# The sparring Thread.



## Kframe (Jan 16, 2014)

Ok here comes the can of worms.  Having switched from mma to Bujinkan taijutsu one of the hardest things im having to accept is there is no sparring. They have randori but it isn't like sparring its a whole different animal.    

I know that Chris parker and others will chime in and say that Sparring is not like self defense. I get that, but the thing is, especially with BBT were else are you going to get randomness.  I have seen that, ya  you can have pressure in the preset paired forms.  In fact I have watched the black belts and out side of a few things they were throwing with speed and power and intent.  The problem is,  arts like mine and aikido and apparently most of the legit koryu don't spar.

So the question becomes outside of the obvious cardio and conditioning benefits, what else does sparring help with.  I think the big thing is randomness. The ability to deal with unpredictable opponents.  Also learning to take a hit and how really hitting someone feels. 

So while I know that Chris parker has told me that you can have pressure in the kata(our paired kata), that pressure not matter how high, does not address randomness. Attacks are random. 

I think part of the reason that MMA fighters do so well against most every style, and even on the street, is that they practice against randomness every day, from day one.   Sure they may not have the most optimum skillset for street defense but its there inculcation to randomness that is one of their greatest strengths. 

So the question I find my self struggling with, above all else is this. Those arts that teach techniques and no sparring, no randomness, how do you expect your students to be able to apply what they learn to a situation that is chalk full of random? How do you expect to be able to give and receive a hit if you don't know what being hit feels like?   This question is the one I am struggling with the most. I honestly don't know how I can fix it with my own training but its a question that needs to be answered.  

So Anti sparring people, chime in. I want your side of the story.  I want a counter point.

Pro sparrers, whats your points? 


I know that im going to have to address this as it is something that remains on my mind and cant be shaken.. 

Im reminded of this article..http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2...-skill-you-just-arent-as-good-as-you-thought/  and this one. http://www.fightscope.com/martial-arts/importance-of-sparring/

Basically, sparring while not a real self defense fight, is as close to a real fight as you can get. If you don't spar against a fully resisting opponent, not attacking you  on a predetermined basis, how can you know that what your are learning or teaching works? 

That is the internal struggle I am facing right now. I hope this sparks a good discussion.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 16, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Ok here comes the can of worms.  Having switched from mma to Bujinkan taijutsu one of the hardest things im having to accept is there is no sparring. They have randori but it isn't like sparring its a whole different animal.
> 
> I know that Chris parker and others will chime in and say that Sparring is not like self defense. I get that, but the thing is, especially with BBT were else are you going to get randomness.  I have seen that, ya  you can have pressure in the preset paired forms.  In fact I have watched the black belts and out side of a few things they were throwing with speed and power and intent.  The problem is,  arts like mine and aikido and apparently most of the legit koryu don't spar.
> 
> ...


Um, have people try to resist your tech at various and random places. Randomness is only one of the many benefits of sparring, but the main focus of sparring is to work specific things against a resisting opponent; so, as long as that is happening on some level, you are OK.


----------



## K-man (Jan 16, 2014)

There are different forms of sparring. Most people equate 'sparring' to what you see in the ring, just a lower intensity. If that is what you are training for then that form of sparring is fine. When I trained the Japanese form of karate I loved the sparring. When I look at our training now, that type of type of sparring has no place. 

In the article quoted the author states; "The bottom line is sparring is probably the most important training exercise there is." That may be true if you are training for a particular type of scenario like the ring. If you are training for reality based scenarios you cannot spar the way you train so why would you spar in a way which for you is not realistic.

So look at the benefits from a non sport based system.



> Sparring will help you develop a greater understand and application of the following skills:
> 
> 
> Distance - How to control the distance between you and your partner.
> ...


Doesn't that just describe normal training?

Then we have this little gem; "People don't like sparring because they aren't confident with their abilities and are worried about getting hurt. This is usually because they don't have a game plan. They don't have the knowledge and experience to keep a solid defense game whilst "holding their own" and attacking their sparring partner."

In a sporting context I could agree but in reality based systems it just doesn't make sense. 

Training without sparring can still incorporate randomness and that randomness can include weapons and multiple attackers. You still get hit, you still develop fitness and stamina and you are developing all the skills described above. I don't see sparring or not sparring as the issue. If sparring is beneficial to your training go for it but to suggest it is essential for all arts is just not right.
:asian:


----------



## Kframe (Jan 16, 2014)

K man you and I both train in a Kata centric art.(aikido for you).  How in arts like ours, can you include randomness in a paired kata setting. By its very definition a paired kata can not have anything random. Random implies you didn't see it coming. IF you know its coming its not random, but variation. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## Drose427 (Jan 16, 2014)

I agree with K-man on this. You can get the randomness of a fight in the self defense aspect of your art without sparring. In my class, we spar full speed with lighter contact and rarely compete. I also dont remember ever being told that sparring was a good judge of self-defense. But since white belt I know I've been told sparring is where we can learn and practice things that pertain to self defense i.e. foot work, distance, reaction, and timing. But these things can be done without sparring just by simulating an attack or having a self defense program. Even in our one step sparring, we still get practice in position, reaction, distance, timing, and much more while having to avoid the punch or whatever technique our instructor tells us to use. I think of sparring as beneficial, but not a necessity.


----------



## K-man (Jan 16, 2014)

Kframe said:


> K man you and I both train in a Kata centric art.(aikido for you).  How in arts like ours, can you include randomness in a paired kata setting. By its very definition a paired kata can not have anything random. Random implies you didn't see it coming. IF you know its coming its not random, but variation. I hope that makes sense.


