something...
> A....i must have learned it somewhere and from someone
> B...logically i can not be the only one doing it
> C.... it would then be a logical conclusion that a generalized statement would not hold true.
> 
> you were expressing your opinion based on your experience, i was stating that my experience has been different.
> 
> 
> no traceable history???  so what people just pulled stuff out of their butts??
> 
> does this look familiar??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> almost everything in SD training and combatives comes from traditional martial arts.  there is nothing in traditional martial arts that cannot be found (or a similar equivalent to) in combatives or SD training, except the white pajama's and the foreign words and bowing and stuff.



Where as backing up a statement with evidence has never been an issue here. 

Look. Self defence training makes no difference if it is good bad or indifferent. A terrible self defence instructor can still be successful.

So the main complaint of self defence is the lack of verification that any of it works at all.

That aspect in itself is what makes self defence training terrible.

So without any verification that what you do works. Lumping what you do as terrible with what everyone else does as terrible is a valid observation.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I can certainly see that. I do think (as DB pointed out) that most people are more affected by loss in front of a group than in private (though that doesn't compute for me - I'd be more interested in not losing in front of a few people who know me than 1,000 strangers). That probably means the opponent is likely to be fighting harder. I agree there's a potentially large difference, but not a clear delineation. If I didn't make that clear, that's on me. I see them as potentially (not necessarily) variations of the same thing.



You don't have the tools to compete. But you do have the tools to spar.

There is either a difference or there isn't.


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> So the main complaint of self defence is the lack of verification that any of it works at all.
> 
> That aspect in itself is what makes self defence training terrible.



first ...you would have to explain to me what self defense is.  second... a major component is BJJ ,,,,so your telling me that BJJ is terrible for self defense?????

i think the Gracie family would argue against you on that.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> first ...you would have to explain to me what self defense is.  second... a major component is BJJ ,,,,so your telling me that BJJ is terrible for self defense?????
> 
> i think the Gracie family would argue against you on that.



BJJ is only partially validated by its self defence component. And when it is they produce video evidence to support their concepts.

So instead of trying to create mental gymnastics to support unsupportable ideas they just show a video of someone getting messed up by a BJJer.

Otherwise I don't really have to define self defence. If self defence is some sort of indefinable mess. That gives the people attempting to validate their method by self defence more work. Not less.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You don't have the tools to compete. But you do have the tools to spar.
> 
> There is either a difference or there isn't.


I can spar (and could compete) striking with no significant limitation.

I can roll with a lot of limitation (can't use my toes in any significant way). If rolling is strikes-free (something similar to BJJ competition rules), I'm hosed by anyone with skill, because my kneeling base will always be weak, as are transitions from knee to foot. I can get around that in working with people by depending a bit on strikes, but if they have ground skill, I'll eventually be eaten.

I can do standing grappling with less limitation on most days. As long as I stick to standing finishes or a few choice ground finishes, I'm okay. I do spend some focus keeping my toes safe, because one hard stub or stomp and I'm out of the fight (not so much of an issue with shoes), but it doesn't create much of a limitation. The knees are more the issue. If we're grappling-only, I have a hard time getting under for some throws many days. If I were to try to enter a Judo competition, anyone who kept their weight low would cause me no end of problem. If I'm allowed strikes, tie-ups, and hard shoves (none of which I think are allowed or at least favored in Judo rules), I can overcome this. Consistently stalling other people's techniques also works well in sparring, but not in Judo competition.

I have the tools. My legs just suck. I get by in sparring by leaning on what I can do and being really good at defending. When the rules (whether spoken or just understood) allow me more latitude, I'm pretty capable if I stay off the ground.

I can't say if I'd be any good at competing, but I have the tools to do it. I just don't know of  a ruleset (other than striking) that I'm still able enough for.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

EDIT: Double post.


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> I don't really have to define self defence.


actually for this argument ,,yes you do, because it is the underlying crux of the entire argument.
@Anarax has been trying to make a point that traditional martial arts are better than self defense.
but self defense is defined as:  _a __countermeasure__ that involves defending the __health__ and well-being of oneself from __harm__.   as per WikiP_
it is not a style.  it is not a collection of techniques.  Thus you cannot get a certificate in it and cannot be accredited as an instructor.  it doesnt have a history or linage.  
it is an : aim, goal or purpose FOR training.   training in what?   training in martial arts.  what martial art?   the art of your choice,, you get to choose.   which is why my comment to Anarax was to not generalize about self defense.  sometimes self defense training is nothing more that traditional martial arts and there is a long list of arts to choose from.

and that brings me to being done on this topic.


----------



## pdg

hoshin1600 said:


> Thus you cannot get a certificate in it and cannot be accredited as an instructor.



The results of a quick search I just conducted contradict that...


----------



## hoshin1600

pdg said:


> The results of a quick search I just conducted contradict that...


incorrect per my comments.  i asked them to define self defense.   self defense as defined by wiki that i posted cannot be.  however an organization can give you a certificate to teach "their curriculum".  they may define it as self defense but that is improper, they are certifying you in their program that presumes a use as self defense.

its semantics for sure, but more accurate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You don't have the tools to compete. But you do have the tools to spar.
> 
> There is either a difference or there isn't.


I just realized I answered a different question than I think you intended. I blame it on sleep deprivation.

When I said sparring can be nearly identical to competition - no functional difference - I was speaking of it in general. My sparring (rolling, randori, whatever) isn't like Judo competition or BJJ competition. I can adjust the rules to accommodate my injuries when necessary - something I cannot do with competition.


----------



## Anarax

gpseymour said:


> Okay, so what I teach is a SD course, by that calculation, unless you include some of the self-development that occurs (which will occur to some extent in any focused endeavor).


I'm not telling you what you're teaching, but I will explain the different categories of what I'm referring to. The three primary categories I'm using for the sake of this thread are Martial Arts(Karate, Kung Fu, Japanese Jujitsu, Judo, Kali), MA styles that emphasize SD(Aikido, Krav Maga) and SD courses themselves. Please note there is some overlap.


gpseymour said:


> My teaching is centered around SD. I use NGA as a primary tool toward that, and the style itself is focused on SD.


Here's what I think makes the differences are between MA, MA focus on SD and SD courses

1) MA is based on concepts which shape what a MA will focus on and how it will function. I see concepts as the Genesis of MA, concepts bridge into tactics and from tactics, techniques. Having a firm grasp on concepts is vital for any martial artist, regardless of the focus. If your style focuses more so on the SD(not course, but an actual MA style) side of it, you approach it by maintaining the core concepts of the style. NGA has a clear history and there is a certain level of authenticity that I can verify if I wanted to take classes from you. However; if you only advertised yourself as an SD instructor and under your "about" page it said "background in Martial Arts". It's too vague and can't really be verified nor substantiated. However; your site gave very specific information with dates and instructor's names. Essentially, there's no requirements nor credentials needed to advertise yourself as an SD instructor and a lot of them give very vague information.      

2) Many SD courses I've seen lack concepts, it's just techniques that people are taught. I think there's more to MA than just teaching people techniques. Rewiring(not brainwashing related) how someone moves and reacts with deeply ingrained MA concepts is what I think is part of the goal of MA. I haven't made any MA techniques, but I have used certain techniques that I haven't been taught, but they are very "Kali" looking techniques. I think that's another example of conceptual Martial arts training.

3) Having taken Aikido and Krav myself, I can speak from experience. Krav draws from so many sources it lacks any definite concepts. It has plenty of techniques, but the techniques themselves lack any conceptual consistency. However; Aikido is different from KM in regards to its concepts being more complete. Aikido's techniques are based on the Aiki concept, thus you could apply that concept to training in other systems and blending other techniques into your curriculum. If you only knew the techniques without understanding the concepts you would only be a copy of your instructor. That's how many other style came to be, slight conceptual deviations which results in changes of techniques and emphasis.  



gpseymour said:


> I've blended in other techniques and approaches from other sources to improve the SD focus. I evaluate every technique (and teach my students to do so) for its strengths and weaknesses as a SD tool, or as a tool for learning principles useful in SD.


That is a good approach. Would you say you had a good foundational understanding of at least one MA style before you started teaching?  What is the name of what you teach exactly?


----------



## Anarax

hoshin1600 said:


> as far as dictating how people should word their posts, it has been a running theme on this web sight for years and something that is just common logic that broad brush statements are usually incorrect and do tend to be corrected here on this sight. so yeah you were making generalized comments.


When you essentially say "don't say that" without an explanation as to the why, you open yourself up to criticism and questions. For example; GP is explaining to me how his class approaches SD and we're having a conversation about it. 



hoshin1600 said:


> i believe you and i have "gotten into it" before about this same kind of misunderstanding.


Honestly I don't have the attention span to remember who I have and haven't "gotten into it" with.



hoshin1600 said:


> you seem to think that because i said something i am talking about myself ONLY....on the contrary i am nothing special so if i am doing something...
> A....i must have learned it somewhere and from someone
> B...logically i can not be the only one doing it
> C.... it would then be a logical conclusion that a generalized statement would not hold true.


No, but I do think you're taking any criticism of SD personally. Anytime I posted a criticism or said how and why I placed MA above long-term SD courses, you replied equating my words as meaning SD is "crap". You used "crap" multiple times in your responses suggesting that's what I said and meant. That shows you're jumping to conclusions and are very defensive about this topic.  



hoshin1600 said:


> you were expressing your opinion based on your experience, i was stating that my experience has been different.


Yes that's part of what we were doing.



hoshin1600 said:


> no traceable history??? so what people just pulled stuff out of their butts??


Adding a wrist throw doesn't make it Aikido, nor does adding knife techniques make it Kali. The style's actual history is important, it brings context and validity to its understanding. 



hoshin1600 said:


> there is nothing in traditional martial arts that cannot be found (or a similar equivalent to) in combatives or SD training, except the white pajama's and the foreign words and bowing and stuff.


Wow, the last part of that comment is very ignorant. I think that clearly illustrates why we're not agreeing on this topic, we obviously view MA very differently


----------



## Anarax

hoshin1600 said:


> it is not a style. it is not a collection of techniques.


Yet you're defending the long-term courses, thus we can conclude that self-defense courses exist?



hoshin1600 said:


> Thus you cannot get a certificate in it and cannot be accredited as an instructor. it doesnt have a history or linage.


There are instructor certificates. Link



hoshin1600 said:


> Anarax was to not generalize about self defense. sometimes self defense training is nothing more that traditional martial arts and there is a long list of arts to choose from.


It's not simply that. We weren't debating on the concept of SD, we were debating the differences on MA and SD courses.


----------



## Buka

My twelve cents..

I never competed in MMA. The first UFC didn't come around until I was in my forties. Even though Jorge Rivera tried to get me to fight in one of his events in Puerto Rico when in my fifties, my wife wouldn't let me. [yes, I'm pussy whipped] But I sure wish I had, if for no other reason than the fun of it and to have the right frame of reference when discussing all kinds of competitions. Even though I was an MMA judge for years in New England, judging guys like Kenny Florian and Joe Lauzon in the early part of their careers - watching and judging sure ain't doing.

Anyway...for tournament style competitions, where you fight a guy and if you win you fight another guy - until the division has one winner, there's really, in MY OPINION, little self defense going on in your head. You aren't trying to hurt the guy, or knock him out, you're just trying to beat him. To me, the very hardest part of tournament competitions has always been driving hours to the tourney and waiting what seems like eons to hear your damn name called. Sometimes, when you're ahead, you stall. I mean, he's losing, he _has_ to come to you, and the clock is ticking. Ticking in your favor. You really don't stall much in self defense, unless you're waiting for the cops or other factors that might save your butt .

In ring fighting, while you may very well be trying to kayo him, maybe even hurt him a little, it's still different. I kick boxed professionally for some years in New England, and when Massachusetts outlawed kick boxing for a while, yes, that's correct, it was against the law to have kick boxing in Massachusetts.  In case you're wondering why - kick boxing shows were outselling boxing shows by a big margin, HUGE margin. The State House in Boston Massachusetts had a lot of old time boxers working there in FAT political jobs - they pushed a bill through declaring that since kicking was considered "dirty fighting" they banned all kick boxing in the state. So, F em', we went to other states and fought.
Interesting side note - years later, these same son's O bitches in the State House - I ended up training them how to judge MMA matches in Mass. Weird how life comes full circle some time.

Anyway...if you're kickboxing, you are aware of all rules, how many kicks you are required to throw or lose the round and/or the fight. You are aware of where you are in regard to where the judges sit, you are aware if you finish the round strong, the judges might give you the round even if you didn't deserve it. So many things come into professional fighting your attitude, movement, focus - is as far from self defense as Washington D.C is from honesty.

Competition gets easier the more you do it. Those first couple of times you are as nervous as a cat. Then it becomes something you just waste a perfectly good Saturday on because it's fun. And sometimes there's money!

And I was always taught that training should be much harder than any competition, or any self defense situation,  you _ever_ get into. That's the way we always approached it. Seems to work. Ain't nobody died yet. 

And the only advice I'd give to guys going to tourneys....bring a lot of sandwiches. You're going to need them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> I'm not telling you what you're teaching, but I will explain the different categories of what I'm referring to. The three primary categories I'm using for the sake of this thread are Martial Arts(Karate, Kung Fu, Japanese Jujitsu, Judo, Kali), MA styles that emphasize SD(Aikido, Krav Maga) and SD courses themselves. Please note there is some overlap.
> 
> Here's what I think makes the differences are between MA, MA focus on SD and SD courses
> 
> 1) MA is based on concepts which shape what a MA will focus on and how it will function. I see concepts as the Genesis of MA, concepts bridge into tactics and from tactics, techniques. Having a firm grasp on concepts is vital for any martial artist, regardless of the focus. If your style focuses more so on the SD(not course, but an actual MA style) side of it, you approach it by maintaining the core concepts of the style. NGA has a clear history and there is a certain level of authenticity that I can verify if I wanted to take classes from you. However; if you only advertised yourself as an SD instructor and under your "about" page it said "background in Martial Arts". It's too vague and can't really be verified nor substantiated. However; your site gave very specific information with dates and instructor's names. Essentially, there's no requirements nor credentials needed to advertise yourself as an SD instructor and a lot of them give very vague information.
> 
> 2) Many SD courses I've seen lack concepts, it's just techniques that people are taught. I think there's more to MA than just teaching people techniques. Rewiring(not brainwashing related) how someone moves and reacts with deeply ingrained MA concepts is what I think is part of the goal of MA. I haven't made any MA techniques, but I have used certain techniques that I haven't been taught, but they are very "Kali" looking techniques. I think that's another example of conceptual Martial arts training.
> 
> 3) Having taken Aikido and Krav myself, I can speak from experience. Krav draws from so many sources it lacks any definite concepts. It has plenty of techniques, but the techniques themselves lack any conceptual consistency. However; Aikido is different from KM in regards to its concepts being more complete. Aikido's techniques are based on the Aiki concept, thus you could apply that concept to training in other systems and blending other techniques into your curriculum. If you only knew the techniques without understanding the concepts you would only be a copy of your instructor. That's how many other style came to be, slight conceptual deviations which results in changes of techniques and emphasis.
> 
> 
> That is a good approach. Would you say you had a good foundational understanding of at least one MA style before you started teaching?  What is the name of what you teach exactly?


Okay, I think I see your point. I should point out that you're defining "SD course" in a way that it has to be problematic, since you've basically included the problems in the definition. Essentially, the difference between what I do and a SD course is that I use concepts. If I didn't, it'd be a SD course. It's like saying "all McDojos are bad", which is pretty true, since all of us tend to use the bad habits some dojos have to define "McDojo".

As for what I teach, it depends when you ask me. My primary art is Nihon Goshin Aikido (a derivative of Daito-ryu). I have background in Judo, FMA, Karate, and a smattering of exposure to BJJ and MMA training, as well as Aikido and some other miscellaneous stuff. So, if someone asks what I teach, if they are not MA-oriented, I'm likely to say "martial arts". If they are MA oriented, I'll often say "Nihon Goshin Aikido", though that's not entirely true (my curriculum includes material NGA folks wouldn't recognize). To me, NGA is the base of what I teach, and is a reasonable container for the rest (if it wasn't, I'd have to find something else). Nothing I teach conflicts with the principles I see in NGA, but some of it probably conflicts with how others see NGA.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> actually for this argument ,,yes you do, because it is the underlying crux of the entire argument.
> @Anarax has been trying to make a point that traditional martial arts are better than self defense.
> but self defense is defined as:  _a __countermeasure__ that involves defending the __health__ and well-being of oneself from __harm__.   as per WikiP_
> it is not a style.  it is not a collection of techniques.  Thus you cannot get a certificate in it and cannot be accredited as an instructor.  it doesnt have a history or linage.
> it is an : aim, goal or purpose FOR training.   training in what?   training in martial arts.  what martial art?   the art of your choice,, you get to choose.   which is why my comment to Anarax was to not generalize about self defense.  sometimes self defense training is nothing more that traditional martial arts and there is a long list of arts to choose from.
> 
> and that brings me to being done on this topic.