I'm a bit fortunate in training multiple arts. Aikido normally is training against a known attack but it doesn't have to be that way. At times in Aikido I will take the opportunity to start from the same sticky hands position that we use in our karate. You can use the same exercise in Krav and Systema with a little imagination. You can enter the sticky hands type training from any attack and you can use it to move to any appropriate technique at any time. 

This is a long video, 29 minutes, that I just found. Don't necessarily watch the whole video but you can see what this guy is doing with WC techniques. Substitute your own and you have a fantastic training system that can be fast or slow, striking to body only, incorporating the feet, including the head and padding up and going full contact. We use it to move into all the locks, holds and takedowns as well. I also use it to simulate an injury where you can only use one hand to defend and respond or where you defend with one hand until you have a clear strike with the other.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zoaPM6jtvxA&desktop_uri=/watch?v=zoaPM6jtvxA

:asian:


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 17, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Ok here comes the can of worms.



Big, giant, ugly ones.


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Jan 17, 2014)

You beat me to it. I will have to sleep on it and get back to you guys in depth on how I feel about the whole thing.


----------



## geezer (Jan 17, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Ok here comes the can of worms.



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_u9MGXhwr15w/TJQCSf5UdCI/AAAAAAAABzY/9AQ4fwq32LM/s1600/can-of-worms.jpg

The VT (WC) group I teach hasn't been doing contact free-sparring (guo sau). We do a lot of sparring-like exchanges but haven't opened it up, inviting other MA ists in to work with etc. Instead we do more controlled exchanges and drills designed to build proficiency in techniques and their application. For feel and "randomness" there is Chi-Sau.

On one hand, this approach works well to build solid skills in lower level students especially since a lot of WC techniques when first trained may seem to "go against the grain" so to speak and are quite unlike the typical way most of us tend to stand and punch. If you start sparring too soon, you will likely revert to those instincts rather than to apply the techniques we are training. 


On the other hand, in my eskrima training, we _do_ free it up. Not like like Dog Brothers mind you, but still with safety equipmant, "randomness" and resistance. And, we mutually agree on you hard to go at it. Some of the young guys train for mma competition and really go at it hard. At 58 I injure more easily and heal very slowly, so I go pretty light. It has still been a very valuable experience. So much so that I plan to get the more experienced members of my VT (WC) group sparring at least once a week too. I personally think they'll benefit from it ...and enjoy it too.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 17, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Big, giant, ugly ones.


My Dad is a ballroom dance teacher, and one of there biggest problems is to ask people to stop trying to dance while they are teaching them to dance. LOL


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 17, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> My Dad is a ballroom dance teacher, and one of there biggest problems is to ask people to stop trying to dance while they are teaching them to dance. LOL



That reminds me of when students perform techniques while at the same time I'm trying to teach them, by the time I turn around to see if it is done correctly it is already finished. Watch first, then do when I say to do.


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 17, 2014)

I have had mixed feelings about sparring over the years. Traditional sparring doesn't translate well to self defense IMO but is obviously an important staple to competition and sport fighting. I believe "feel" and "contact" are extremely important but you have to find that fine line between all out and not enough. It is important to harness the ability to react effectively under stress but when you are trying to build a self protection mentality it can be difficult to simulate that on training partners. Pads and bags recover nicely, humans not so much.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 17, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> That reminds me of when students perform techniques while at the same time I'm trying to teach them, by the time I turn around to see if it is done correctly it is already finished. Watch first, then do when I say to do.



I've had to stop, and wait, and repeat until the student gets the point more than a few times.  The other night, I was working with some students on a form, and they were having trouble with the footwork.  So I gave the directions that I would tell them the steps, then give them a command to do them.   So, of course, about half the class started doing things as I said them.  So, we'd stop.  Start over.  Finally resorted to having them "read back" the directions to me...

My teacher taught us that the key to success is to LISTEN, and then to FOLLOW DIRECTIONS.  For most people, the first part is hard enough... the second, almost impossible.


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 17, 2014)

A do a LOT of 2 on 1, 3 on 1 and even groups of 5 or more on 1 and I believe it is an extremely effective means of introducing stress, chaos and random attack as mentioned before (especially with new people not used to contact). The goat in the middle has MMA gloves and the crashers are equipped with pads, shields and headgear. The trick is to go hard for 30 seconds max with escape as the goal.

For simulating one on one drilling I still like the quick 20 to 30 second burst with multiple people so I do line drills. You get a great core workout for a straight 2 minutes and this drill teaches you to fight and push your way through when you are tired and fatigued. I like stressful, realistic situations to be a part of everything I do


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 18, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Ok here comes the can of worms.  Having switched from mma to Bujinkan taijutsu one of the hardest things im having to accept is there is no sparring. They have randori but it isn't like sparring its a whole different animal.


 
Hmm, can of worms, you say? Ha, yeah... 

Let's start simply enough. What do you feel are the differences between "sparring" and "randori"? How are you defining each? I'll give my definitions as we go, but it really should be remembered that different systems (and, in cases, different dojo of the same system, especially when dealing with the Bujinkan) can use the same terminology incredibly differently... or completely interchangeably....    



Kframe said:


> I know that Chris parker and others will chime in and say that Sparring is not like self defense.



Okay, here's where definitions are important. Sparring, as it is commonly used, is a training form which sees two people put against each other with similar (matched) skill sets, and the same goal. At it's most basic, core reality there, that's actually the opposite of self defence. There's a lot more, when you really look at it, but that's a good enough starting point.