OK. Self defence is a marketing tool. Designed to give the illusion that there is a real level of competency when there isn't.

It sounds cool but means nothing. Like tactical.

So you can have a collection of self defence techniques and be part of a self defence school and be accredited in self defence. Because anyone can come along and make that stuff up.

Same as I could do tactical training be accredited in tacticalness. And so on.

But real places teach self defence so self defence training exists. I could go to that school and train self defence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> The style's actual history is important, it brings context and validity to its understanding.


I tend to disagree with this. NGA's history isn't what makes it valid or provides my understanding. I validate individual techniques based on their utility, both in my experience and how others (both in NGA and outside it) have used them. Seeing a technique used by a LEO, someone defending themselves, or someone in an MMA or wrestling competition is more important to me than its history as part of NGA or Daito-ryu.


----------



## Anarax

gpseymour said:


> I should point out that you're defining "SD course" in a way that it has to be problematic, since you've basically included the problems in the definition


I don't understand, I'm not being coy. Could you clarify?



gpseymour said:


> Essentially, the difference between what I do and a SD course is that I use concepts.


Yes, but I think that makes a huge difference. You are basing it on a firm conceptual foundation.



gpseymour said:


> To me, NGA is the base of what I teach, and is a reasonable container for the rest (if it wasn't, I'd have to find something else).


This is how I approach learning other styles as well.



gpseymour said:


> Nothing I teach conflicts with the principles I see in NGA, but some of it probably conflicts with how others see NGA.


Differentiating between maintaining core concepts and the purists mentality is important. I'm not advocating for style "purity".



gpseymour said:


> NGA's history isn't what makes it valid or provides my understanding. I validate individual techniques based on their utility, both in my experience and how others (both in NGA and outside it) have used them.


I understand, I was more so referring to concept based martial arts and understanding the context of the style. I didn't mean any style with history automatically makes it valid. However; if I walk into a Rex Kwon Do school vs a Kyokushin school, there's at least history for Kyokushin I can go off of, though nothing is guaranteed.  



gpseymour said:


> Seeing a technique used by a LEO, someone defending themselves, or someone in an MMA or wrestling competition is more important to me than its history as part of NGA or Daito-ryu.


LEO?


----------



## Anarax

drop bear said:


> OK. Self defence is a marketing tool. Designed to give the illusion that there is a real level of competency when there isn't.
> 
> It sounds cool but means nothing. Like tactical.
> 
> So you can have a collection of self defence techniques and be part of a self defence school and be accredited in self defence. Because anyone can come along and make that stuff up.
> 
> Same as I could do tactical training be accredited in tacticalness. And so on.
> 
> But real places teach self defence so self defence training exists. I could go to that school and train self defence.
> 
> View attachment 21333


I only saw Pole Fitness and lost concentration


----------



## drop bear

Anarax said:


> I only saw Pole Fitness and lost concentration


That is a local place. I just have never been game to try it.

It is probably self defence based on pole fitness. Maybe with some Zumba thrown in. 

But yeah. Strange mix


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> I don't understand, I'm not being coy. Could you clarify?


Look at your distinction between a MA focused on SD, versus a SD course. You've put in the very definition that the SD course has no principles. You've provided a definition that includes it having that problem. Thus, anything that doesn't have that problem becomes "MA focused on SD", while anything with that problem is "SD course". It'd be like me saying sick people aren't healthy. Nothing particularly wrong with it - just wanted to make sure you realized you'd created a distinction that actually includes the problem. So, it's not that SD courses have that problem, but that programs with that problem are "SD courses".



> Yes, but I think that makes a huge difference. You are basing it on a firm conceptual foundation.


Every SD instructor I've ever actually had a chance to work with or talk shop with seems to do that (not saying there aren't any that don't - I just haven't had a chance to talk shop with them to find it out). I suspect those who don't are poorly trained - good teachers (theirs) tend to instill the principles of whatever they teach into the practice of the students and instructors they develop. So folks with thin training (especially those going off a certification program that's 40-80 hours) are unlikely to really have that set of principles, and are more likely to present specific solutions to problems, rather than approaches to solving them.



> I understand, I was more so referring to concept based martial arts and understanding the context of the style. I didn't mean any style with history automatically makes it valid. However; if I walk into a Rex Kwon Do school vs a Kyokushin school, there's at least history for Kyokushin I can go off of, though nothing is guaranteed.


My point was that the history doesn't really give much to go on. To some extent, lineage can be helpful. If someone had an excellent instructor, they are more likely to be at least a good instructor. Beyond that, even lineage doesn't promise much. In fact, some folks lean too much on the history of their art, going back to its roots too often (like the sword-derived movements I see in a lot of Aikido dojos), rather than letting the movements evolve for a specific purpose. A brand new art's problem isn't so much the lack of history to view, but that it hasn't had time to evolve and there are likely few practitioners to see how it looks outside the dedicated few. I like history, and find it interesting. I love to learn about the back story of arts, and tend to be more interested in arts that are somehow tied to the (thin) history of my primary art. But that's all intellectual curiosity, not practicality.




> LEO?


Law Enforcement Officer (read: cop).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> That is a local place. I just have never been game to try it.
> 
> It is probably self defence based on pole fitness. Maybe with some Zumba thrown in.
> 
> But yeah. Strange mix


Man, why are you still training at an MMA gym?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I just realized I answered a different question than I think you intended. I blame it on sleep deprivation.
> 
> When I said sparring can be nearly identical to competition - no functional difference - I was speaking of it in general. My sparring (rolling, randori, whatever) isn't like Judo competition or BJJ competition. I can adjust the rules to accommodate my injuries when necessary - something I cannot do with competition.


Sorry for the delayed response.  This thread has moved pretty quick, and you were getting a little sensitive.  Somewhere back earlier, you asked a question about the difference between sparring and competition.  I've been thinking about how to explain this in a different way, and I think it might help to go back and consider why the distinction matters in the first place.  Why does it matter what training is for, and how it is applied?

I think the answer is because how it is applied answers the important question, what can YOU do with YOUR training?  In other words, what are you good at?  What are you bad at?  No speculation.  No guessing.  You can or you cannot.  If you use BJJ in class, you know you can execute the techniques on your friends and fellow students.  If you compete in a BJJ competition and win, you have a measure of how you can do against people who are at your approximate skill level.   If you compete in an MMA event and win, you have a measure of how well you can apply your skills in that context.  If you don't compete, you really don't know.  There are guys who do well in class, but suck in competition.  There are guys who suck in class, but excel in competition.  And there are guys who work hard, and perform like machines, executing their training to a tee.  Which one are you?  If you don't compete, you don't know. 

If self defense is the goal, more application is better, not less.  As I said many, many posts ago, the more (and more diverse) your experience, the better.  If you're a guy who spars, you're going to be better off than someone who just watches videos.  But application of some kind will be better yet.  A BJJ competitor will be a competent grappler.  A BJJ and Judo competitor will be more well rounded, and a guy who competes in any kind of grappling ruleset he finds will be more well rounded yet.  The grappler who also competes in MMA is going to be very well rounded.  Now, notice I didn't say the guy who TRAINS BJJ or Judo or Wrestling or MMA.  Because training and competition are different.  One is learning technique and the other is applying technique.  Similarly, a guy who trains MMA, competes in various rulesets, and also works as a cop or body guard, will likely be more well rounded than the guy who isn't a cop or body guard. 

The point is, if you train aikido and apply it in competition, you're going to have much more reliable skills than if you don't compete.  If you train in aikido and use them on the job, whether that's as a bouncer, cop or whatever, you're going to be in much better shape than the expert aikido student.  It's really very simple.  If you apply your training, you will develop real skill.  Guys who train WC and apply it do better than guys who don't apply it.  Simply put, guys who fight are getting better at fighting.  Guys who spar are getting better at sparring.  Guys who compete are getting better at competing. 

You're arguing that sparring in class is the same as competition.  You say sparring is like piloting a plane.  I disagree, unless being really good at sparring is your goal.  See, this is where you lose your way.  You think you're training for self defense, and by doing so, you are establishing the application for your training.  Self defense.   That's not something I'm imposing on you.

But you aren't training for self defense.  You're training to be good at what you are actually doing.

Sparring is a component of training, and I don't think it's overly controversial to suggest that it is not equivalent to self defense, competition or the execution of a profession.  In the same way a guy who competes is training to become a skilled competitor, you are training to become a skilled sparring partner.  People spar in order to prepare for their goal.  Sparring isn't generally the end game.   But if that's the end of your road, then that's your application.  So, going back to what I said earlier, more is better.  A guy who spars might be a great sparring partner.  A guy who spars and competes is a good training partner, and also aware of his skill level against opponents.

And so, sparring only... can you use those techniques in self defense?  Maybe...  but I am not overly optimistic, if you cannot compete in any ruleset, and do not apply the skills in some other manner. At the very least, you aren't as well prepared as possible.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> Sorry for the delayed response.  This thread has moved pretty quick, and you were getting a little sensitive.  Somewhere back earlier, you asked a question about the difference between sparring and competition.  I've been thinking about how to explain this in a different way, and I think it might help to go back and consider why the distinction matters in the first place.  Why does it matter what training is for, and how it is applied?
> 
> I think the answer is because how it is applied answers the important question, what can YOU do with YOUR training?  In other words, what are you good at?  What are you bad at?  No speculation.  No guessing.  You can or you cannot.  If you use BJJ in class, you know you can execute the techniques on your friends and fellow students.  If you compete in a BJJ competition and win, you have a measure of how you can do against people who are at your approximate skill level.   If you compete in an MMA event and win, you have a measure of how well you can apply your skills in that context.  If you don't compete, you really don't know.  There are guys who do well in class, but suck in competition.  There are guys who suck in class, but excel in competition.  And there are guys who work hard, and perform like machines, executing their training to a tee.  Which one are you?  If you don't compete, you don't know.
> 
> If self defense is the goal, more application is better, not less.  As I said many, many posts ago, the more (and more diverse) your experience, the better.  If you're a guy who spars, you're going to be better off than someone who just watches videos.  But application of some kind will be better yet.  A BJJ competitor will be a competent grappler.  A BJJ and Judo competitor will be more well rounded, and a guy who competes in any kind of grappling ruleset he finds will be more well rounded yet.  The grappler who also competes in MMA is going to be very well rounded.  Now, notice I didn't say the guy who TRAINS BJJ or Judo or Wrestling or MMA.  Because training and competition are different.  One is learning technique and the other is applying technique.  Similarly, a guy who trains MMA, competes in various rulesets, and also works as a cop or body guard, will likely be more well rounded than the guy who isn't a cop or body guard.
> 
> The point is, if you train aikido and apply it in competition, you're going to have much more reliable skills than if you don't compete.  If you train in aikido and use them on the job, whether that's as a bouncer, cop or whatever, you're going to be in much better shape than the expert aikido student.  It's really very simple.  If you apply your training, you will develop real skill.  Guys who train WC and apply it do better than guys who don't apply it.  Simply put, guys who fight are getting better at fighting.  Guys who spar are getting better at sparring.  Guys who compete are getting better at competing.
> 
> You're arguing that sparring in class is the same as competition.  You say sparring is like piloting a plane.  I disagree, unless being really good at sparring is your goal.  See, this is where you lose your way.  You think you're training for self defense, and by doing so, you are establishing the application for your training.  Self defense.   That's not something I'm imposing on you.
> 
> But you aren't training for self defense.  You're training to be good at what you are actually doing.
> 
> Sparring is a component of training, and I don't think it's overly controversial to suggest that it is not equivalent to self defense, competition or the execution of a profession.  In the same way a guy who competes is training to become a skilled competitor, you are training to become a skilled sparring partner.  People spar in order to prepare for their goal.  Sparring isn't generally the end game.   But if that's the end of your road, then that's your application.  So, going back to what I said earlier, more is better.  A guy who spars might be a great sparring partner.  A guy who spars and competes is a good training partner, and also aware of his skill level against opponents.
> 
> And so, sparring only... can you use those techniques in self defense?  Maybe...  but I am not overly optimistic, if you cannot compete in any ruleset, and do not apply the skills in some other manner. At the very least, you aren't as well prepared as possible.


This is pretty thought out and we'll written.
I can't disagree with it but I do think the jump from dojo sparring to competition is smaller than the jump from competition to self defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Sorry for the delayed response.  This thread has moved pretty quick, and you were getting a little sensitive.  Somewhere back earlier, you asked a question about the difference between sparring and competition.  I've been thinking about how to explain this in a different way, and I think it might help to go back and consider why the distinction matters in the first place.  Why does it matter what training is for, and how it is applied?
> 
> I think the answer is because how it is applied answers the important question, what can YOU do with YOUR training?  In other words, what are you good at?  What are you bad at?  No speculation.  No guessing.  You can or you cannot.  If you use BJJ in class, you know you can execute the techniques on your friends and fellow students.  If you compete in a BJJ competition and win, you have a measure of how you can do against people who are at your approximate skill level.   If you compete in an MMA event and win, you have a measure of how well you can apply your skills in that context.  If you don't compete, you really don't know.  There are guys who do well in class, but suck in competition.  There are guys who suck in class, but excel in competition.  And there are guys who work hard, and perform like machines, executing their training to a tee.  Which one are you?  If you don't compete, you don't know.
> 
> If self defense is the goal, more application is better, not less.  As I said many, many posts ago, the more (and more diverse) your experience, the better.  If you're a guy who spars, you're going to be better off than someone who just watches videos.  But application of some kind will be better yet.  A BJJ competitor will be a competent grappler.  A BJJ and Judo competitor will be more well rounded, and a guy who competes in any kind of grappling ruleset he finds will be more well rounded yet.  The grappler who also competes in MMA is going to be very well rounded.  Now, notice I didn't say the guy who TRAINS BJJ or Judo or Wrestling or MMA.  Because training and competition are different.  One is learning technique and the other is applying technique.  Similarly, a guy who trains MMA, competes in various rulesets, and also works as a cop or body guard, will likely be more well rounded than the guy who isn't a cop or body guard.
> 
> The point is, if you train aikido and apply it in competition, you're going to have much more reliable skills than if you don't compete.  If you train in aikido and use them on the job, whether that's as a bouncer, cop or whatever, you're going to be in much better shape than the expert aikido student.  It's really very simple.  If you apply your training, you will develop real skill.  Guys who train WC and apply it do better than guys who don't apply it.  Simply put, guys who fight are getting better at fighting.  Guys who spar are getting better at sparring.  Guys who compete are getting better at competing.
> 
> You're arguing that sparring in class is the same as competition.  You say sparring is like piloting a plane.  I disagree, unless being really good at sparring is your goal.  See, this is where you lose your way.  You think you're training for self defense, and by doing so, you are establishing the application for your training.  Self defense.   That's not something I'm imposing on you.
> 
> But you aren't training for self defense.  You're training to be good at what you are actually doing.
> 
> Sparring is a component of training, and I don't think it's overly controversial to suggest that it is not equivalent to self defense, competition or the execution of a profession.  In the same way a guy who competes is training to become a skilled competitor, you are training to become a skilled sparring partner.  People spar in order to prepare for their goal.  Sparring isn't generally the end game.   But if that's the end of your road, then that's your application.  So, going back to what I said earlier, more is better.  A guy who spars might be a great sparring partner.  A guy who spars and competes is a good training partner, and also aware of his skill level against opponents.
> 
> And so, sparring only... can you use those techniques in self defense?  Maybe...  but I am not overly optimistic, if you cannot compete in any ruleset, and do not apply the skills in some other manner. At the very least, you aren't as well prepared as possible.


We're going in circles, Steve. I don't feel like you're getting my point, so I'll just let it lie. You make some good points in this post and seem to think they are all counters to something I've said, which tells me I've not communicated to you what I hoped.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> This is pretty thought out and we'll written.
> I can't disagree with it but I do think the jump from dojo sparring to competition is smaller than the jump from competition to self defense.


Depends on the competition or variety of competitions.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> We're going in circles, Steve. I don't feel like you're getting my point, so I'll just let it lie. You make some good points in this post and seem to think they are all counters to something I've said, which tells me I've not communicated to you what I hoped.


You believe you can fly.  You believe you can touch the sky.  You think about it every night and day.  Spread your wings and fly away.

Seriously, though, you said sparring is application.  You've said you train for self defense, or with self defense in mind.  You've asserted that there is no real difference between sparring and competition.  You've implied that your training better prepares someone for self defense than other models for training.  You seem to have in mind that you are well prepared for a fight.  

If that's not what you've hoped to communicate, then you're right.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> We're going in circles, Steve. I don't feel like you're getting my point, so I'll just let it lie. You make some good points in this post and seem to think they are all counters to something I've said, which tells me I've not communicated to you what I hoped.



The Geoff Thompson's concept of animal day was similar to Steve's argument. Personally I think a MMA fight would do the same result and be a bit better managed. 

Otherwise one thing I have not mentioned here is pace. Flat knacker changes the basic mechanism of fighting.

And without familiarity with that pace the training starts to become unrealistic. 

The issue is that pace makes training no longer fun. This idea you have said. That you don't want to hurt people or don't want to engage in that aggressive win or die style mechanic. Which is awful sometimes. 

I think that is the part you don't get. I mean I did not want to sit in mount and punch a girl in the head while she is screaming and crying. She certainty did not want to do it.

But we had to do it to train that composure you saw.

And there had to be a bloody good reason to do it. And the vague concept of self defence is not reason enough.


----------



## CB Jones

Anarax said:


> LEO



Astrology sign

Leo traits


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> The Geoff Thompson's concept of animal day was similar to Steve's argument. Personally I think a MMA fight would do the same result and be a bit better managed.
> 
> Otherwise one thing I have not mentioned here is pace. Flat knacker changes the basic mechanism of fighting.
> 
> And without familiarity with that pace the training starts to become unrealistic.
> 
> The issue is that pace makes training no longer fun. This idea you have said. That you don't want to hurt people or don't want to engage in that aggressive win or die style mechanic. Which is awful sometimes.
> 
> I think that is the part you don't get. I mean I did not want to sit in mount and punch a girl in the head while she is screaming and crying. She certainty did not want to do it.
> 
> But we had to do it to train that composure you saw.
> 
> And there had to be a bloody good reason to do it. And the vague concept of self defence is not reason enough.


Can you sum up what animal day is, db?


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> Can you sum up what animal day is, db?


It doesn't matter because Thompson is a self defense guy and DB already said that "_self defense is a marketing tool designed to give the illusion of competence where non exists".  _So Thompson is obviously  a snake oil sales man.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> It doesn't matter because Thompson is a self defense guy and DB already said that "_self defense is a marketing tool designed to give the illusion of competence where non exists".  _So Thompson is obviously  a snake oil sales man.


So, then you aren’t going to tell me?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You believe you can fly.  You believe you can touch the sky.  You think about it every night and day.  Spread your wings and fly away.
> 
> Seriously, though, you said sparring is application.  You've said you train for self defense, or with self defense in mind.  You've asserted that there is no real difference between sparring and competition.  You've implied that your training better prepares someone for self defense than other models for training.  You seem to have in mind that you are well prepared for a fight.
> 
> If that's not what you've hoped to communicate, then you're right.


Some of that is close to what I meant (but not quite). Some of it isn't even close.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The Geoff Thompson's concept of animal day was similar to Steve's argument. Personally I think a MMA fight would do the same result and be a bit better managed.
> 
> Otherwise one thing I have not mentioned here is pace. Flat knacker changes the basic mechanism of fighting.
> 
> And without familiarity with that pace the training starts to become unrealistic.
> 
> The issue is that pace makes training no longer fun. This idea you have said. That you don't want to hurt people or don't want to engage in that aggressive win or die style mechanic. Which is awful sometimes.
> 
> I think that is the part you don't get. I mean I did not want to sit in mount and punch a girl in the head while she is screaming and crying. She certainty did not want to do it.
> 
> But we had to do it to train that composure you saw.
> 
> And there had to be a bloody good reason to do it. And the vague concept of self defence is not reason enough.


It's about choices. I've done things in training that weren't what I preferred, but were necessary for what I wanted to accomplish. Sitting in mount and punching someone will never be one of those things for me. Flat knacker I've done a few times (probably not as many as I should for my purposes) and I agree an MMA fight probably fits that need, too. 

"Win or die" is not a part of training. If it were, people would actually die far more often.

Your comments about self-defense are all based on your own bias, so I generally ignore them. You often use it as a dirty word, when for many of us it's a reasonable description of why we train. You purposely use it that way to provoke - it's part of your "I gotta win" discussion style. I get that. You should know it doesn't really work the way you think it does. Your bias against the term just makes it harder for me to find the comments of real value you usually bring.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Some of that is close to what I meant (but not quite). Some of it isn't even close.


Which parts?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Can you sum up what animal day is, db?


IIRC, "animal day" is a session where the gloves come off, figuratively speaking. People attack with more raw violence and defend more completely. It brings more chance of injury (hence DB's comment that an MMA match probably fills the role with better control).


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> It doesn't matter because Thompson is a self defense guy and DB already said that "_self defense is a marketing tool designed to give the illusion of competence where non exists".  _So Thompson is obviously  a snake oil sales man.



He has a legitimate sports background.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Can you sum up what animal day is, db?



He does a video on it. I will hunt that down


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It's about choices. I've done things in training that weren't what I preferred, but were necessary for what I wanted to accomplish. Sitting in mount and punching someone will never be one of those things for me. Flat knacker I've done a few times (probably not as many as I should for my purposes) and I agree an MMA fight probably fits that need, too.
> 
> "Win or die" is not a part of training. If it were, people would actually die far more often.
> 
> Your comments about self-defense are all based on your own bias, so I generally ignore them. You often use it as a dirty word, when for many of us it's a reasonable description of why we train. You purposely use it that way to provoke - it's part of your "I gotta win" discussion style. I get that. You should know it doesn't really work the way you think it does. Your bias against the term just makes it harder for me to find the comments of real value you usually bring.



You know that fat guy who is always on a diet and never looses weight?

And you just can't tell him, regardless how many times you say that he doesn't get it. Or he is being dishonest with himself. That loosing weight is 99% Just doing things you don't want to do.

And they will argue with you that they have a metabolism or a bad back or anything that prevents them from doing the basic requirements that are necessary. Or that they are achieving a lifestyle change so they can still eat crap and be lazy.

That is my bias towards self defence. Every time I hear you say you just won't train the things that suck. I think of that fat guy.

With martial arts I have had a big cold slap of reality thrown in my face and had to go from what I wanted to do to what I had to do. From what I wanted martial arts to be to what is. And it sucked. And it was unfair and people were mean.

Pretty sure if you ask Steve he also would have had this big cold slap of reality thrown in his face as well.

Pretty much everyone who has gone from self defence to a combat sport cops this. Pretty much everyone who has been on a diet that worked went through hell to get there.

If you are not willing to do the things required to be a better martial artist that is fine.

I don't do them myself.

But to try to rationalize that it is validated because you do self defence isn't honest.

To try to save face and suggest that self defence that makes these excuses is some sort of equal method to any system that doesn't get to. Isn't honest.

And so when people say I use self defence as a bad word. Maybe they shouldn't fill my expectations.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Can you sum up what animal day is, db?


----------



## Martial D

Sparring vs competition is easy..I mean, what separates them. It's the same thing that separates sparring vs self defense.

The stakes.

In competition, something is on the line(even if it's only your pride)

In sparring, there is nothing.

In self defense, it's your life.


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> He has a legitimate sports background.


Thompsons legitimacy is not based on a sport. That is a ridiculous statement and you know it. Especially back in his day, wayyyy before MMA.  His credibility is from his years as a doorman and bouncer in the most violent areas. Where he has had people even his friends stabbed to death right there in front of him while on the job.
If you know who Geoff Thompson is you know this. Your purposely being biased. At this point your posts have the same validity as Master Ken, everything is BS....except instead of Ameri-do-te your tag line is.....Do MMA.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> Thompsons legitimacy is not based on a sport. That is a ridiculous statement and you know it. Especially back in his day, wayyyy before MMA.  His credibility is from his years as a doorman and bouncer in the most violent areas. Where he has had people even his friends stabbed to death right there in front of him while on the job.
> If you know who Geoff Thompson is you know this. Your purposely being biased. At this point your posts have the same validity as Master Ken, everything is BS....except instead of Ameri-do-te your tag line is.....Do MMA.



I was a bouncer longer than him and I saw a guy set on fire.

Let that one sink in.

I thought he was a judo guy.


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> I was a bouncer longer than him and I saw a guy set on fire.
> 
> Let that one sink in.
> 
> I thought he was a judo guy.


i dont need to let is sink in.   i never once questioned your credentials as a doorman.  but you and i both know Thompson is not known for his judo or karate.  i am not saying he was the best, meanest SOB doorman to walk the planet. there probably were and are better people at the job than him but he wrote books and made videos and taught lots of people, and people listened due to his backround (and ability to tell a story) in being a doorman in a rough neighborhood.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You know that fat guy who is always on a diet and never looses weight?
> 
> And you just can't tell him, regardless how many times you say that he doesn't get it. Or he is being dishonest with himself. That loosing weight is 99% Just doing things you don't want to do.
> 
> And they will argue with you that they have a metabolism or a bad back or anything that prevents them from doing the basic requirements that are necessary. Or that they are achieving a lifestyle change so they can still eat crap and be lazy.
> 
> That is my bias towards self defence. Every time I hear you say you just won't train the things that suck. I think of that fat guy.
> 
> With martial arts I have had a big cold slap of reality thrown in my face and had to go from what I wanted to do to what I had to do. From what I wanted martial arts to be to what is. And it sucked. And it was unfair and people were mean.
> 
> Pretty sure if you ask Steve he also would have had this big cold slap of reality thrown in his face as well.
> 
> Pretty much everyone who has gone from self defence to a combat sport cops this. Pretty much everyone who has been on a diet that worked went through hell to get there.
> 
> If you are not willing to do the things required to be a better martial artist that is fine.
> 
> I don't do them myself.
> 
> But to try to rationalize that it is validated because you do self defence isn't honest.
> 
> To try to save face and suggest that self defence that makes these excuses is some sort of equal method to any system that doesn't get to. Isn't honest.
> 
> And so when people say I use self defence as a bad word. Maybe they shouldn't fill my expectations.


Here's the issue. You're putting your experience on me. The training I went through served several people I trained with quite well when they needed to use it. I actually train more of what I don't want now than I used to (you seem to keep ignoring that I do and have done that). There are some things I'm not willing to do and accept that they limit my range, something else you seem to keep ignoring.

You put a lot on the term "self-defense". There are people who do train for SD and use sport as a tool for that. I applaud them, and agree it's a good move. I wish I'd done it earlier. You can call it an excuse if you like - and you likely will, so I'll only say this once. If I bend my big toe just a little too far (anything even close to normal range of motion is too far) under weight, I'm likely out of the fight (that much pain), and will hobble for a week. I know this from experience. The more I do that, the worse the toe gets. That means avoiding doing that to my toe actually improves my ability to defend myself, and probably prolongs my ability to do so later into my life. Sorry if you don't think that's a good decision. I actually train to avoid one toe entirely and limit the use of the other (one is far worse, but neither is particularly good).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I was a bouncer longer than him and I saw a guy set on fire.
> 
> Let that one sink in.
> 
> I thought he was a judo guy.


That you were a bouncer longer isn't pertinent to his SD credentials, nor is the guy who was set on fire. I like his approach because it's based on real world (not sport) and informed by sport. There's something to be learned from each side, and I like that he brings both. Sport gave him a chance to work a wider range of techniques than he'd likely try out in his job if he didn't have that kind of resistance to work with.

Interestingly, that's also why I read your posts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Sparring vs competition is easy..I mean, what separates them. It's the same thing that separates sparring vs self defense.
> 
> The stakes.
> 
> In competition, something is on the line(even if it's only your pride)
> 
> In sparring, there is nothing.
> 
> In self defense, it's your life.


I'm not sure I see much on the line in formal competition that differs from spirited sparring. Maybe that's just me. I want to win/not lose when I spar - I get competitive about it when someone is near (or above) my skill level. When I played team sports, a scrimmage (the equivalent of sparring) was the same as a game to me, every time. I was either playing soccer, or I wasn't. I was all-in as soon as there was an opponent, even if it was just the other half of the team.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure I see much on the line in formal competition that differs from spirited sparring. Maybe that's just me. I want to win/not lose when I spar - I get competitive about it when someone is near (or above) my skill level. When I played team sports, a scrimmage (the equivalent of sparring) was the same as a game to me, every time. I was either playing soccer, or I wasn't. I was all-in as soon as there was an opponent, even if it was just the other half of the team.


Possibly prize money. Definitely bragging rights, a belt notch, and a strong affirmation of your training.

You train for comp, you invest yourelf in it physically and mentally, therefore the payout is going to be higher for a win, and the disappointment greater for a loss.

Sure, nothing is universal and you might be the exception, who knows.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> If I bend my big toe just a little too far (anything even close to normal range of motion is too far) under weight, I'm likely out of the fight (that much pain)



Get it chopped off, it's obviously faulty


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> IIRC, "animal day" is a session where the gloves come off, figuratively speaking. People attack with more raw violence and defend more completely. It brings more chance of injury (hence DB's comment that an MMA match probably fills the role with better control).





hoshin1600 said:


> Thompsons legitimacy is not based on a sport. That is a ridiculous statement and you know it. Especially back in his day, wayyyy before MMA.  His credibility is from his years as a doorman and bouncer in the most violent areas. Where he has had people even his friends stabbed to death right there in front of him while on the job.
> If you know who Geoff Thompson is you know this. Your purposely being biased. At this point your posts have the same validity as Master Ken, everything is BS....except instead of Ameri-do-te your tag line is.....Do MMA.


Think about this relative to what I've said in the thread.   I described a guy who would be very credible.  

In reading the guys bio it looks like he also gravitates to sport arts.  If so, Why is that, do you think?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That you were a bouncer longer isn't pertinent to his SD credentials, nor is the guy who was set on fire. I like his approach because it's based on real world (not sport) and informed by sport. There's something to be learned from each side, and I like that he brings both. Sport gave him a chance to work a wider range of techniques than he'd likely try out in his job if he didn't have that kind of resistance to work with.
> 
> Interestingly, that's also why I read your posts.


The things that make him credible and competent to teach self defense . do you have any of that experience?   Any of it?  If not, what do you believe makes you a competent  credible self defense instructor?   Good intentions?  A serious demeanor?  A good sales pitch?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Possibly prize money. Definitely bragging rights, a belt notch, and a strong affirmation of your training.


I could see the prize money making it different, if you got to that level. Bragging rights has never meant more to me in an official game than a scrimmage.



> You train for comp, you invest yourelf in it physically and mentally, therefore the payout is going to be higher for a win, and the disappointment greater for a loss.


Hmm...that's maybe where my disconnect is. When I played soccer (using that because it was all about sport, obviously), I just wanted to play. And when I played I wanted to not lose (more important to me than winning, though I'm not really sure why). I always played defense, my entire time playing soccer, probably because I enjoyed responsibility for preventing that loss. But it didn't matter to me if it was an official game or not. I was training to play. If the other team didn't have enough players to field (so they officially forfeited), I'd offer to play on their team for that game (not an official game now - their forfeit stood) so we could play.



> Sure, nothing is universal and you might be the exception, who knows.


I always assumed a significant portion of folks thought/felt the same way. Maybe not. Actually, as I think about that, maybe that explains some (surely not all) of the folks who train SD for their job (bouncers, LEO, etc.) and don't compete. Some probably don't compete because of the time commitment and some because they don't realize its utility for training purposes, but surely that's not all of them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Get it chopped off, it's obviously faulty


It's a bit of a bastard, that's for sure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> The things that make him credible and competent to teach self defense . do you have any of that experience?   Any of it?  If not, what do you believe makes you a competent  credible self defense instructor?   Good intentions?  A serious demeanor?  A good sales pitch?


How does this turn into a challenge of my credentials to teach, Steve? You're on a bit of a crusade right now.

What I have is a track record have having trained and trained with folks who did those things. I'm not Freddie Roach, but I've had reports of what worked for folks I trained or helped train. I've had a few encounters myself and saw what worked. Every instructor I've had (excepting my first one - don't know about her) came from one or both of those ends (sport or job use), and I lean on their experience to supplement what I don't have. And I've tested what I can do against folks both inside and outside the art (just not in formal competition) to get feedback.

Does that make me credible? I don't really know. What I know is I can teach skills that actually work for people.

Oh, and my sales pitch sucks. Badly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Which parts?


This one is the one that seems to be most far afield:


Steve said:


> You've implied that your training better prepares someone for self defense than other models for training.