Kframe said:


> I get that, but the thing is, especially with BBT were else are you going to get randomness.


 
Well, this is going to sound a little obvious, but.... by adding randomness. To add to that, you can add random response training in a number of ways, sparring is just one possibility. You might have a range of kata that all have the same attack... but you can apply any of the responses (without deciding which), or by trying to apply the response against a range of random attacks, or by looking at scenario training (different to kata), by putting other actions in the kata (such as countering the technique, or continuing an attack past the regular form, and more.



Kframe said:


> I have seen that, ya  you can have pressure in the preset paired forms.  In fact I have watched the black belts and out side of a few things they were throwing with speed and power and intent.  The problem is,  arts like mine and aikido and apparently most of the legit koryu don't spar.



Again, it comes down to definitions... but it also comes down to the purpose of the system and it's training methods. When dealing with Koryu, for instance, you're aiming to learn the methodology, principles, tactical and strategic application, and teachings of that particular Ryu.... in other words, you're not learning a generic skill (to be able to "fight"), you're learning a specific one (to know and have skill in the specific approach of that system), which might or might not even have any real desire or need to be applicable outside of it's own form. In Aikido, you're learning expressions of Aiki principles.



Kframe said:


> So the question becomes outside of the obvious cardio and conditioning benefits, what else does sparring help with.  I think the big thing is randomness. The ability to deal with unpredictable opponents.  Also learning to take a hit and how really hitting someone feels.



Hmm. Sure, it can definitely help with handling random action... of course, it's not that unpredictable. You'll have a pretty good idea of what you're going to face. When it comes to learning to take and give a hit, well, that can be done in scripted work as well... and sparring can be non- or semi-contact... which isn't the same thing, and doesn't give you the skills of giving or taking a hit, so it really does depend on what form of sparring you're talking about. 



Kframe said:


> So while I know that Chris parker has told me that you can have pressure in the kata(our paired kata), that pressure not matter how high, does not address randomness. Attacks are random.



Sure... but attacks (in real life) aren't anything like what you face in sparring, either. The distancing, the preparation, the timing, the form, the set-up, the aim, and far more are wildly different. 



Kframe said:


> I think part of the reason that MMA fighters do so well against most every style, and even on the street, is that they practice against randomness every day, from day one.   Sure they may not have the most optimum skillset for street defense but its there inculcation to randomness that is one of their greatest strengths.



I'd disagree there, both in specifics and with the basic premise you're offering in the first place.  



Kframe said:


> So the question I find my self struggling with, above all else is this. Those arts that teach techniques and no sparring, no randomness, how do you expect your students to be able to apply what they learn to a situation that is chalk full of random?



Firstly, I'd say you're making some rather false assumptions about how you actually get prepared for different things. The biggest issue to deal with isn't randomness at all, frankly. Secondly, you're looking at a false need, and ignoring the context of such arts. Thirdly, of course, sparring doesn't really offer you much more preparation for the "unexpected" than scripted training, when done properly... provided the scripted work is done realistically, it's going to provide realistic skills. And the reality is that sparring won't help with a sudden assault... but awareness training, knowledge of pre-fight indicators etc will, by allowing you to see something coming before it actually happens. Sparring can help with handling random actions once the fight has started... and, if we're dealing  with a street predator attack, the fight starts and ends so quickly that that skill just doesn't get a look in.



Kframe said:


> How do you expect to be able to give and receive a hit if you don't know what being hit feels like?


 
Who says non-sparring arts don't have that? Come into my class, and you'll certainly know what it's like to hit and to be hit....



Kframe said:


> This question is the one I am struggling with the most. I honestly don't know how I can fix it with my own training but its a question that needs to be answered.


 
The first, and really, primary thing you need to do is to recognize that you're now training in a system with a very different set of priorities and a very different context. Assuming that it's dealing with the same thing as your previous training is to miss the point... and really, so long as you expect it to be the same, you're not going to get anywhere. You don't go to an Indian restaurant and expect a good pizza....  



Kframe said:


> So Anti sparring people, chime in. I want your side of the story.  I want a counter point.



Hopefully it'll come through in the rest of this post.



Kframe said:


> Pro sparrers, whats your points?


 
I'll leave that to them...



Kframe said:


> I know that im going to have to address this as it is something that remains on my mind and cant be shaken..



Yeah.... see above. 



Kframe said:


> Im reminded of this article..http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2...-skill-you-just-arent-as-good-as-you-thought/


 
To deal with a few comments from the article....

Hmm, actually, I'm not sure where to start with this one. Half of it is "well, duh..." (such as the reality that people have a personal ceiling to their development), with most of the rest being some rather odd applications of logic and assumptions mixed with largely inaccurate truisms... I really can't say I agree with much of it, honestly, and would say that most doesn't really deal much with the benefit or not of sparring for self defence training at all (the few times it's mentioned, it's done to point out that it's "not a barometer of 'real' self defence skills").

To take it from the beginning, the title itself ("Facing A Harsh Reality: Sparring Measures Skill") is only true in a sense.... it measures skill, sure, but only skill in sparring. The whole idea of it showing you that you're not as fast, or strong as you thought you were (which is referred to as a "delusion" by the author) reads to me as a personal account, and is really little more than the author coming to terms with his own issues, rather than having anything to do with sparring itself. He also seemed to miss what he was being told, and why, instead reading into it something that wasn't there (what he classes as a delusion, which is more a delusion of his own). Sure, the other guy might have indeed been more skilled, rather than just having a "better day", but the denial of that fact wasn't anything to do with the feedback he was getting.