I've not said my approach is better than an approach that includes competition (in fact, I've at least implied if not actually stated I think competition would be a good addition). I do think my approach is an improvement over approaches with less resistance, so if that's what you meant, I'm not sure why you made a point of this.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> In reading the guys bio it looks like he also gravitates to sport arts. If so, Why is that, do you think?


i havnt read his bio so i cant speak to it directly.  but i do know that he had a "religious" experience of sorts and completely rejects the concept of violence and fighting now,, so maybe that is why.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> How does this turn into a challenge of my credentials to teach, Steve? You're on a bit of a crusade right now.
> 
> What I have is a track record have having trained and trained with folks who did those things. I'm not Freddie Roach, but I've had reports of what worked for folks I trained or helped train. I've had a few encounters myself and saw what worked. Every instructor I've had (excepting my first one - don't know about her) came from one or both of those ends (sport or job use), and I lean on their experience to supplement what I don't have. And I've tested what I can do against folks both inside and outside the art (just not in formal competition) to get feedback.
> 
> Does that make me credible? I don't really know. What I know is I can teach skills that actually work for people.
> 
> Oh, and my sales pitch sucks. Badly.


not at all.  I'm really just challenging your position.  You have a paradigm.  it appears to me that the closer we get to really pushing you out of that paradigm, the more you fall back on patronizing comments and barbs like the ones above.  Truly, this isn't about you.  Rather, it's about instructors who are not credible presuming credibility based on association.

You have some anecdotal reports, but correlation doesn't equal causation.   The fact is, people are very likely to survive assaults, even when victimized, which is exceedingly rare.  And people with no training who survive are actually far easier to find than people with training, to the point that when someone has martial arts or self defense training and survives an attack, it is newsworthy.  bottom line, you cannot know that your training is helpful.  It may be.  It may be benign, neither helpful nor harmful.  Or you may actually be impeding peoples' ability to survive an encounter, and they are surviving in spite of your training and not because of it.  Point is, you really don't know.  You believe. 

Going on, you are assuming competency based on your association with other people whom you believe are competent, which is also fallacious.  Your instructors may have been credible (maybe not), but that doesn't magically transfer to you.  You have to take the instruction and then apply it in order to acquire your own skills and competencies.  An experienced, credible manager can't train a person to be an experienced, credible manager.   Doesn't undermine the value of the training. 

You ask a question.  Does that make you credible?  I'd say what you describe above does not make you credible... as a self defense instructor.  Might make you a very credible Aikido instructor.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> not at all.  I'm really just challenging your position.  You have a paradigm.  it appears to me that the closer we get to really pushing you out of that paradigm, the more you fall back on patronizing comments and barbs like the ones above.  Truly, this isn't about you.  Rather, it's about instructors who are not credible presuming credibility based on association.
> 
> You have some anecdotal reports, but correlation doesn't equal causation.   The fact is, people are very likely to survive assaults, even when victimized, which is exceedingly rare.  And people with no training who survive are actually far easier to find than people with training, to the point that when someone has martial arts or self defense training and survives an attack, it is newsworthy.  bottom line, you cannot know that your training is helpful.  It may be.  It may be benign, neither helpful nor harmful.  Or you may actually be impeding peoples' ability to survive an encounter, and they are surviving in spite of your training and not because of it.  Point is, you really don't know.  You believe.
> 
> Going on, you are assuming competency based on your association with other people whom you believe are competent, which is also fallacious.  Your instructors may have been credible (maybe not), but that doesn't magically transfer to you.  You have to take the instruction and then apply it in order to acquire your own skills and competencies.  An experienced, credible manager can't train a person to be an experienced, credible manager.   Doesn't undermine the value of the training.
> 
> You ask a question.  Does that make you credible?  I'd say what you describe above does not make you credible... as a self defense instructor.  Might make you a very credible Aikido instructor.


My point was that credibility isn't a concern to me. You interpret my references to instructors as a plea for credibility - they are not. They are part of how I look for what works. What an LEO finds useful is more likely to be useful in general (not always - have to consider the differences in context). Same for a bouncer, etc. Those comments were simply meant to give you an idea that I don't just follow what feels good to me.

I know that people who've used what I taught or helped teach have found it useful (not just single incidents, but bouncers, LEO's, and others with ongoing exposure). If it impeded them, it did so oddly. It is entirely possible they would have survived those encounters without using what they learned, but that's the statistical problem of self-defense in general (rather than a problem specific to me). What I taught worked (note that it's not just that they survived, but that they actually used some of what I taught).

And it seems that you don't understand that it's possible to verify things work without a ref. Dunno what to tell you on that. Is it ideal? Nope. There is no ideal validation for training intended for SD. The best we can do is validate where we can. And, no, the ref doesn't necessarily make it more or less valid. You've not yet made any real argument as to why it would, except that somehow the difference is that it's a focal point.

I'm not a badass, don't claim to be that, and don't claim to make others that.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> My point was that credibility isn't a concern to me.


  Bzz...  brip...  bleep...  does not compute.  Dude.  Really?  Okay.  So, you're acknowledging now that you are not a credible self defense instructor?  Great.  That actually settles everything.   You're acknowledging now that whether you can pilot the aircraft or not isn't a concern.



> You interpret my references to instructors as a plea for credibility - they are not.


Plea is the wrong word.  I interpret your reference to your instructors as an indication you believe that is evidence of your credibility.


> They are part of how I look for what works.


What works in general.  Not what you can do, but that you know it works for someone, somewhere.  Okay.  Fair enough.  Someone, somewhere, can pilot the aircraft doing similar things to what you do.  Good.  I'm with you.



> What an LEO finds useful is more likely to be useful in general (not always - have to consider the differences in context). Same for a bouncer, etc. Those comments were simply meant to give you an idea that I don't just follow what feels good to me.


Okay.  So, you've read the flight manuals for a few different categories of aircraft.


> I know that people who've used what I taught or helped teach have found it useful (not just single incidents, but bouncers, LEO's, and others with ongoing exposure). If it impeded them, it did so oddly. It is entirely possible they would have survived those encounters without using what they learned, but that's the statistical problem of self-defense in general (rather than a problem specific to me). What I taught worked (note that it's not just that they survived, but that they actually used some of what I taught).


Once again, I remind you that this isn't actually about you.  It's about the quandary of people teaching what they don't know.  You touch on what I believe is a very important, but nuanced, distinction.

There is a meaningful difference between teaching something that you are competent to teach, and finding that it is helpful when applied in another context where you are not competent, and teaching something that you are not competent to teach.  In other words, it's one thing to say, "I teach Aikido, and some bouncers have found it helpful to them when they are working the doors."  And, "I teach bouncers how to work the doors."   While I'm pretty sure you have not ever said you conduct a "How to Work Doors" class, you have said several times that you teach self defense.  Same thing.

As I said above, you did not describe someone who is a credible self defense instructor to me in the previous post.  You did describe someone who is probably a credible Aikido instructor.  I think you get into all kinds of muddy waters if you were to stray into teaching people Aikido for self defense, if you are not personally credible in both areas.  





> And it seems that you don't understand that it's possible to verify things work without a ref.


I'm not sure how you came to this.  This is an example of what I referenced above as a kind of petty zinger. 





> Dunno what to tell you on that. Is it ideal? Nope. There is no ideal validation for training intended for SD.


True, but there are people with skill sets and experience that make them credible.  This Geoff Thompson guy referenced above is like the prototype I mentioned in my very first post in this thread.  A guy who has military experience, competitive experience, LEO experience, bouncer experience, and seems to have given a heck of a lot of thought to how all of that experience will translate into personal safety.   On the face of it, he seems very credible to me.  Do you have ANY of the experience noted above?

I  have a lot of experience in teaching people to do things.  That's my background.  I know how to take a person with no skill and get them to a point where they are experts in that skillset.  I do it with technicians and with managers, in hard skills and in soft skills.   It doesn't happen quickly, and it doesn't happen without experience.


> The best we can do is validate where we can.


Teach what you know.  That's the best thing to do.  





> And, no, the ref doesn't necessarily make it more or less valid.


Zing... but this does lead me to believe you don't understand (or don't want to understand) the difference between training and application.  





> You've not yet made any real argument as to why it would, except that somehow the difference is that it's a focal point.


I've made them, in at least a dozen different ways, I've made them.  it's a subtle point.  And just yesterday, I sincerely tried to tell you why I think it's a point worth making, subtle though it may be.

But I can't understand it for you.  Which, if you think about it, is a perfect example of what we're discussing.  I can teach you, but I can't learn for you. I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand.   In order for you to understand, you have to want to understand, make the effort to understand, and have the aptitude to understand.  You think you understand, but you write things like the above that suggest otherwise.

And that's the danger of people without experience teaching things they have no first hand knowledge of.  You can't teach what you don't know.  If you teach Aikido, you are solid.  If you teach self defense, you are not... by your own admission.


> I'm not a badass, don't claim to be that, and don't claim to make others that.


I don't think you are and don't think you claim to be.  This isn't about being a badass.  It's about experience and application of training in context.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Bzz...  brip...  bleep...  does not compute.  Dude.  Really?  Okay.  So, you're acknowledging now that you are not a credible self defense instructor?  Great.  That actually settles everything.   You're acknowledging now that whether you can pilot the aircraft or not isn't a concern.


Nope. Not what I said. Not even close to what I said.



> Plea is the wrong word.  I interpret your reference to your instructors as an indication you believe that is evidence of your credibility.


Not really. Evidence that the techniques are useful - credibility for the techniques, perhaps.



> What works in general.  Not what you can do, but that you know it works for someone, somewhere.  Okay.  Fair enough.  Someone, somewhere, can pilot the aircraft doing similar things to what you do.  Good.  I'm with you.
> 
> Okay.  So, you've read the flight manuals for a few different categories of aircraft.
> Once again, I remind you that this isn't actually about you.  It's about the quandary of people teaching what they don't know.  You touch on what I believe is a very important, but nuanced, distinction.


You're back onto dragging the analogy into ridiculous areas. That's why I dropped that part of the thread. Flying is not a blanket analogy for physical MA techniques.



> There is a meaningful difference between teaching something that you are competent to teach, and finding that it is helpful when applied in another context where you are not competent, and teaching something that you are not competent to teach.  In other words, it's one thing to say, "I teach Aikido, and some bouncers have found it helpful to them when they are working the doors."  And, "I teach bouncers how to work the doors."   While I'm pretty sure you have not ever said you conduct a "How to Work Doors" class, you have said several times that you teach self defense.  Same thing.


You are, once again, stretching the meaning of my comments. I never said I teach bouncers to work doors. I said I've taught some of them some physical skills they found useful when working doors. See, you're back to assuming I can't do a hip throw (to stick to the example I've used a few times). No referee has ever seen me use a hip throw (or shoulder throw, or come-along, or punch, etc.). Some of those I have actually used live, on a person doing something they shouldn't. All of them I have used against a person trying to stop me from doing them. So, I don't think I can do them. I know I can. Will they work every time? Nope - nothing does. Would they work in a competition? Against the same person I was sparring with (or dealing with outside training), most probably. Against someone else in that same competition? Dunno, and wouldn't know even if I'd been in that competition, unless I tried it against that specific person.

Anyway, I think it's time to drop this thread. This started out as a discussion of SD training vs sport training (and I was in the "they aren't different things" camp). You have converted this into a question of my credibility - a credibility I haven't claimed in this thread. You brought this to being specifically about me (so, though you say it's not, you've made it about me), rather than about the topic at hand.

You either don't or refuse to understand the point I was trying to make about where competition and sparring do and don't differ. That's where I thought there was something truly useful for folks to ponder and discuss.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Nope. Not what I said. Not even close to what I said.


You said, "Credibility isn't a concern for me."  





> Not really. Evidence that the techniques are useful - credibility for the techniques, perhaps.


Now you're being tricky.  You're saying what I said, but phrasing it like it's a response.  I'm sure I can go back to a post I wrote somewhere and find where I said that for training to have integrity, step 1 is to ensure that what you're teaching works for someone.  Even here, though, there are some potential pitfalls.  The next step of the evaluation would be to ensure that the "someone" who can make it work isn't exceptional.  In other words, an exceptional person might be able to make techniques work where most other people could not.  





> You're back onto dragging the analogy into ridiculous areas. That's why I dropped that part of the thread. Flying is not a blanket analogy for physical MA techniques.


I'm using the analogy you brought up, in a sincere attempt to relate to you using your own framework..  But now it's ridiculous?  Come on, man.  





> You are, once again, stretching the meaning of my comments. I never said I teach bouncers to work doors.


I didn't suggest otherwise.  





> [I said I've taught some of them some physical skills they found useful when working doors.


Exactly.  I parsed that out.  You're not reading what I wrote.  I didn't say you teach people to work doors.  I highlighted the difference, and then related that to self defense.  





> See, you're back to assuming I can't do a hip throw (to stick to the example I've used a few times).


I am assuming nothing.  I don't know whether you can or can't.  I'm suggesting that you might not know if you can do a hip throw in a fight, if you've never had to do it in a fight.  Said the other way, I'm saying you only know you can do a hip throw in the context in which you've actually done it.  So, if you only spar, that's the ned of the line.  





> No referee has ever seen me use a hip throw (or shoulder throw, or come-along, or punch, etc.). Some of those I have actually used live, on a person doing something they shouldn't. All of them I have used against a person trying to stop me from doing them. So, I don't think I can do them. I know I can.


You know you can do it in training against training partners.  Look, I'm sure I can go back and find threads in which all of the usual suspects around here who are anti-MMA or anti-sport will make this point for me.  The idea is not new.  Sparring isn't self defense.  It's training.  It's practice for something.  

The issue here is that you practice to practice, and nothing more.  That's the end of it for you.  And there is nothing wrong with this at all.  Once again, I'm sure you're a great aikido instructor.  You haven't, however, shared anything about your background or experience that suggests you're a qualified self defense instructor.  





> Will they work every time? Nope - nothing does.


I'll take your word for it.  I would say, who knows?  Might work every time.  Might not.  We don't know because you've never done it.  Unless you're saying you can't rely on the hip throw in training, in which case, I'm wondering how you could think it might work outside of training. 





> Would they work in a competition? Against the same person I was sparring with (or dealing with outside training), most probably.


My experience is that this is not a given... at all.  Some people compete very well.  Some don't.  And in application, where you get one chance and things happen, experience matters.  You acknowledge above that your technique doesn't even work in training every time.  How can you say so confidently that it would work in competition, even against the same guy?  





> Against someone else in that same competition? Dunno, and wouldn't know even if I'd been in that competition, unless I tried it against that specific person.


True.  But the more experience you have, and the more diverse your experience, the more confident you will be both in your execution of the technique and also in your ability to recover from mistakes, when there is no opportunity to do it over.  





> Anyway, I think it's time to drop this thread.


I think that's a shame, because I really do think you're close to figuring this out.  





> This started out as a discussion of SD training vs sport training (and I was in the "they aren't different things" camp).


For a guy who trains neither sport nor self defense, I wonder how you can be so confident.  





> You have converted this into a question of my credibility -


Not you, although you keep dragging it back that direction.  





> a credibility I haven't claimed in this thread. You brought this to being specifically about me (so, though you say it's not, you've made it about me), rather than about the topic at hand.


You did that, my friend.  I keep trying to bring it away from that.  I have pointed out where your comments about your own experience just continue to reinforce my points. 


> You either don't or refuse to understand the point I was trying to make about where competition and sparring do and don't differ. That's where I thought there was something truly useful for folks to ponder and discuss.


I've asked you to explain it, and you've refused multiple times now.  You have gone as far as to say I don't get it, but I feel like I'm the one doing the heavy lifting here, trying to explain my position.  Not you.


----------



## Steve

And for what it's worth, I think our discussion is very grounded in the topic of martial sport vs self defense.  I really don't think we're off topic here.


----------



## Buka

Thread turning ugly. Mongo need to punch horse.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> Thread turning ugly. Mongo need to punch horse.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> i dont need to let is sink in.   i never once questioned your credentials as a doorman.  but you and i both know Thompson is not known for his judo or karate.  i am not saying he was the best, meanest SOB doorman to walk the planet. there probably were and are better people at the job than him but he wrote books and made videos and taught lots of people, and people listened due to his backround (and ability to tell a story) in being a doorman in a rough neighborhood.



Either way. I am not against all self defence. Just where it is an excuse for poor results.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Here's the issue. You're putting your experience on me. The training I went through served several people I trained with quite well when they needed to use it. I actually train more of what I don't want now than I used to (you seem to keep ignoring that I do and have done that). There are some things I'm not willing to do and accept that they limit my range, something else you seem to keep ignoring.
> 
> You put a lot on the term "self-defense". There are people who do train for SD and use sport as a tool for that. I applaud them, and agree it's a good move. I wish I'd done it earlier. You can call it an excuse if you like - and you likely will, so I'll only say this once. If I bend my big toe just a little too far (anything even close to normal range of motion is too far) under weight, I'm likely out of the fight (that much pain), and will hobble for a week. I know this from experience. The more I do that, the worse the toe gets. That means avoiding doing that to my toe actually improves my ability to defend myself, and probably prolongs my ability to do so later into my life. Sorry if you don't think that's a good decision. I actually train to avoid one toe entirely and limit the use of the other (one is far worse, but neither is particularly good).