As far as there being a ceiling to the skill level of students, well, yeah, there is... but I really have no idea where he's getting his ideas on just how mislead karate practitioners are about their skills from. He seems convinced that everyone in a dojo feels that they're a combination of Chuck Norris and Bruce Lee, and that competition/sparring shows that they're really uncoordinated, slow, clumsy oafs.... I don't think that either of those descriptions are accurate, and again, feel that the author is potentially projecting his own issues quite a bit.

Next is "Teaching is not Doing", which bears almost no connection to the topic of the article at all.... while it's not really wrong, it's just out of place and irrelevant.

Ah, the next section... in which our author derides and moans about what he thinks are the common complaints against competition, essentially doing what he complains of others doing (just whining). He basically says "hey, if you don't like all the problems with competition, there's so many types, you should just go and do one you do like", which is like saying that if you don't like the rules in your families house, you should just go to someone else's where you can eat ice-cream all night long... Oh, and it's rare to get even the most fervent non-competition martial artists to say that there are no useful aspects... again, this reads as a projection, rather than any true reflection of reality.

"When in Rome".... oh, dear lord.... "yes, it's unrealistic (and therefore those who do not include it for that reason are correct), and yes, you do things that you'd never do for real (and therefore those who do not include it for that reason are correct), but we do things to win that false context (and therefore those who do not include it for that reason are correct), and if you do train in competition, then you're training in sport/competition, so, well, just do it, okay?". A complete non-argument based on saying that the critics are correct... really?

Finally, the conclusion simply restates the false assumptions, the lack of insight, and the inability to recognise just what sparring and competition actually tests. Not impressed with that one. Let's try the next... 



Kframe said:


> and this one. http://www.fightscope.com/martial-arts/importance-of-sparring/



"Sparring is the closest we can get to a real fighting situation." 

No, it's not.

"The bottom line is that sparring is probably the most important training exercise there is."

No, it's not.

"Sparring is as real as it gets. It's that simple."

No, it's not as real as it gets. And it's far from that simple. I think you can see where my opinion of this article is going.... 

"Sparring is the nearest thing to a real fight, without actually fighting."

No, it's not.

"People don't like sparring because they aren't confident in their abilities and are worried about being hurt."

Garbage. This is probably the most macho, egotistical, and least informed surmising of a motivation I've seen. "You don't spar, but I do, so I'm tough, and you're a scaredybaby".... yeah, right.... 

Hmm, not that fond of that one either.



Kframe said:


> Basically, sparring while not a real self defense fight, is as close to a real fight as you can get.



No, it really isn't. At all.



Kframe said:


> If you don't spar against a fully resisting opponent, not attacking you  on a predetermined basis, how can you know that what your are learning or teaching works?



Again, that's a very false assumption. Realistically, knowing that something works in sparring only tells you that it works in sparring... nothing else. You really need to first off get a handle on what "works" means in each context.



Kframe said:


> That is the internal struggle I am facing right now. I hope this sparks a good discussion.



Same. And to that end, a question you might not have considered.... Why is "randomness" important when it comes to self defence training? And, by that, I mean... is it actually important in the first place?


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 18, 2014)

Chris I agree that sparring is NOT the best way to train self defense. I like for my students to understand feel and get themselves used to contact but I have to instill in them that when an attack occurs the response (assuming they can't escape or de-escalate the situation) has to be dealt with swiftly and with the necessary force to get the job done so they CAN escape. It is my opinion that traditional sparring is part of the reason so many western MA schools do such a poor job of teaching self defense. They introduce sparring as a touch the gloves, bow to your partner and trade blows exercise. That isn't self defense training at all. Your goal in defending yourself (mental and awareness training aside) should be to hit first with deception and how ever many times needed to escape and that's it. Sparring just isn't the best way to achieve the simulation of that. Long post but good post and I agree!


----------



## Kframe (Jan 20, 2014)

I was on E budo and found a old thread talking about old Koryu training. http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?47543-Free-practice-in-koryu-is-it-possible While im still trying to digest that whole thing, the gist I get is this. They did spar, just not quite like we do in modern arts. Apparently free sparring was something only few were doing after like 20 years of practice. 

http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm  This post also talks about old European arts used on battlefields. Here is the relevant excerpt. 
"False. Modern research in historical European martial arts has revealed considerable evidence in Europe from the 12th to 17th centuries for several different forms of mock combat used as earnest self-defense training, battlefield rehearsal, ritual display, and sporting contest.  From knightly tournaments to prize-playing contests to bouting a few _veneys_ or assaults at arms and impromptu scrimmaging, the evidence for "free play" or "playing loose" as practice-fighting is substantial. This activity involved substantial _contact_, and not merely pulled blows or surface touches.  Examination of the methods by which this kind of "sparring" was pursued (e.g., its equipment, its intent and purpose, its permissible techniques and safety considerations, and its risk of injury, etc.) is a main area of exploration in historical fencing studies. See: To Spar or Not to Spar."

So the question remains, how can you learn to fight with out fighting? Swing with out swimming?  Sparring while not a real situation is as close as it gets.  I have not yet seen any thing said here that is convincing.   All I keep hearing is that sparring is not even close to real life. Yet if that is true why did so many old battlefield arts actually spar in some fashion? 

Again the main issue I have is this. How can you expect to apply what your learn, to a random and or unexpected attack if you never practice against unexpected and or random attacks?  It was said that sparring is not really random, that your matched based on skill and size and what not. That is true to a extent but that does not mean I will know what opening attack my opponent will throw, or what tactic he will use. I cant read his mind, he may attack with a kick or several, or a shoot or a anything. Only thing I know is that he can strike and grapple, I have no idea what is coming first next or last. 