But there you made a different argument. Limited through injury is different to just not wanting to.

But I have put that idea of the fat guy in your head now.

And you will see his excuses turn up all the time.


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> Either way. I am not against all self defence. Just where it is an excuse for poor results.


Ok then we are in agreement.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That you were a bouncer longer isn't pertinent to his SD credentials, nor is the guy who was set on fire. I like his approach because it's based on real world (not sport) and informed by sport. There's something to be learned from each side, and I like that he brings both. Sport gave him a chance to work a wider range of techniques than he'd likely try out in his job if he didn't have that kind of resistance to work with.
> 
> Interestingly, that's also why I read your posts.



Except technically I am more SD than most people. Which is kind of ironic.

Actually my coach is doing his first bouncing shift tonight. I will let you know if he bashes anyone. (He is cutting weight so honestly he is on a short fuze at the moment)


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> My point was that credibility isn't a concern to me. You interpret my references to instructors as a plea for credibility - they are not. They are part of how I look for what works. What an LEO finds useful is more likely to be useful in general (not always - have to consider the differences in context). Same for a bouncer, etc. Those comments were simply meant to give you an idea that I don't just follow what feels good to me.
> 
> I know that people who've used what I taught or helped teach have found it useful (not just single incidents, but bouncers, LEO's, and others with ongoing exposure). If it impeded them, it did so oddly. It is entirely possible they would have survived those encounters without using what they learned, but that's the statistical problem of self-defense in general (rather than a problem specific to me). What I taught worked (note that it's not just that they survived, but that they actually used some of what I taught).
> 
> And it seems that you don't understand that it's possible to verify things work without a ref. Dunno what to tell you on that. Is it ideal? Nope. There is no ideal validation for training intended for SD. The best we can do is validate where we can. And, no, the ref doesn't necessarily make it more or less valid. You've not yet made any real argument as to why it would, except that somehow the difference is that it's a focal point.
> 
> I'm not a badass, don't claim to be that, and don't claim to make others that.



If you don't have the consistency you get that historical medicine problem.

Where you did a bunch of stuff. And something worked. And you are not really sure if it was the medicine or the prayers.


----------



## Buka




----------



## Steve

Buka said:


>


We can say for sure that Mongo has experience fighting with horses.  I think, if he's attacked by a horse in a dark alley, he will be okay.


----------



## Anarax

gpseymour said:


> Thus, anything that doesn't have that problem becomes "MA focused on SD", while anything with that problem is "SD course". It'd be like me saying sick people aren't healthy. Nothing particularly wrong with it - just wanted to make sure you realized you'd created a distinction that actually includes the problem. So, it's not that SD courses have that problem, but that programs with that problem are "SD courses".


Okay, I see what you mean now. I used Krav Maga as an example of both a Martial Art that lacks concepts and one that focuses more so on SD. However; I used Aikido as a MA that focuses on SD yet has concepts. Thus I believe that there is overlap.



gpseymour said:


> So folks with thin training (especially those going off a certification program that's 40-80 hours) are unlikely to really have that set of principles, and are more likely to present specific solutions to problems, rather than approaches to solving them.


This is where I differ in approach and method. I find the idea that someone can get an SD instructor certificate in 2 days to be questionable. The short-term(1-2 days) instructor certificates I see are a means to try and legitimize that type of training. Certificates are used to display completion of a course, but completion is to convey a degree of aptitude. For example; I changed majors in college and had to take the core classes for my new major, but I didn't have to retake my math, english, humanities, etc. If I got a vocational certificate I would have to get a new one nor would I have a foundation in which I could pursue an advance degree with. Having a conceptual MA foundation will help you develop as a Martial Artist and will instill a greater skill set than just step by step moves. It's a larger investment but has a bigger pay-off. I just see short-term and a lot of long-term(not all) SD courses as a shortcut.     


gpseymour said:


> My point was that the history doesn't really give much to go on. To some extent, lineage can be helpful. If someone had an excellent instructor, they are more likely to be at least a good instructor. Beyond that, even lineage doesn't promise much. In fact, some folks lean too much on the history of their art, going back to its roots too often (like the sword-derived movements I see in a lot of Aikido dojos), rather than letting the movements evolve for a specific purpose. A brand new art's problem isn't so much the lack of history to view, but that it hasn't had time to evolve and there are likely few practitioners to see how it looks outside the dedicated few. I like history, and find it interesting. I love to learn about the back story of arts, and tend to be more interested in arts that are somehow tied to the (thin) history of my primary art. But that's all intellectual curiosity, not practicality.


I agree with some of what you're saying. I'm not advocating for style "purity", but more so style authenticity. I'm all for someone creating their own style after they have a firm grasp on at least on styles concepts. I see a teacher's background like a resume, it's not the only thing I will judge them by, but I still want to see it. If I put on my resume "worked in medicine", I'm sure my interviewer will ask me to be more specific. I've seen a lot of vagueness in SD instructor's backgrounds and it makes me question their credentials.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> But there you made a different argument. Limited through injury is different to just not wanting to.


The "don't want to" was earlier in my career (had no real interest in competition), and now for competition that focuses on striking. You and I have discussed before that I know and accept that I'm limiting my training, and that I'm doing that for reasons that are important to me (protecting my brain and not interested in hurting people to win a contest - 2 separate reasons).

The not competing at all (now) is because I don't see a competition I'm interested in that I can physically do.



> But I have put that idea of the fat guy in your head now.
> 
> And you will see his excuses turn up all the time.


That statement shows a high opinion of your argument and a low opinion of my self-awareness.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Except technically I am more SD than most people. Which is kind of ironic.
> 
> Actually my coach is doing his first bouncing shift tonight. I will let you know if he bashes anyone. (He is cutting weight so honestly he is on a short fuze at the moment)


That is the ironic part to me. You train (iIRC) primarily for that reason, yet you bash that reason rather generally from time to time. If that's not what you mean to communicate, either you or I (or both) have missed something in the communication.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you don't have the consistency you get that historical medicine problem.
> 
> Where you did a bunch of stuff. And something worked. And you are not really sure if it was the medicine or the prayers.


That's true of SD training whether sport is involved or not.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's true of SD training whether sport is involved or not.



In sport you get more consistency.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> In sport you get more consistency.


Agreed, assuming it's within a single sport (MMA, being a positive example). There's a huge variety among martial sports, and not all do much to improve skill for use outside that sport.


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> Okay, I see what you mean now. I used Krav Maga as an example of both a Martial Art that lacks concepts and one that focuses more so on SD. However; I used Aikido as a MA that focuses on SD yet has concepts. Thus I believe that there is overlap.
> 
> 
> This is where I differ in approach and method. I find the idea that someone can get an SD instructor certificate in 2 days to be questionable. The short-term(1-2 days) instructor certificates I see are a means to try and legitimize that type of training. Certificates are used to display completion of a course, but completion is to convey a degree of aptitude. For example; I changed majors in college and had to take the core classes for my new major, but I didn't have to retake my math, english, humanities, etc. If I got a vocational certificate I would have to get a new one nor would I have a foundation in which I could pursue an advance degree with. Having a conceptual MA foundation will help you develop as a Martial Artist and will instill a greater skill set than just step by step moves. It's a larger investment but has a bigger pay-off. I just see short-term and a lot of long-term(not all) SD courses as a shortcut.
> 
> I agree with some of what you're saying. I'm not advocating for style "purity", but more so style authenticity. I'm all for someone creating their own style after they have a firm grasp on at least on styles concepts. I see a teacher's background like a resume, it's not the only thing I will judge them by, but I still want to see it. If I put on my resume "worked in medicine", I'm sure my interviewer will ask me to be more specific. I've seen a lot of vagueness in SD instructor's backgrounds and it makes me question their credentials.


With little exception I agree with this. If this was your point from the beginning...this post explains it better than the others.
This also explains where are views diverge.  Your looking at self defense on the micro level, meaning the courses you describe. I see self defense on the macro level. Where guys like Rickson Gracie have self described themselves as teachers of self defense. There may be short courses and videos and even on line schools but there is a much bigger entity behind that.
You called me ignorant, ,but while BJJ is right now predominant in sport there is also BJJ courses marketing directed towards the segment of the population that wants self defense without the bowing, gi, counting in Japanese ect. They want a version that focuses on self defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> This is where I differ in approach and method. I find the idea that someone can get an SD instructor certificate in 2 days to be questionable.


I didn't reply directly to this earlier, but as I re-read it, I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I find that practice more than questionable. I find it ludicrous. The only way I'd consider a 2-day certificate to teach SD valid is if the attendees were already certified instructors of the style, had been in many SD classes based on that style, and were simply being taught how to translate the classical training to SD focus. That's a lot of requirements and I'm not sure what the value of an additional certification for that would be.

Okay one more possibility, if it's an intensive 2-day program that's intended to help experienced instructors have a better SD focus (meaning not new techniques, but a new teaching approach). That might be okay, too.

In both cases, the certificate is still about marketing, though. I might attend either of those types of weekends, but not for the purpose of any certification.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, assuming it's within a single sport (MMA, being a positive example). There's a huge variety among martial sports, and not all do much to improve skill for use outside that sport.


Yes, but would you agree that they all do a GREAT job of building skill for use within that sport?  If so, why do you think that is?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That's true of SD training whether sport is involved or not.


Please support this assertion with something other than confidently declaring that it is true.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Yes, but would you agree that they all do a GREAT job of building skill for use within that sport?  If so, why do you think that is?


Does the sport do a great job of building skill for the sport? That's what schools/gyms do, not sports. There is a mix, though people tend toward the places that do the best in competition, if competition is their intent, so those are likely to do better financially, too. A lot of good incentive for the schools.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Please support this assertion with something other than confidently declaring that it is true.


That SD has a statistical problem of inconsistent evidence in context, which can lead to erroneous conclusions? I'm not sure what you'd need to support that statement.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Does the sport do a great job of building skill for the sport? That's what schools/gyms do, not sports. There is a mix, though people tend toward the places that do the best in competition, if competition is their intent, so those are likely to do better financially, too. A lot of good incentive for the schools.


 We have two BJJ schools.  One competes and the other does not?  Which one better prepares the students for competition?  I’d say the one that encourages students to actively compete.  Seems like common sense to me.   

So, does a BJJ school prepare students to compete in TKD?  What about a judo competition?   Could a BJJ purple belt succeed in a Kyokushin Karate competition?  

You’re muddying the waters by bringing in finances, but still headed in the right direction.


----------



## Anarax

hoshin1600 said:


> Your looking at self defense on the micro level, meaning the courses you describe. I see self defense on the macro level.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean by micro and macro, in the context of this post that is.


hoshin1600 said:


> You called me ignorant


No, I said


Anarax said:


> the last part of that comment is very ignorant.


in response to


hoshin1600 said:


> except the white pajama's and the foreign words and bowing and stuff.


I said your comment was ignorant, not you were ignorant 


hoshin1600 said:


> BJJ is right now predominant in sport there is also BJJ courses marketing directed towards the segment of the population that wants self defense without the bowing, gi, counting in Japanese ect.


From a technical standpoint, teaching students how to count and show proper respect doesn't diminish the SD component of MA. However; from a grappling standpoint I understand the importance of training no-gi grappling as it pertains to how certain techniques are modified.

If there are people out there that want to learn how to "defend themselves" but learning how to count to ten in a foreign and learning proper etiquette are too daunting of tasks then you're right MA probably isn't for them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> We have two BJJ schools.  One competes and the other does not?  Which one better prepares the students for competition?  I’d say the one that encourages students to actively compete.  Seems like common sense to me.
> 
> So, does a BJJ school prepare students to compete in TKD?  What about a judo competition?   Could a BJJ purple belt succeed in a Kyokushin Karate competition?
> 
> You’re muddying the waters by bringing in finances, but still headed in the right direction.


No, I'm not muddying the waters. It's both a motivation for the school and something that helps the school stay open, which increases the likelihood that - among schools that compete - the ones that do the best job preparing for competition are most likely to survive. That's a dynamic that helps sport-oriented schools.

As for which school prepares folks better for competition, if it's not the one that's trying to prepare folks for competition, they are doing something wrong. It's the context they are training for, so should be well focused on the rules and strategies most likely to succeed in that context.

I'm not sure what your point was in asking if a BJJ school prepared studnts for TKD competition, etc.


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> No, I said





Anarax said:


> I said your comment was ignorant, not you were ignorant



i fail to see the difference. i also do not understand your point on why it is ignorant to begin with.


Anarax said:


> teaching students how to count and show proper respect doesn't diminish the SD component of MA


for starters i never said it diminishes the self defense value of martial arts.
i would hope that if it is an adult student they learned how to count in school or at home since they were about 3 years of age there is no point in learning it in a foreign language and bowing in class while it does show respect in Japan and China, it is a foreign practice and in America really doesnt mean squat, we do not share that cultural backround.


Anarax said:


> but learning how to count to ten in a foreign and learning proper etiquette are too daunting of tasks then you're right MA probably isn't for them.



you know if you took that chip off your shoulder and stopped thinking you know everything like a teenager (unless you actually are a teenager)  we might be able to have a civil conversation.
some people, for various reasons, do not want or need all that cultural stuff added in.  it is a superfluous distraction and the only reason why it is there was because back in the 1950's and 60's  when Judo and karate became popular it was seen as exotic and something mysterious and special and that special feeling helped its marketing and kept the students and money rolling in.
now if you want to stick to some kind of defense of these things please give a good argument to explain why counting in Japanese or other language and wearing white pajamas is integral to learning self defense or a martial art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> If there are people out there that want to learn how to "defend themselves" but learning how to count to ten in a foreign and learning proper etiquette are too daunting of tasks then you're right MA probably isn't for them.


I think is a population that doesn't find that counting or the new etiquette daunting, but finds it unnecessary. I'm ambivalent to it, but also see it as not a necessary part of training. I still tend to use Japanese terms, but only because they're easy and comfortable for me (because most of my training used them), not because I think they're particularly useful to training. For a new student, I try to use as little Japanese as possible.


----------



## Anarax

hoshin1600 said:


> i fail to see the difference. i also do not understand your point on why it is ignorant to begin with.


Okay, I'll try and explain how they're different. Our actions aren't *always *consistent with our characteristics. Meaning, intelligent people can do unintelligent things and coordinated people can trip and fall down. You saying something ignorant doesn't automatically mean you're ignorant. 


hoshin1600 said:


> i would hope that if it is an adult student they learned how to count in school or at home since they were about 3 years of age there is no point in learning it in a foreign language and bowing in class while it does show respect in Japan and China, it is a foreign practice and in America really doesnt mean squat, we do not share that cultural backround.


You're getting to hung up on the motions and missing the principal. It's not the action itself of bowing, but it's about showing respect. The MA class(regardless if it's in the US or not) understands that bowing is a sign of respect and why it's important. The fact that bowing isn't rooted in American culture is meaningless, the fact that they know what it means is important.  


hoshin1600 said:


> you know if you took that chip off your shoulder and stopped thinking you know everything like a teenager (unless you actually are a teenager) we might be able to have a civil conversation.


How have I said I know everything? I have my own views on the topic and I give examples and my reasoning behind them. The conversation hasn't be uncivilized at all, if you think it has please provide examples.


hoshin1600 said:


> some people, for various reasons, do not want or need all that cultural stuff added in.


What would qualify as "various reasons"?


hoshin1600 said:


> it is a superfluous distraction


How is distracting?


hoshin1600 said:


> the only reason why it is there was because back in the 1950's and 60's when Judo and karate became popular it was seen as exotic and something mysterious and special and that special feeling helped its marketing and kept the students and money rolling in.


Again, your *comment *is ignorant. Meaning, it's based off misinformation and thus you draw inaccurate conclusions. Many styles of MA have you learn the techniques in the original language, that's not solely a "Judo and Karate" method. Travel all over the world and many MA schools in various countries(even excluding the originator of the style)  will call many of the techniques by their original names. The use of GIs wasn't invented as a means for marketing "Judo and Karate" when it came to the US. GIs have been used for a very long time are still used all over the world as training uniforms. In summary, neither the foreign terms nor GIs were created as marketing gimmicks when MA came to the US.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, assuming it's within a single sport (MMA, being a positive example). There's a huge variety among martial sports, and not all do much to improve skill for use outside that sport.



Not sure what you mean there.


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> Okay, I'll try and explain how they're different. Our actions aren't *always *consistent with our characteristics. Meaning, intelligent people can do unintelligent things and coordinated people can trip and fall down. You saying something ignorant doesn't automatically mean you're ignorant.


i understand that, i was more referring to your initial comment to something i said, i dont know why you said it.  but its many posts ago and is irrelevant at this point. so no use in derailing the important debate and the thread in general, ill let it go.



Anarax said:


> You're getting to hung up on the motions and missing the principal. It's not the action itself of bowing, but it's about showing respect. The MA class(regardless if it's in the US or not) understands that bowing is a sign of respect and why it's important. The fact that bowing isn't rooted in American culture is meaningless, the fact that they know what it means is important.


its been my observation that people bow in class because they are told they have to.  people will bow due to the requirements and expectations of the class which is far different than having a feeling of sincere gratitude or respect in your heart and having that express itself as a bow.  by this i mean people will bow as an empty gesture.  it is not our (im in America) culture to express things with this gesture. wouldnt it be more appropriate to shake hands or bump gloves like in boxing.   why is it that we bow and not shake hands?



Anarax said:


> What would qualify as "various reasons"?


 i could point out that for a long time in America and still continues that bowing is a religious problem for many people.  i actually know of one American 8th Dan master of Okinawan  Goju ryu that had to give up his karate and dojo when he married a born again Christian women and converted to her church and religion.  many Christian, Jehovah and i think Muslim people find it a sin and intolerable to bow or meditate.




Anarax said:


> Again, your *comment *is ignorant. Meaning, it's based off misinformation and thus you draw inaccurate conclusions.


nope not even close.


Anarax said:


> Many styles of MA have you learn the techniques in the original language, that's not solely a "Judo and Karate" method.


learning a language is expected  if your in another country and/ or the teacher is from another country and uses his language to teach.  that is perfectly acceptable.  but it is not a method, its a fact of life that people speak different languages. i also understand many styles other than Judo and karate do this. i just felt that it would be "understood" that i dont need to make a list of every art and that those two would be representative of the general concept.



Anarax said:


> The use of GIs wasn't invented as a means for marketing "Judo and Karate" when it came to the US





Anarax said:


> In summary, neither the foreign terms nor GIs were created as marketing gimmicks when MA came to the US.


i never said it was *invented* as a marketing tool. you are reading into things that were never said or implied.  i am well aware of the origins of the Gi probably much more so that you are.  its called cultural appropriation and was *used* as a marketing gimmick.  to be specific you cant *invent or create* cultural appropriation.  it has to be there already.
while it might seem natural to you to do this, it would be a little odd for someone to travel to France to learn to be a chef and upon their return insist that the restaurant staff use French names like cuillere and couteau, for all the utensils and kitchen tools when they reside in Ohio.


i will repeat myself .....please explain why these cultural things are integral to the art and that without them the martial art will be diminished somehow.
and while you are explaining you could also explain why karate uses Okinawan or Japanese when the art was created and originally in Chinese, and yet the Okinawans used their own language/??????


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That is the ironic part to me. You train (iIRC) primarily for that reason, yet you bash that reason rather generally from time to time. If that's not what you mean to communicate, either you or I (or both) have missed something in the communication.



Because of the huge amounts of just awful that are attached to the self defence mindset.

I mean this whole thread started with a self defence expert missing basic concepts of how actual fights work.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No, I'm not muddying the waters. It's both a motivation for the school and something that helps the school stay open, which increases the likelihood that - among schools that compete - the ones that do the best job preparing for competition are most likely to survive. That's a dynamic that helps sport-oriented schools.
> 
> As for which school prepares folks better for competition, if it's not the one that's trying to prepare folks for competition, they are doing something wrong. It's the context they are training for, so should be well focused on the rules and strategies most likely to succeed in that context.
> 
> I'm not sure what your point was in asking if a BJJ school prepared studnts for TKD competition, etc.



So you are bringing up the BJJ inverted guard stuff that wins competitions but is not self defencey?

Does that lessen though when schools do multiple competition styles?

The BJJer who does MMA.


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> Because of the huge amounts of just awful that are attached to the self defence mindset.
> 
> I mean this whole thread started with a self defence expert missing basic concepts of how actual fights work.


actually to me the whole thread was started to point out the growing but mistaken dogma and arrogance within MMA and BJJ  that sport training is effective for street self defense.


----------



## pdg

hoshin1600 said:


> i could point out that for a long time in America and still continues that bowing is a religious problem for many people. i actually know of one American 8th Dan master of Okinawan Goju ryu that had to give up his karate and dojo when he married a born again Christian women and converted to her church and religion. many Christian, Jehovah and i think Muslim people find it a sin and intolerable to bow or meditate



That must be an American thing, JW here have no issues with bowing (or shortcutting to a nod), and I've never heard any other Christians complain.

Maybe if you're a fringe fundamentalist who has interpreted certain passages in a certain way...


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> actually to me the whole thread was started to point out the growing but mistaken dogma within MMA and BJJ  that sport training is effective for street self defense.



The thing is if your argument relies on two guys getting bashed by five guys. While your own method isn't supported by evidence. You don't have an argument.

We don't see Tim Larkin with any solution to that problem. In that he did not go and do any better. He doesn't go and handle a MMA fighter with his method. He doesn't win a street fight with his method. I don't think I have ever seen the guy spar.

I could show you a video of a BMX falling off a roof. But that is not an argument for why a scooter is safer. But it gets used all the time. And people fall for it all the time.

This is the old I don't know does not equal god.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> That must be an American thing, JW here have no issues with bowing (or shortcutting to a nod), and I've never heard any other Christians complain.
> 
> Maybe if you're a fringe fundamentalist who has interpreted certain passages in a certain way...


Muslims can only bow to Mecca. Christians cannot worship false idols.

OK. So some Christian and Muslims have no issue either way. But some do.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> actually to me the whole thread was started to point out the growing but mistaken dogma and arrogance within MMA and BJJ  that sport training is effective for street self defense.



By the way wouldn't you need an understanding of MMA and BJJ to make that assessment. Or does that argument disappear for some reason?


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> Muslims can only bow to Mecca. Christians cannot worship false idols.
> 
> OK. So some Christian and Muslims have no issue either way. But some do.



A bow is considered worship?



Edit: it'd be down to the intent behind the bow. Just because I put my hands together it doesn't mean I'm praying...

If they have a problem with it, tough. Why does everything have to be changed all the time to account for pathetic insecurities and overly delicate sensibilities...


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> A bow is considered worship?



It is a religion. By definition it doesn't have to make any sense.


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> The thing is if your argument relies on two guys getting bashed by five guys. While your own method isn't supported by evidence. You don't have an argument.
> 
> We don't see Tim Larkin with any solution to that problem. In that he did not go and do any better. He doesn't go and handle a MMA fighter with his method. He doesn't win a street fight with his method. I don't think I have ever seen the guy spar.
> 
> I could show you a video of a BMX falling off a roof. But that is not an argument for why a scooter is safer. But it gets used all the time. And people fall for it all the time.
> 
> This is the old I don't know does not equal god.





drop bear said:


> By the way wouldn't you need an understanding of MMA and BJJ to make that assessment. Or does that argument disappear for some reason?



i would have to go back and watch the video again but my original impression was that he was pointing out the dogmatic fallacy that MMA practitioners believe that MMA training and competition* equals* street defense.  his point from my perspective was that the ring (or octagon as the case may be) prepares you for competition and that street defense is most often an unfair and weaponized combative event.  the street doesnt care about rules and fair play, was the message i got from the video.  if your takeway was that MMA has no benefit for street defense , that is not the way i interpreted it.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> i would have to go back and watch the video again but my original impression was that he was pointing out the dogmatic fallacy that MMA practitioners believe that MMA training and competition* equals* street defense.  his point from my perspective was that the ring (or octagon as the case may be) prepares you for competition and that street defense is most often an unfair and weaponized combative event.  the street doesnt care about rules and fair play, was the message i got from the video.  if your takeway was that MMA has no benefit for street defense , that is not the way i interpreted it.



So Tim Larkins method did what exactly?

Look at what you are looking at. 

We don't know based on that first post that ANYTHING prepares you for that situation. We do know that that one situation is not the whole street.

Eg. Scooters are safer than BMX  because video of BMX falling off a roof.

That is dogmatic argument because it is anecdotal.

And is used religiously all the time.

Joey is a homosexual joey got cancer homosexuality causes cancer.

Barry  got cancer. Barry prayed to Jesus Barry got better. Jesus cures cancer.

So Fabio does MMA. Fabio lost a street fight MMA is not good for street fighting.

Tim Larkin does self defence Tim Larkin did not loose a street fight because we have never seen him fight anyone. Self defence works in a street fight.

Look I am happy for people to come up with a real argument for self defence. But these arguments are shams.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not sure what you mean there.


Let's take the range from, say, MMA to light-touch point sparring that favors kicks. There's a huge difference between those, and one of them clearly (to me) develops skills that are useful for self-defense. The other, I'm far from convinced. I mean, it probably improves defense some, but it's defense against light-touch, often end-of-range strikes. And the strategies that work in that context are pretty far in most cases from what's useful for self-defense. Can a school teach to that competition and still build useful SD skills? I assume that's possible. I also assume it's harder than either just building skills for that competition, or building skills for MMA and SD at the same time.

MMA is just the point farthest from the comparison. I could also use boxing, Judo, kickboxing there. Probably BJJ and wrestling, too, though I'm not familiar enough with the rules of those competitions to speak to that.


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> So Tim Larkins method did what exactly?


i dont know who TIm Larken is from a rat in a hole i have no idea what if anything he prescribes for this incident.



drop bear said:


> We don't know based on that first post that ANYTHING prepares you for that situation.


exactly but it does show that MMA is not bullet proof (or in this case 2x4 proof).

i think i understand your view it is similar to John Lennon talking about his "bed in" for peace....."_look if anyone thinks what we are doing is stupid and naive, well then come up with your own idea and if its good we will join in, " _in essence dont criticize if you got no other answers.

i just dont see it as a critique on MMA methods as much as a critique on peoples beliefs.  if you feel you are training for 4 guys with a 2x4 when you do MMA your making a mistake.


----------



## hoshin1600

pdg said:


> A bow is considered worship?


it is worship.  depending on the bow.  Japanese society in general bows as a greeting.  that is a standing bow.  however at the beginning of a martial arts class there is a solokneeling bow then a group kneeling bow often combined with a clapping of hands.  these kneeling bows are a direct form of worship to the Shinto religion gods called KAMI.  in Japanese dojos there is a KamiDana which is a little house where the "spirit's" reside.






to try to separate martial arts and Shinto is like trying to separate the moo from the cow.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you are bringing up the BJJ inverted guard stuff that wins competitions but is not self defencey?


Um, I didn't bring up anything about an inverted guard. Not really sure what that is.



> Does that lessen though when schools do multiple competition styles?
> 
> The BJJer who does MMA.


I think it does, especially if the competition rules are distinctly different - like BJJ and MMA, though there's an offset in the students becoming more adaptable by working in multiple contexts. So, there's an advantage to training specifically for BJJ competition. There's a different advantage to training for both BJJ and MMA. With equally good instructors and training methods, I'd expect (on average) the BJJ competition school to do better in BJJ competitions than the BJJ/MMA school. If that wasn't the case, I'd want to know why - it'd be something to learn from.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> A bow is considered worship?
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: it'd be down to the intent behind the bow. Just because I put my hands together it doesn't mean I'm praying...
> 
> If they have a problem with it, tough. Why does everything have to be changed all the time to account for pathetic insecurities and overly delicate sensibilities...


I've run into folks in the Southeastern US who sees the perfunctory bowing we do as worship. I agree with your stance.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> it is worship.  depending on the bow.  Japanese society in general bows as a greeting.  that is a standing bow.  however at the beginning of a martial arts class there is a solokneeling bow then a group kneeling bow often combined with a clapping of hands.  these kneeling bows are a direct form of worship to the Shinto religion gods called KAMI.  in Japanese dojos there is a KamiDana which is a little house where the "spirit's" reside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to try to separate martial arts and Shinto is like trying to separate the moo from the cow.


I disagree with that last statement. We have lots of idiosyncrasies in our culture left over from superstitions and such. We still do them, without the meaning they once had. When I bow, there's no worship involved (even though as a student I bow to the kamiza - where the kamidana (or its analog) resides. It's just a show of respect. Why? Because that's what the intent is - it's what I was taught to do it for. Whether that was the original intent of the practice or not is immaterial.

And I know people who teach the same base art with different bows. Likely there are some who teach it with no bows, at all. It doesn't change the art in any way.


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> How is distracting?


Distraction:   a thing that prevents someone from giving full attention to something else.  _Via Google.
_
there are many reasons why people choose to study martial arts.  one reason is that people choose to do martial arts for the unique ability to immerse oneself into a cultural activity.  people also choose to do Shodo, Kyudo, Ikebana to name a few. if your doing martial arts as a cultural activity then the bowing and gi and language is central to the purpose and focus of the activity, the self defense aspect is ancillary.  
however if your purpose and focus is strictly self defense then these things do not hold a supporting function to self defense. they are in effect detracting from the focus since anything that is not working toward the same goal is a waste of time and energy.  it would be a better option to train in street clothes and shoes to know what it is like and how your choice of clothing will effect your performance.  speaking in a foreign language only slows the comprehension of the system.  it makes more sense to speak directly to get the student to understand without the added complexity of unknown words.


----------



## hoshin1600

gpseymour said:


> I disagree with that last statement. We have lots of idiosyncrasies in our culture left over from superstitions and such. We still do them, without the meaning they once had. When I bow, there's no worship involved (even though as a student I bow to the kamiza - where the kamidana (or its analog) resides. It's just a show of respect. Why? Because that's what the intent is - it's what I was taught to do it for. Whether that was the original intent of the practice or not is immaterial.
> 
> And I know people who teach the same base art with different bows. Likely there are some who teach it with no bows, at all. It doesn't change the art in any way.



well i was meaning the moo from the cow when training in Japan not the US.  but the rest of your comment was what i was saying earlier. that people do things as an empty gesture because it is what is expected.  there is no intent behind it.  therefore it has no actual meaning or purpose in the dojo that cannot be replaced with a more westernized gesture.


----------



## hoshin1600

pdg said:


> A bow is considered worship?
> 
> 
> Edit: it'd be down to the intent behind the bow. Just because I put my hands together it doesn't mean I'm praying...
> 
> If they have a problem with it, tough. Why does everything have to be changed all the time to account for pathetic insecurities and overly delicate sensibilities...



i am not saying it needs to be changed.  i am Zen Buddhist and my wife is Thai Buddhist.  i have no problem with bowing its normal for me.  but my point was that it holds no actual function in self defense.

EDIT:   as i was typing this, my wife was teasing my 7yo and 3 yo sons to  "kop kun klap"   (palms together bow) for 5 dollars.  she gives them money sometimes when she gets home from work and she wanted them to be polite about receiving it.  i thought it was synchronistic.


----------



## hoshin1600

I would also add people tend to say that bowing is about respect. This tends to be empty retoric.  Rei is translated to respect and they are just parroting the sentiment. For me it's not respect it's gratitude. A heart felt gratitude. For having a place to practice. For a lineage that has been passed down to me. For a training partner who is willing to place themselves in jeopardy for my training benefit.


----------



## Anarax

hoshin1600 said:


> its been my observation that people bow in class because they are told they have to. people will bow due to the requirements and expectations of the class which is far different than having a feeling of sincere gratitude or respect in your heart and having that express itself as a bow. by this i mean people will bow as an empty gesture.


Judging one's sincerity from a bow is a very difficult thing to do. Regardless, that's a failing of character, not the act of bowing.


hoshin1600 said:


> wouldnt it be more appropriate to shake hands or bump gloves like in boxing. why is it that we bow and not shake hands?


What's appropriate is relative. If I took a boxing class and there was a gesture to show respect and they didn't understand what a bow meant then I would learn their gesture. However; if they did know what a bow meant then I would bow. For example; the training facility I'm at teaches multiple styles and we spar different classes sometimes. Each style has their own gesture, but each person uses the gesture of their style. We do so because each person knows the gesture of each class and understands what is meant by the gesture, respect. Its what's conveyed, not how it's conveyed.


hoshin1600 said:


> i could point out that for a long time in America and still continues that bowing is a religious problem for many people. i actually know of one American 8th Dan master of Okinawan Goju ryu that had to give up his karate and dojo when he married a born again Christian women and converted to her church and religion. many Christian, Jehovah and i think Muslim people find it a sin and intolerable to bow or meditate.


I'm not criticizing how literally and closely some may follow their beliefs, but if they are that devout they might find other conflicts in training as well. For the sake of argument let's say there were some that devout with their beliefs, they would be an extremely small minority. FYI, there are quite a few "Christian Martial Arts" schools and I've personally known Muslims that study traditional MA without issue. 


hoshin1600 said:


> i also understand many styles other than Judo and karate do this. i just felt that it would be "understood" that i dont need to make a list of every art and that those two would be representative of the general concept.