 Just because Im good on pads and good with the tech sparring*partner drills in boxing that I did* does not mean ill be able to deal with a unpredictable and random attack. 

One line from the e budo thread is interesting. "Indeed, and I think he's got it right from everything I've ever seen in my budo career, I've never seen anyone with kata only experience step onto a kendo floor and win his first match, I certainly have no illusions that I could take a moderately trained kendo kid, even if I was allowed any target at all. I twitch and he hits me, simple as that, and it has happened in the deep distant past. But I've also seen that those with kata and sparring experience are much more sophisticated in their practice, a different feel to their kendo. "


I think im still leaning towards adding some other element to my own training, I just cant deny the inarguable benefits to self defense that sparring brings.  I don't see how you can deny the realities of training against a unpredictable opponent, throwing random and unpredictable attacks.


----------



## K-man (Jan 20, 2014)

Kframe said:


> I think im still leaning towards adding some other element to my own training, I just cant deny the inarguable benefits to self defense that sparring brings.  I don't see how you can deny the realities of training against a unpredictable opponent, throwing random and unpredictable attacks.


It depends on how you define 'sparring'. If sparring to you means the type of training required for MMA competition then I don't believe that is necessary unless you are preparing to compete in MMA. If you want to test your skills in a reality based setting there are many ways of providing that training.
:asian:


----------



## MJS (Jan 21, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Ok here comes the can of worms.  Having switched from mma to Bujinkan taijutsu one of the hardest things im having to accept is there is no sparring. They have randori but it isn't like sparring its a whole different animal.
> 
> I know that Chris parker and others will chime in and say that Sparring is not like self defense. I get that, but the thing is, especially with BBT were else are you going to get randomness.  I have seen that, ya  you can have pressure in the preset paired forms.  In fact I have watched the black belts and out side of a few things they were throwing with speed and power and intent.  The problem is,  arts like mine and aikido and apparently most of the legit koryu don't spar.
> 
> ...



In all of the arts that I've done or currently do, sparring is a part of it.  IMO, I feel that its just one more part of the puzzle, as far as training goes.  Sure, we can (and I have) do our SD techniques, in a non-static way, ensuring that it doesn't look like a sparring match, but for me, I like sparring.  It's a faster pace, harder contact, and you get used to getting hit.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 21, 2014)

I don't have time right now to write a full essay on the subject.  Having spent a bunch of years training in an art which did not use sparring (Bujinkan Taijutsu) and a bunch of years training in arts which do use sparring (Muay Thai & BJJ among others), these are a few of my thoughts:

Sparring is a vital part of training if you want to be able to fight effectively at a high level, regardless of the context.  It teaches certain skills and attributes which no other training method really does.

That said, it is not the end all and be all.  It has weaknesses and shortcomings, just like all training methods do, and it is important to recognize what they are so that you can make up for them in your other areas of training.

Sparring is not really a simulation of a self-defense situation.  Certain types of sparring, if done correctly, can be a decent simulation of certain forms of fighting, which is something different.

Sparring comes in a variety of flavors.  Different forms have different advantages.  Some people practice sparring in a way which I consider to be downright detrimental to developing self-defense ability.

The point of sparring is learning, not winning.  When students get hung up on winning rather than learning, then sparring can lose much of its benefit.


----------



## MJS (Jan 21, 2014)

Kframe said:


> I was on E budo and found a old thread talking about old Koryu training. http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?47543-Free-practice-in-koryu-is-it-possible While im still trying to digest that whole thing, the gist I get is this. They did spar, just not quite like we do in modern arts. Apparently free sparring was something only few were doing after like 20 years of practice.
> 
> http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm  This post also talks about old European arts used on battlefields. Here is the relevant excerpt.
> "False. Modern research in historical European martial arts has revealed considerable evidence in Europe from the 12th to 17th centuries for several different forms of mock combat used as earnest self-defense training, battlefield rehearsal, ritual display, and sporting contest.  From knightly tournaments to prize-playing contests to bouting a few _veneys_ or assaults at arms and impromptu scrimmaging, the evidence for "free play" or "playing loose" as practice-fighting is substantial. This activity involved substantial _contact_, and not merely pulled blows or surface touches.  Examination of the methods by which this kind of "sparring" was pursued (e.g., its equipment, its intent and purpose, its permissible techniques and safety considerations, and its risk of injury, etc.) is a main area of exploration in historical fencing studies. See: To Spar or Not to Spar."
> ...



I still stand by what I've said in my other post in this thread, as well as others through out the forum.  It's one part of the puzzle but it's an important piece.  No, it's not like real life, but does that mean it shouldn't be done?  OTOH, I've seen some sparring sessions that are closer than what is normally seen as sparring.  One of my old Kenpo instructors and I used to have some pretty hard, intense sparring sessions.  It was more MMAish, but rough nonetheless.  The sparring that I do in my Kyokushin dojo is pretty hard core.  There are valuable things to be gained from it.

Of course, keep in mind, working SD and doing sparring, are, IMO, 2 separate things.  Sure, I've used ideas from my SD techs, during sparring, but no, I never pulled off a full tech while sparring.  

If it's something that you feel is important, if it's something you like to do, then do it.


----------



## MJS (Jan 21, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't have time right now to write a full essay on the subject.  Having spent a bunch of years training in an art which did not use sparring (Bujinkan Taijutsu) and a bunch of years training in arts which do use sparring (Muay Thai & BJJ among others), these are a few of my thoughts:
> 
> Sparring is a vital part of training if you want to be able to fight effectively at a high level, regardless of the context.  It teaches certain skills and attributes which no other training method really does.
> 
> ...