The point is that many MA schools of varying styles throughout the world still refer to the techniques in foreign terms, yet they still generate students that are capable of defending themselves.

Please refer to your comments below


hoshin1600 said:


> i never said it was *invented* as a marketing tool. you are reading into things that were never said or implied. i am well aware of the origins of the Gi probably much more so that you are.





hoshin1600 said:


> its called cultural appropriation and was *used* as a marketing gimmick.





hoshin1600 said:


> it is a superfluous distraction and the only reason why it is there was because back in the 1950's and 60's when Judo and karate became popular it was seen as exotic and something mysterious and special and that special feeling helped its marketing and kept the students and money rolling in.


You're directly stating it was used as a marketing gimmick, which isn't true. They simply taught it the way they were taught(GIs and foreign terms). If people were attracted to the GIs and use of foreign terms, that doesn't mean they were used as marketing gimmicks. They were already existing components of the style that some people were drawn towards. 




hoshin1600 said:


> it would be a little odd for someone to travel to France to learn to be a chef and upon their return insist that the restaurant staff use French names like cuillere and couteau, for all the utensils and kitchen tools when they reside in Ohio.


That's a great example for my point. Wouldn't they still refer to the French entrees(French word) in French? It wouldn't "detract" from his culinary skills by remembering french entree terms.


hoshin1600 said:


> people also choose to do Shodo, Kyudo, Ikebana to name a few.


Great example, let's use Kyudo. You've said that Foreign terms are "distracting" and "detract" from training. Are you saying if I studied Kyudo under the more traditional style(Japanese terms, Traditional Uniform) that will make me less accurate as a marksman?


hoshin1600 said:


> if your doing martial arts as a cultural activity then the bowing and gi and language is central to the purpose and focus of the activity, the self defense aspect is ancillary.


Here is the central problem with your premise. You think the more traditional style of training somehow equates to less emphasis on self-defense. The priority of self-defense isn't diminished because I'm taught the importance of bowing, some foreign terms and wear a GI.


hoshin1600 said:


> they are in effect detracting from the focus since anything that is not working toward the same goal is a waste of time and energy.


Basic things like bowing are usually taught in the first class, foreign terms are gradually thrown in throughout training. People don't have a harder time learning Mawashi Geri(round house kick) because of the name taught to them. The quality of my roundhouse kick isn't diminished by being taught the meaning of Mawashi Geri. Bowing doesn't detract from SD component of MA either. Unless you consider the 1 second it takes to bow to a new training partner, the 3 seconds to bow to the instructors at the beginning of class and the 3 seconds at the end is "detracting" from the SD emphasis? I can take your premise and say the same about stretching, if it's not "SD training" then it's a waste of time.


hoshin1600 said:


> it would be a better option to train in street clothes and shoes to know what it is like and how your choice of clothing will effect your performance.


The same can be said for SD courses as well. People usually wear "loose fitting" clothes to SD courses and not the usual clothes they might wear out and about. For example; people up North don't usually wear thick winter clothes when they train SD, nor do doctors train in Scrubs.


hoshin1600 said:


> speaking in a foreign language only slows the comprehension of the system.


No it doesn't. Learning the foreign terms for the style won't slow down comprehension. Practicing, drilling and executing the techniques are one thing, knowing the foreign term won't diminish it. Meaning, I won't hesitate to execute techniques simply because I know the foreign term for it. In summary, learning foreign terms will not diminish the SD component of MA.


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> The point is that many MA schools of varying styles throughout the world still refer to the techniques in foreign terms, yet they still generate students that are capable of defending themselves.


your putting words in my mouth. i never said nor implied there is a correlation between cultural influence like bowing and counting and the effectiveness of a style.  i only said some people prefer.....


Anarax said:


> Here is the central problem with your premise. You think the more traditional style of training somehow equates to less emphasis on self-defense. The priority of self-defense isn't diminished because I'm taught the importance of bowing, some foreign terms and wear a GI.


i will repeat ...your putting words in my mouth.  i only said some people prefer, i never said there is a correlation that makes traditional less self defense applicable.


your strawmaning.   your arguing opinions i do not hold and did not say or imply.   i had said for various reasons some people will prefer a system without the cultural influence.  you asked what do i mean various.  i gave an example.
your reading meaning into my posts that are not there.  i have asked you pointed questions in an attempt to help clarify and think about your view and opinion and you consistently ignored my questions.
you have failed to formulate a cohesive view and argument substantiated by anything other than your own opinion.  (opinions are fine but you have not explained your reasoning for holding your view)
if you come to the table with a debate, you really should understand your own view and listen to the counter argument.  your not listening or in this case reading with a level of comprehension.  
its difficult for me to debate when your not countering the view i presented.


----------



## pdg

I can see how use of 'foreign' terms could put someone off a bit, but it can be useful in another context (maybe not so much in the US though...)

Say I go on an extended holiday, or get a job with regular medium term secondments to another country in Europe - if a school there also uses traditional terminology I can attend classes and know what they're on about


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> I can see how use of 'foreign' terms could put someone off a bit, but it can be useful in another context (maybe not so much in the US though...)
> 
> Say I go on an extended holiday, or get a job with regular medium term secondments to another country in Europe - if a school there also uses traditional terminology I can attend classes and know what they're on about


That is the advantage of using the original-language terms, assuming they are pronounced closely enough (the pronunciation seems to vary a lot among countries, as you'd expect). As you said, less of a benefit in the US (larger area of coverage by a single dominant language, fewer options for easy access to other-language areas). For me, it's almost not a factor, at all, since NGA no longer exists outside the US (not even in Japan) so far as I know. It can still be helpful discussing between arts (kote gaeshi means something at least similar in many different arts), though I think a lot of students don't start out caring about that (and maybe most never do).


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> So Tim Larkins method did what exactly?
> 
> Look at what you are looking at.
> 
> We don't know based on that first post that ANYTHING prepares you for that situation. We do know that that one situation is not the whole street.
> 
> Eg. Scooters are safer than BMX  because video of BMX falling off a roof.
> 
> That is dogmatic argument because it is anecdotal.
> 
> And is used religiously all the time.
> 
> Joey is a homosexual joey got cancer homosexuality causes cancer.
> 
> Barry  got cancer. Barry prayed to Jesus Barry got better. Jesus cures cancer.
> 
> So Fabio does MMA. Fabio lost a street fight MMA is not good for street fighting.
> 
> Tim Larkin does self defence Tim Larkin did not loose a street fight because we have never seen him fight anyone. Self defence works in a street fight.
> 
> Look I am happy for people to come up with a real argument for self defence. But these arguments are shams.


What do you mean? Today 3 punks were giving me the eye at the bus stop. I had good posture and walked confidently, and none of them attacked me. 

Self defense pressure test=Successful.


----------



## pdg

Martial D said:


> What do you mean? Today 3 punks were giving me the eye at the bus stop. I had good posture and walked confidently, and none of them attacked me.
> 
> Self defense pressure test=Successful.



There's some incontrovertible and conclusive evidence right there.

You should start a class


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> What do you mean? Today 3 punks were giving me the eye at the bus stop. I had good posture and walked confidently, and none of them attacked me.
> 
> Self defense pressure test=Successful.


This is where we (those who focus on SD) have a common problem. It's not one we create, but it's one we have to understand. See, we don't know what would have happened if you hadn't had SD training in that situation. As @Steve can reference more easily than me, there are some studies that show specific things that seem to have a significant effect on specific crime rates (I think the one he references most often was college sexual assault).

But we can't really tell the outcome one way or the other from individual interactions. It might be that those punks just give people the eye and laugh later about how they react (so anything or nothing would have worked). It might be they pick one target a day to beat the crap out of, and you were meant to be it, but they decided the math wasn't good. We just don't know.

The best we can do is look at what evidence we do have, and try to make sense of it, being skeptical of our own conclusions. So, if someone doesn't get attacked, we can't use that single incident. If students in general tend to be attacked less than the general population they belong to (by a significant margin), then we can start to ask why. If someone uses something we taught in a physical confrontation and it works, we then know the technique was effective in that situation, though we don't know if it changed that person's outcome (perhaps they'd have been able to survive without that technique).

We do ourselves and our students more of a service if we refuse to be too optimistic about our effectiveness. We have to avoid the easy mental trap of confirmation bias as much as possible.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> This is where we (those who focus on SD) have a common problem. It's not one we create, but it's one we have to understand. See, we don't know what would have happened if you hadn't had SD training in that situation. As @Steve can reference more easily than me, there are some studies that show specific things that seem to have a significant effect on specific crime rates (I think the one he references most often was college sexual assault).
> 
> But we can't really tell the outcome one way or the other from individual interactions. It might be that those punks just give people the eye and laugh later about how they react (so anything or nothing would have worked). It might be they pick one target a day to beat the crap out of, and you were meant to be it, but they decided the math wasn't good. We just don't know.
> 
> The best we can do is look at what evidence we do have, and try to make sense of it, being skeptical of our own conclusions. So, if someone doesn't get attacked, we can't use that single incident. If students in general tend to be attacked less than the general population they belong to (by a significant margin), then we can start to ask why. If someone uses something we taught in a physical confrontation and it works, we then know the technique was effective in that situation, though we don't know if it changed that person's outcome (perhaps they'd have been able to survive without that technique).
> 
> We do ourselves and our students more of a service if we refuse to be too optimistic about our effectiveness. We have to avoid the easy mental trap of confirmation bias as much as possible.



Kind of back to my tiger repellent trousers...


----------



## hoshin1600

pdg said:


> I can see how use of 'foreign' terms could put someone off a bit, but it can be useful in another context (maybe not so much in the US though...)
> 
> Say I go on an extended holiday, or get a job with regular medium term secondments to another country in Europe - if a school there also uses traditional terminology I can attend classes and know what they're on about


there is a benefit for organizations to use the original language.  it helps keep things constant and uniform.  but i was leaving that aside since the entire argument was not my intention.  i was pointing out there is no self defense function for such things only a cultural component. but people seem to latch onto things and run with them


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> No, I'm not muddying the waters. It's both a motivation for the school and something that helps the school stay open, which increases the likelihood that - among schools that compete - the ones that do the best job preparing for competition are most likely to survive. That's a dynamic that helps sport-oriented schools.
> 
> As for which school prepares folks better for competition, if it's not the one that's trying to prepare folks for competition, they are doing something wrong. It's the context they are training for, so should be well focused on the rules and strategies most likely to succeed in that context.
> 
> I'm not sure what your point was in asking if a BJJ school prepared studnts for TKD competition, etc.


I'm truly not sure why you're trying to introduce marketing and sales into this discussion.  Yes, it's muddying the waters.  Not that it's a bad discussion to have.  It's just really off topic and irrelevant to what we're discussing.

Regarding the hypothetical BJJ schools I mentioned, do you really not get it?  give it some more thought, and if you would like an explanation, let me know.  Think about it relative to how you describe teaching self defense.


gpseymour said:


> This is where we (those who focus on SD) have a common problem.


I've never met a management trainer who doesn't have both extensive experience as a manager and experience as a trainer.  In fact, if I had to select one or the other, I'd go with the person with only management experience over a person with only training experience, because the trainer must be credible first.   How would a trainer with no management experience credibly coach a new supervisor who is dealing with a grievance?  Or an EEO complaint, or even just a difficult performance discussion?


> The best we can do is look at what evidence we do have, and try to make sense of it, being skeptical of our own conclusions....
> 
> We do ourselves and our students more of a service if we refuse to be too optimistic about our effectiveness. We have to avoid the easy mental trap of confirmation bias as much as possible.


You just don't come across to me as someone who is sufficiently skeptical.  In this discussion, I think there are just a few actual skeptics, and you ain't one of them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I'm truly not sure why you're trying to introduce marketing and sales into this discussion.  Yes, it's muddying the waters.  Not that it's a bad discussion to have.  It's just really off topic and irrelevant to what we're discussing.


Wow. Just wow. Okay, I'll drop the whole thing.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Wow. Just wow. Okay, I'll drop the whole thing.


Have you ever managed people, Gerry?  IIRC, you are a training consultant.  Right?  You train leadership skills and such.  Have you ever actually supervised a group of employees?   I presume that you have.  How is teaching self defense different?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Um, I didn't bring up anything about an inverted guard. Not really sure what that is.
> 
> 
> I think it does, especially if the competition rules are distinctly different - like BJJ and MMA, though there's an offset in the students becoming more adaptable by working in multiple contexts. So, there's an advantage to training specifically for BJJ competition. There's a different advantage to training for both BJJ and MMA. With equally good instructors and training methods, I'd expect (on average) the BJJ competition school to do better in BJJ competitions than the BJJ/MMA school. If that wasn't the case, I'd want to know why - it'd be something to learn from.



Bare in mind here. MMA fighters don't really train just MMA. they train multiple styles. So that strange disconnect happens.

I have mentioned my theory on why this works on any cross training thread that comes up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Have you ever managed people, Gerry?  IIRC, you are a training consultant.  Right?  You train leadership skills and such.  Have you ever actually supervised a group of employees?   I presume that you have.  How is teaching self defense different?


Your attitude in this discussion has made it impossible to continue discussing it, Steve. Rather than even trying to follow a point, you decide it doesn't fit whatever point you want to make, so it is muddying the water.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Bare in mind here. MMA fighters don't really train just MMA. they train multiple styles. So that strange disconnect happens.
> 
> I have mentioned my theory on why this works on any cross training thread that comes up.


They often don't train entire styles (at least not the entirely of multiples) - they train the portions of styles that fit their context. BJJ (the way it's normally encapsulated) doesn't cover the entire MMA context, nor does boxing. Put together the segments of each that work in MMA and you get a blend that covers a large portion (and leaves out some things that don't apply). This is why "MMA" is starting to become a range of recognizable groupings.

And MMA does tend to drive to the flexibility that gives that advantage. By training for standing and ground, striking and grappling, you end up gaining a flexibility that lets you adapt more to new contexts.

But a boxing-trained MMAer won't often outbox a boxing-trained boxer. The specialist will usually do better than the non-specialist within that specialty. Doesn't make them better in general (or worse) - but likely better in that one context.

Cross-training is something that shows us the value of stretching your boundaries. Nearly all of the best martial artists I know (whether sport, SD, recreational, or a combination) have had some significant exposure outside their primary art. That exposure seems to make them more adaptable, give them better tools for shifting contexts and situations, etc. I think MMA breeds that because many of the participants do actually train with more than one instructor, in more than one style (Muay Thai guy works with a wrestling coach to get takedown defense and some useful ground game, for instance).


----------



## Buka

This thread has confused the heck out of me. Parts of it read like the Drifting Argument thread.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Your attitude in this discussion has made it impossible to continue discussing it, Steve. Rather than even trying to follow a point, you decide it doesn't fit whatever point you want to make, so it is muddying the water.


In a discussion about martial sport vs self defense, you're talking about which schools are going to be financially successful.  Seems off topic to me.   

But I'm not sure how your response above relates to the post you quoted.  I am genuinely puzzled by your perspectives on training.  I presume that your training consultants are experienced managers, if management training is what you do.  Why do you believe self defense training would be different?   Would you hire an executive training consultant for your training outfit who has zero management experience?   I wouldn't.



gpseymour said:


> They often don't train entire styles (at least not the entirely of multiples) - they train the portions of styles that fit their context. BJJ (the way it's normally encapsulated) doesn't cover the entire MMA context, nor does boxing. Put together the segments of each that work in MMA and you get a blend that covers a large portion (and leaves out some things that don't apply). This is why "MMA" is starting to become a range of recognizable groupings.
> 
> And MMA does tend to drive to the flexibility that gives that advantage. By training for standing and ground, striking and grappling, you end up gaining a flexibility that lets you adapt more to new contexts.
> 
> But a boxing-trained MMAer won't often outbox a boxing-trained boxer. The specialist will usually do better than the non-specialist within that specialty. Doesn't make them better in general (or worse) - but likely better in that one context.
> 
> Cross-training is something that shows us the value of stretching your boundaries. Nearly all of the best martial artists I know (whether sport, SD, recreational, or a combination) have had some significant exposure outside their primary art. That exposure seems to make them more adaptable, give them better tools for shifting contexts and situations, etc. I think MMA breeds that because many of the participants do actually train with more than one instructor, in more than one style (Muay Thai guy works with a wrestling coach to get takedown defense and some useful ground game, for instance).


You are really off base here.  Every MMA guy I know trains BJJ... like the entire style.  They also train boxing... like the complete style.   And wrestling... like the entire thing.   MMA guys go back and forth literally all the time in all kinds of different competitions. 

Where's @Tez3?  You really need to hear the MMA-ists are usually also traditional martial artists speech!  I particularly like her version of it.  She delivers it with aplomb.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> This thread has confused the heck out of me. Parts of it read like the Drifting Argument thread.


You and me both.  I'm trying to keep it on topic.


----------



## Tames D

Buka said:


> This thread has confused the heck out of me. Parts of it read like the Drifting Argument thread.


Just call me the Confused Drifter


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> They often don't train entire styles (at least not the entirely of multiples) - they train the portions of styles that fit their context. BJJ (the way it's normally encapsulated) doesn't cover the entire MMA context, nor does boxing. Put together the segments of each that work in MMA and you get a blend that covers a large portion (and leaves out some things that don't apply). This is why "MMA" is starting to become a range of recognizable groupings.
> 
> And MMA does tend to drive to the flexibility that gives that advantage. By training for standing and ground, striking and grappling, you end up gaining a flexibility that lets you adapt more to new contexts.
> 
> But a boxing-trained MMAer won't often outbox a boxing-trained boxer. The specialist will usually do better than the non-specialist within that specialty. Doesn't make them better in general (or worse) - but likely better in that one context.
> 
> Cross-training is something that shows us the value of stretching your boundaries. Nearly all of the best martial artists I know (whether sport, SD, recreational, or a combination) have had some significant exposure outside their primary art. That exposure seems to make them more adaptable, give them better tools for shifting contexts and situations, etc. I think MMA breeds that because many of the participants do actually train with more than one instructor, in more than one style (Muay Thai guy works with a wrestling coach to get takedown defense and some useful ground game, for instance).



I think you will find they train entire styles.


----------



## Anarax

The goal of your argument was the following


hoshin1600 said:


> i keep trying to break you of your bias



Yet when you are questioned on how your SD course is different you say


hoshin1600 said:


> i dont really need to build a case, i wasnt aware i was on trial.


So you want to change people's mind, but you don't want to build a case to convince them?




hoshin1600 said:


> your putting words in my mouth. i never said nor implied there is a correlation between cultural influence like bowing and counting and the effectiveness of a style. i only said some people prefer.....


Not according to your comments below


hoshin1600 said:


> if your doing martial arts as a cultural activity then the bowing and gi and language is central to the purpose and focus of the activity, the self defense aspect is ancillary.
> however if your purpose and focus is strictly self defense then these things do not hold a supporting function to self defense. they are in effect detracting from the focus since anything that is not working toward the same goal is a waste of time and energy.


Detract means to diminish or reduce. Thus according to your comment it's diminishing the self defense focus/component of MA training.
Please also refer to your other comments below


hoshin1600 said:


> a regular karate class would be a 2D flat puzzle





hoshin1600 said:


> but real self defense is a like a ShengShou megaminx





hoshin1600 said:


> speaking in a foreign language only slows the comprehension of the system


Your comments seem to state much more than people's preferences.




hoshin1600 said:


> now if you or anyone has a specific critique about SD and want my opinion on how i deal with the issue i would be glad to address it but in general im not writing a dissertation for someones amusement.


You seem to think clearly explaining yourself and telling us your experience is "amusement". This is of course after you stated we're wrong and you are different.



hoshin1600 said:


> you have failed to formulate a cohesive view and argument substantiated by anything other than your own opinion. (opinions are fine but you have not explained your reasoning for holding your view)


I clearly explained my reasoning on why I place MA above both long-term and short-term SD courses. They are in my replies to GP, feel free to go back and read them. I replied to GP because I think at that point you left the argument and GP was engaging in the discussion at the time.



hoshin1600 said:


> if you come to the table with a debate, you really should understand your own view and listen to the counter argument. your not listening or in this case reading with a level of comprehension.
> its difficult for me to debate when your not countering the view i presented.


I took almost each of you statements and addressed them. When you debate and make claims, some may ask you to explain the *how* behind those claims. For example; if you say "you're wrong" and "don't say that", you open yourself up to questions. When you then say "I'm not on trial" and all you essentially say is SD courses are better just because, again you open yourself up to the *why*. I didn't make claims I couldn't support nor explain. However; you refused to explain *how *bowing and foreign term "detracts" from SD training, but you may not have to now given you're now saying it's just a preference.  

I understood what you typed, but you keep changing your point. Backpedaling makes it difficult to have a good debate.


----------



## hoshin1600

Anarax said:


> . I replied to GP because I think at that point you left the argument and GP was engaging in the discussion at the time.


This exchange has really turned into a friken train wreck.  My original post to you was intended to point out that your first post was worded as a blanket statement and that absolutes are usually incorrect.  You fought me at every step and by this comment it is clear you have zero interest in the exchange and don't care what I say or think.....so there is no reason for me to continue.  If you have a specific question or comment for me you can send a PM.


----------



## Buka

I wanted to address the comments on bowing. Bowing in the dojo is what you make of it. Or what any particular school makes of it.

Bowing in any dojo I ran was a big deal. It was like jacking a round in the chamber. And it was also like patting a puppy in affection. 

Both different, obviously, but a big F'n deal none the less. And on the other side of the coin, I am perfectly comfortable in any dojo that has no bowing whatsoever.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You are really off base here. Every MMA guy I know trains BJJ... like the entire style. They also train boxing... like the complete style. And wrestling... like the entire thing. MMA guys go back and forth literally all the time in all kinds of different competitions.


A recent boxing bout between a top-level boxer and a top-level MMA fighter didn't seem to reflect this.

If an MMA fighter is also a boxer (meaning they actually compete in both), then that's not the example I'm using. If they also compete in BJJ competition, that's also a different thing. I doubt (but can't assert) that every MMA fighter competes in non-MMA competitions.

As for training the entire system, do they (MMA fighters who don't compete in BJJ competition) train the strategies that are used in BJJ competition, like pulling guard early? That seems a bad strategy when the other guy is allowed to hit you while you're down, so I have difficulty understanding why they'd practice that. Or do they train (usually) an adapted version of BJJ, specific to their context. Now, this might be a difference in semantics, since BJJ doesn't really have a specific curriculum like many TMA, so it may be that I'm just drawing a distinction that doesn't really make sense from a BJJ perspective. Since you know the group better than I, I'll go with that.

As for boxing, a similar dynamic likely exists. There are tactics that are not terribly useful when the other guy is allowed to throw you down (and is trained to do so), can elbow you in the head, or can tie you into a clinch for a few knees, but which would be a normal part of boxing competition. If you're not competing in boxing competition, and are training boxing at an MMA gym, for MMA fighting, why would you train those?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> I wanted to address the comments on bowing. Bowing in the dojo is what you make of it. Or what any particular school makes of it.
> 
> Bowing in any dojo I ran was a big deal. It was like jacking a round in the chamber. And it was also like patting a puppy in affection.
> 
> Both different, obviously, but a big F'n deal none the less. And on the other side of the coin, I am perfectly comfortable in any dojo that has no bowing whatsoever.


I agree with this sentiment, entirely. I'm okay at dojos more formal than I'm used to (say, an Aikikai school). I go back and forth between kneeling bow and standing bow as my mood dictates (the former is more mind-clearing to me). And when I'm someplace with no bow, I just bow internally to jack that round, because it's very much that to me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I think you will find they train entire styles.


See my comment to Steve about that. Perhaps that will make it clear what I'm talking about. It's not so much about leaving out techniques, as leaving out approaches that aren't relevant to the MMA competition. If they still include those, I'm curious as to why.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Buka said:


> I wanted to address the comments on bowing. Bowing in the dojo is what you make of it. Or what any particular school makes of it.
> 
> Bowing in any dojo I ran was a big deal. It was like jacking a round in the chamber. And it was also like patting a puppy in affection.
> 
> Both different, obviously, but a big F'n deal none the less. And on the other side of the coin, I am perfectly comfortable in any dojo that has no bowing whatsoever.



To bow or not to bow.
That is the question.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> See my comment to Steve about that. Perhaps that will make it clear what I'm talking about. It's not so much about leaving out techniques, as leaving out approaches that aren't relevant to the MMA competition. If they still include those, I'm curious as to why.



They don't leave out approaches than aren't relevant to MMA.

BJJ for example. They grade just like everyone else.

Here is robert whitaker. Now I could be wrong but I am not sure he has competed wrestling ever before. (sorry I was wrong. he has competerd in wrestling)






Ok so he is a legit wrestler who trains all of wrestling. Good enough for the commonwealth games.







Ok. he is also a BJJ brown belt. Gi, belts gradings the whole shebang.

He is training whole styles.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> They don't leave out approaches than aren't relevant to MMA.
> 
> BJJ for example. They grade just like everyone else.
> 
> Here is robert whitaker. Now I could be wrong but I am not sure he has competed wrestling ever before. (sorry I was wrong. he has competerd in wrestling)


Okay, I can see that. Would you say that's likely true (that they train the system, rather than training for MMA competition) at most/all MMA gyms? The descriptions I've heard in the past led me to believe that at least some gyms (I had thought it was common, but that may have been my misunderstanding) had "groundwork days" where they'd practice a subset of either BJJ or wrestling, or perhaps a blend of the two. Then they'd have "standup days" where they worked whatever standup style they were using. I'm having trouble imagining them practicing the floor starting position used in collegiate wrestling, for instance, even if the techniques are the basis of their ground game.

If MMA fighters do typically practice those approaches that don't apply to MMA when they are training at an MMA gym specifically for MMA, I'm curious as to why.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay, I can see that. Would you say that's likely true (that they train the system, rather than training for MMA competition) at most/all MMA gyms? The descriptions I've heard in the past led me to believe that at least some gyms (I had thought it was common, but that may have been my misunderstanding) had "groundwork days" where they'd practice a subset of either BJJ or wrestling, or perhaps a blend of the two. Then they'd have "standup days" where they worked whatever standup style they were using. I'm having trouble imagining them practicing the floor starting position used in collegiate wrestling, for instance, even if the techniques are the basis of their ground game.
> 
> If MMA fighters do typically practice those approaches that don't apply to MMA when they are training at an MMA gym specifically for MMA, I'm curious as to why.



My view as to why is because it isolates areas that would otherwise be avoided.

So if you did BJJ and but flopped your way to victory. You may never need to learn how to properly throw someone. So then you make yourself do Judo or wrestling where you can only really throw people.

And you will get better at BJJ.

So this basically


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> My view as to why is because it isolates areas that would otherwise be avoided.
> 
> So if you did BJJ and but flopped your way to victory. You may never need to learn how to properly throw someone. So then you make yourself do Judo or wrestling where you can only really throw people.
> 
> And you will get better at BJJ.
> 
> So this basically


I suppose that makes sense. So, you'd say it's pretty common that MMA gyms (again, those specifically training folks for MMA) cover the entirety of whatever styles they're using, including the parts that aren't applicable to MMA? That confuses me, but I'd assume you know that better than I.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> A recent boxing bout between a top-level boxer and a top-level MMA fighter didn't seem to reflect this.


You're a professional trainer.  You truly don't see how crazy your logic is here?  I really don't believe that.  





> If an MMA fighter is also a boxer (meaning they actually compete in both), then that's not the example I'm using.


LOL.  What?  You're literally making my point for me.  Go back and reread my earlier posts about application.  You're making that argument now.  





> If they also compete in BJJ competition, that's also a different thing. I doubt (but can't assert) that every MMA fighter competes in non-MMA competitions.


Most do.  I can't say all, because I don't know all, but most compete in grappling events and also MMA events.  Many compete or have competed in kickboxing or muay thai boxing events, as well. My experience is that people who like to compete seek it out in any way they can.  At a certain point, when they decide to make a run at fighting professionally, they tend to limit their activities to things that will sharpen skills.  So, they may compete in non-MMA events, but more to tune up skills than to excel in those areas.  





> As for training the entire system, do they (MMA fighters who don't compete in BJJ competition) train the strategies that are used in BJJ competition, like pulling guard early? That seems a bad strategy when the other guy is allowed to hit you while you're down, so I have difficulty understanding why they'd practice that. Or do they train (usually) an adapted version of BJJ, specific to their context. Now, this might be a difference in semantics, since BJJ doesn't really have a specific curriculum like many TMA, so it may be that I'm just drawing a distinction that doesn't really make sense from a BJJ perspective. Since you know the group better than I, I'll go with that.


You're actively looking for exceptions to the rule, and then trying to draw blanket conclusions from the exceptions.  But to answer your question, it depends.  I know several pro-MMA fighters who are very comfortable pulling guard.   You are just speaking out of your backside here.  Said the other way, being comfortable pulling guard doesn't mean you're a slave to the strategy and can't adapt to a different context.  Quite the opposite, actually.  If you apply skills, the adaptation actually becomes easier. 





> As for boxing, a similar dynamic likely exists.


Likely?  So, then... you really don't know.  Do you?  You're speculating...  that's actually important to note.  





> There are tactics that are not terribly useful when the other guy is allowed to throw you down (and is trained to do so), can elbow you in the head, or can tie you into a clinch for a few knees, but which would be a normal part of boxing competition. If you're not competing in boxing competition, and are training boxing at an MMA gym, for MMA fighting, why would you train those?


Come on, man.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You're a professional trainer.  You truly don't see how crazy your logic is here?  I really don't believe that.  LOL.  What?  You're literally making my point for me.  Go back and reread my earlier posts about application.  You're making that argument now.  Most do.  I can't say all, because I don't know all, but most compete in grappling events and also MMA events.  Many compete or have competed in kickboxing or muay thai boxing events, as well. My experience is that people who like to compete seek it out in any way they can.  At a certain point, when they decide to make a run at fighting professionally, they tend to limit their activities to things that will sharpen skills.  So, they may compete in non-MMA events, but more to tune up skills than to excel in those areas.  You're actively looking for exceptions to the rule, and then trying to draw blanket conclusions from the exceptions.  But to answer your question, it depends.  I know several pro-MMA fighters who are very comfortable pulling guard.   You are just speaking out of your backside here.  Said the other way, being comfortable pulling guard doesn't mean you're a slave to the strategy and can't adapt to a different context.  Quite the opposite, actually.  If you apply skills, the adaptation actually becomes easier. Likely?  So, then... you really don't know.  Do you?  You're speculating...  that's actually important to note.  Come on, man.


Do you not see the tone of your own post? See, I'm having a similar conversation with Drop Bear. He simply educated me. What he tells me doesn't line up with what I thought I'd been told, but I assume he has more exposure in the MMA world than I do (even conversationally), so I accept that my confusion is my own.

You have some points to make here, and they'd be much easier to find if you took the approach you used to (haven't seen it in discussions lately).


----------



## CB Jones

The pro fighter we know didnt train the whole style of BJJ.  He had a grappling coach and they worked take down defense, escapes, and how to defend techniques applicable to mma but didn’t train the whole system.


----------



## drop bear

CB Jones said:


> The pro fighter we know didnt train the whole style of BJJ.  He had a grappling coach and they worked take down defense, escapes, and how to defend techniques applicable to mma but didn’t train the whole system.



Who was he?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Do you not see the tone of your own post? See, I'm having a similar conversation with Drop Bear. He simply educated me. What he tells me doesn't line up with what I thought I'd been told, but I assume he has more exposure in the MMA world than I do (even conversationally), so I accept that my confusion is my own.
> 
> You have some points to make here, and they'd be much easier to find if you took the approach you used to (haven't seen it in discussions lately).


Drop Bear is a saint,   He is way more patient than I.   But I do appreciate your acknowledgment of the points I’ve made.


----------



## Steve

CB Jones said:


> The pro fighter we know didnt train the whole style of BJJ.  He had a grappling coach and they worked take down defense, escapes, and how to defend techniques applicable to mma but didn’t train the whole system.


Some don’t train BJJ at all.  Most do, though.


----------



## Anarax

Buka said:


> I wanted to address the comments on bowing. Bowing in the dojo is what you make of it. Or what any particular school makes of it.
> 
> Bowing in any dojo I ran was a big deal. It was like jacking a round in the chamber. And it was also like patting a puppy in affection.
> 
> Both different, obviously, but a big F'n deal none the less. And on the other side of the coin, I am perfectly comfortable in any dojo that has no bowing whatsoever.


I agree. I was objecting to the idea that bowing detracts or diminishes the SD component of MA.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> I agree. I was objecting to the idea that bowing detracts or diminishes the SD component of MA.


I don't think he ever said that. He said it wasn't necessary to it. I think we can all agree that's a reasonable statement.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Drop Bear is a saint,   He is way more patient than I.   But I do appreciate your acknowledgment of the points I’ve made.



Scary concept that.

In a world where I might be the reasonable one.


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> Some don’t train BJJ at all.  Most do, though.



Ok....maybe I just misunderstood...I was just pointing out that some maybe don’t train complete styles just applicable techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

CB Jones said:


> Ok....maybe I just misunderstood...I was just pointing out that some maybe don’t train complete styles just applicable techniques.


That had been my understanding from some MMA folks I talked with in the past.


----------