I agree with everything said here, especially the underlined part!!!


----------



## skribs (Jan 21, 2014)

Hapkido is a purely self defense art, and we still have sparring in my hapkido class.  Basically, one person plays the attacker and the other the defender, and the attacker uses a random attack the defender has to reverse.  They then switch places.  It sounds like what you're talking about with introducing randomness.

I think that there are three sides to learning defense;  there's learning the basic techniques (usually practiced against the air or a bag), which teach you how to use the techniques.  There's the self defense techniques practiced very light contact or no contact (certain techniques I specify "be very careful" to my partner in class, I'll let you guess what area is targeted there).  And then there's sparring, where you learn how to deal with a real person, even if half of the techniques you *would* use in self defense are banned.  Personally, these are all important, and I like that we do all 3 in my school.


----------



## Kframe (Jan 21, 2014)

For me sparring was the proving ground of the basics. Every art has basics. Punch's blocks movement ect.  Sparring was a fantastic way to train them against a random fully resisting opponent. I also enjoyed it because it allowed me a good way to practice my experiments with grafting basic karate style deflections on to my mma training.  I loved pulling them out during sparring.  I attribute my success with using them to my instructor and the way he drilled them.  Learn the movement, then get ready cause he going to hit you repeatedly and you got to use them.  The defense drills were fast and hard and fun. I found my self using them in sparring instinctively very quickly. 

Victory in sparring, defined as a day I did well or didn't out right get my *** kicked, made me feel awesome. I have such confidence issues and how ever fleeting it felt good to win some times.. Though it never lasted, I just wish that feeling of I don't suck would have lasted. 

The point of all this is, that people who spar do better in a confrontation then people who don't.  Here is a video of a Taijutsu practioner facing a  TCMA. Its obvious who has aliveness in there training. 



  Why would I post that? Because, it highlights, that had he had just a little bit of sparring experience he would have faired much better.  About the only thing he was able to do that whole fight was assume Jumonji no kamae and back peddle to a decision loss and a few random haymakers.


I keep coming back to sparring because of its obvious benefits of dealing with randomness. Attacks are random, you need to be able to deal with the unknown. Yes I know about what skill set my sparring partner has I have no idea what is coming in what order. Its that element of the unknown that gets hammered(literally) into you.  

There is another just as important thing. That is the adrenalin dump. Yes it is not as large as a self defense situation, it does begin to show you the effects of it.  I remember  it took me a few sessions to get used to the adrenalin dump. Then when I had my real life near fight, ya a real adrenalin dump hit but I was able to function through it.   I don't see how you can get that kind of thing with out sparring. NO matter how hard you do your partner kata you wont get a adrenalin dump response.  

If you are saying that use scenario sparring/ drills for aliveness and randomness training then that is exactly what I want. So far I have not seen it done, and apparently many  don't. 

It just makes me wonder, how many of these non competing arts students, skill sets would be so much better if they had some kind of random resistance added to there training. 

Paired kata can be great for a good many things but random is not one of them. They are preset techniques for a reason, that by definition precludes their being anything random in them. If their was random in them they wouldn't be preset techniques. 

So, in the end, for me the answer is simple. When my situation permits it, im going to seek out a side training venue that will allow me a more free mode of sparring.. Not now of course, as I my life only permits one martial art while I am doing personal training for my weight loss body restructuring dream.(I wanna go from morbidly obese to ripped and cut)


----------



## K-man (Jan 21, 2014)

Kframe said:


> For me sparring was the proving ground of the basics. Every art has basics. Punch's blocks movement ect.  Sparring was a fantastic way to train them against a random fully resisting opponent. I also enjoyed it because it allowed me a good way to practice my experiments with grafting basic karate style deflections on to my mma training.  I loved pulling them out during sparring.  I attribute my success with using them to my instructor and the way he drilled them.  Learn the movement, then get ready cause he going to hit you repeatedly and you got to use them.  The defense drills were fast and hard and fun. I found my self using them in sparring instinctively very quickly.
> 
> Victory in sparring, defined as a day I did well or didn't out right get my *** kicked, made me feel awesome. I have such confidence issues and how ever fleeting it felt good to win some times.. Though it never lasted, I just wish that feeling of I don't suck would have lasted.
> 
> ...


If you're into sport that type of sparring is fine. If you are looking for self defence I feel it is totally counter productive. You can put on protective gear and have a much better workout than that type of sparring gives without compromising the principles you are training.  You'll still get random attacks, you'll hit and get hit and, depending on the intensity, still get the adrenalin. 
:asian:


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 22, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Victory in sparring, defined as a day I did well or didn't out right get my *** kicked, made me feel awesome. I have such confidence issues and how ever fleeting it felt good to win some times.



Sometimes having the mindset of always trying to "win" in a self defence situation people forget how to survive one.



Kframe said:


> The point of all this is, that people who spar do better in a  confrontation then people who don't.  Here is a video of a Taijutsu  practioner facing a  TCMA. Its obvious who has aliveness in there  training.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I post that? Because, it highlights, that had he had just a  little bit of sparring experience he would have faired much better.   About the only thing he was able to do that whole fight was assume  Jumonji no kamae and back peddle to a decision loss and a few random  haymakers.



That could simply be a matter of who has more relative experience or has been training longer.



Kframe said:


> It just makes me wonder, how many of these non competing arts students, skill sets would be so much better if they had some kind of random resistance added to there training.



I'm curious as to why you think non-competitive arts don't have any kind of random resistance in them?


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 22, 2014)

A few clarifications to begin with.... 



SteveNC said:


> Chris I agree that sparring is NOT the best way to train self defense. I like for my students to understand feel and get themselves used to contact but I have to instill in them that when an attack occurs the response (assuming they can't escape or de-escalate the situation) has to be dealt with swiftly and with the necessary force to get the job done so they CAN escape.



Okay. There can be some semantic arguments based on exactly what you're meaning, but nothing to get too far into here.



SteveNC said:


> It is my opinion that traditional sparring is part of the reason so many western MA schools do such a poor job of teaching self defense. They introduce sparring as a touch the gloves, bow to your partner and trade blows exercise.



How is that different to non-Western martial arts schools? And who says that such forms of sparring are anything to do with self defence? The idea that "it's a martial art, it's fighting (in a form), therefore it must be about self defence" leads to many, many issues, contextually, tactically, strategically, mechanically, historically, and more.... 



SteveNC said:


> That isn't self defense training at all.



No, it's not... and it doesn't sound like it's pretending to be. If a particular school tells you it is, it's more likely that the teacher there doesn't get the distinction, rather than there being an actual issue with the training methodology itself.



SteveNC said:


> Your goal in defending yourself (mental and awareness training aside) should be to hit first with deception and how ever many times needed to escape and that's it.



No, it really shouldn't. That might be part of your tactical response (physically), if it comes to that, but even then, it's not the only, or even primary approach that should be looked for.



SteveNC said:


> Sparring just isn't the best way to achieve the simulation of that.



So sparring, instilling an approach of hit first, hit hard, be aggressive, push forward isn't the best way to achieve a simulation of what you're thinking is important, namely that you should hit first, hit hard, be aggressive, and keep pushing forward (until you can escape)? Hmm...



SteveNC said:


> Long post but good post and I agree!



Ha, that wasn't long.... trust me on that.



Kframe said:


> I was on E budo and found a old thread talking about old Koryu training. http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?47543-Free-practice-in-koryu-is-it-possible While im still trying to digest that whole thing, the gist I get is this. They did spar, just not quite like we do in modern arts. Apparently free sparring was something only few were doing after like 20 years of practice.



I remember that thread... some good content, some, well, other stuff... 

Look, there's a few things to look at here. Firstly, the discussion there is Koryu, and the context of Koryu is (and was) quite removed from modern self defence, so you really are looking in the wrong area. Next, it really depended on which Koryu you were talking about... it's stated quite emphatically that Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu has no free-training methods at all... nor does Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu... but Owari-Kan Ryu does, as do a number of branches of Itto Ryu, and quite a number of Jujutsu Ryu-ha.

Overall, though, it's so far removed from the context you're talking about, I wouldn't worry about it too much.



Kframe said:


> http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm  This post also talks about old European arts used on battlefields. Here is the relevant excerpt.
> "False. Modern research in historical European martial arts has revealed considerable evidence in Europe from the 12th to 17th centuries for several different forms of mock combat used as earnest self-defense training, battlefield rehearsal, ritual display, and sporting contest.  From knightly tournaments to prize-playing contests to bouting a few _veneys_ or assaults at arms and impromptu scrimmaging, the evidence for "free play" or "playing loose" as practice-fighting is substantial. This activity involved substantial _contact_, and not merely pulled blows or surface touches.  Examination of the methods by which this kind of "sparring" was pursued (e.g., its equipment, its intent and purpose, its permissible techniques and safety considerations, and its risk of injury, etc.) is a main area of exploration in historical fencing studies. See: To Spar or Not to Spar."



Again, this is so far removed from the context you're talking about that I'd leave it alone completely. You might as well as how English Long-bow Archers developed their drawing strength because you want to get a pistol.



Kframe said:


> So the question remains, how can you learn to fight with out fighting? Swing with out swimming?  Sparring while not a real situation is as close as it gets.  I have not yet seen any thing said here that is convincing.   All I keep hearing is that sparring is not even close to real life. Yet if that is true why did so many old battlefield arts actually spar in some fashion?



Okay. This whole line of "swim without swimming" is false, you realise... not only is it an apple/orange comparison, it's historically disprovable (German physicist Theodor Kaluza, whose work is now used as part of the basis for String Theory, is said to have taught himself to swim from reading a book, successfully achieving it his first foray into the water). But, to the point, learning "how to fight" isn't actually that applicable to self defence (when all's said and done), nor is it something that requires sparring or even testing of any form. What it requires is the learning and practice of physical combative methods, tactics, and strategies. Sparring is simply one way of practicing one form of application in one type of context. That's it.

When it comes to the idea of sparring not being like real life, you've put this thread in the Self Defence section... so I'm looking at everything in that light. We'll cover more in a moment, but for now, it's important to realize that sparring is very close to real life, if your real life application is to apply it in tournaments and competitions. If your version of real life is a self defence situation or encounter, then no, it's (in many ways) the exact opposite.



Kframe said:


> Again the main issue I have is this. How can you expect to apply what your learn, to a random and or unexpected attack if you never practice against unexpected and or random attacks?  It was said that sparring is not really random, that your matched based on skill and size and what not. That is true to a extent but that does not mean I will know what opening attack my opponent will throw, or what tactic he will use. I cant read his mind, he may attack with a kick or several, or a shoot or a anything. Only thing I know is that he can strike and grapple, I have no idea what is coming first next or last.



I actually asked you quite a pertinent question in this regard, namely why randomness is important (or, really, if it is at all) in your training, if you're looking at self defence. Frankly, the answer is that it's not important at all.

Sparring isn't really random. It's an attempt to apply and defend against unannounced techniques, but that's it. Sparring isn't dealing with the unexpected. It's an attempt to apply and defend against unannounced techniques. If it was really random, or unexpected, then you'd be dealing with attacks from behind, against people you didn't think were involved (or even part of the class), weapons would make sudden appearances, attackers would try to get close without you realizing they're going to attack, and more. Sparring, on the other hand, sets you up against a known opponent, with a known (restricted) skill set, in front of you, from a distance where you can see them coming, with both of you fully aware that there's going to be an engagement. That's not random or unexpected... 

When it comes to the idea of not being able to read the opponents mind, and not knowing what they're going to come in with first, that's really not an issue... and, again, bears little resemblance to an actual assault/attack. That said, you can, if not read their minds, dictate to them what they're going to come in with... which is a big part of what kata impart.

Mind you, as you're trying to expect a traditional (classical) Japanese approach to martial arts to be the answers to a completely different cultural, societal, and combative context and application, perhaps something from your new art might provide some clues. There's a phrase in the Bujinkan arts (which is said to have come from Gyokko Ryu, being a saying of Hakuunsai Tozawa's) which is "Banpen Fugyo", or "many changes, no surprises". While this has many different meanings and subtleties, something that is pertinent here is that you should always keep your awareness up to the point that you don't get caught out by anything. In other words, no matter what happens, you'll be able to see it coming. The first stage to this is building an education as to what you need to be aware of... and how to manage things like distance (between yourself and potential attackers), and so on. Once you get that down, it's far harder for an attacker to get close enough to launch an attack... which will stop most. If something does come in, then you'll be in a position where you can see it before it gets too late (most assaults are done from very close range, and are a sudden single hit or barrage... which is nothing like the ranged combinations and attacks in sparring). Additionally, by training responses against a range of attacks (which are found in the kata training), the application of a response should be automatic.

When it comes down to it, in order to deal with unexpected attacks and random violence, the reality is that you need to work on awareness (to avoid being caught) rather than anything that sparring deals with. A random sequence of techniques (found in sparring) is very different to a random assault, and shouldn't be confused.



Kframe said:


> Just because Im good on pads and good with the tech sparring*partner drills in boxing that I did* does not mean ill be able to deal with a unpredictable and random attack.



You first need to understand just what a random attack is... it's nothing like sparring.



Kframe said:


> One line from the e budo thread is interesting. "Indeed, and I think he's got it right from everything I've ever seen in my budo career, I've never seen anyone with kata only experience step onto a kendo floor and win his first match, I certainly have no illusions that I could take a moderately trained kendo kid, even if I was allowed any target at all. I twitch and he hits me, simple as that, and it has happened in the deep distant past. But I've also seen that those with kata and sparring experience are much more sophisticated in their practice, a different feel to their kendo. "



Sure... and if I was entering a match fight (such as MMA, Kendo, or anything similar) sparring would be excellent preparation. But this thread is in the Self Defence section... and that has little to nothing to do with fighting, especially match fighting. And, again, the context of Kim Taylors comments are important... 



Kframe said:


> I think im still leaning towards adding some other element to my own training, I just cant deny the inarguable benefits to self defense that sparring brings.  I don't see how you can deny the realities of training against a unpredictable opponent, throwing random and unpredictable attacks.



There are certainly benefits, but you need to understand what they are. The context that sparring is best suited for is match fighting... and it's certainly fantastic for that... but as soon as you're looking at something different (such as self defence, as we are here), then the benefits definitely become arguable... and there is a huge disconnect in what you're calling reality.



MJS said:


> In all of the arts that I've done or currently do, sparring is a part of it.  IMO, I feel that its just one more part of the puzzle, as far as training goes.  Sure, we can (and I have) do our SD techniques, in a non-static way, ensuring that it doesn't look like a sparring match, but for me, I like sparring.  It's a faster pace, harder contact, and you get used to getting hit.



To be fair, Mike, "faster pace, harder contact, and you get used to getting hit"... none of that has anything to do with sparring. It may well have been that that was where those elements shone through in the schools you train/ed in, but methodologies such as the ones I use are full pace, full impact (depending on the curriculum... we don't go full contact with weapons, for example, although the attacks are still going to be, if they hit...), and you can definitely get used to getting hit!



Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't have time right now to write a full essay on the subject.  Having spent a bunch of years training in an art which did not use sparring (Bujinkan Taijutsu) and a bunch of years training in arts which do use sparring (Muay Thai & BJJ among others), these are a few of my thoughts:
> 
> Sparring is a vital part of training if you want to be able to fight effectively at a high level, regardless of the context.  It teaches certain skills and attributes which no other training method really does.



Large numbers of older arts would disagree with that idea, for the record...



Tony Dismukes said:


> That said, it is not the end all and be all.  It has weaknesses and shortcomings, just like all training methods do, and it is important to recognize what they are so that you can make up for them in your other areas of training.



Fairly agreed... but I'd add that it's also important to realise exactly what the methodology promotes, and what it doesn't to recognise whether or not it's even a good addition in and of itself.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Sparring is not really a simulation of a self-defense situation.  Certain types of sparring, if done correctly, can be a decent simulation of certain forms of fighting, which is something different.



Completely agreed.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Sparring comes in a variety of flavors.  Different forms have different advantages.  Some people practice sparring in a way which I consider to be downright detrimental to developing self-defense ability.



And again, agreed.



Tony Dismukes said:


> The point of sparring is learning, not winning.  When students get hung up on winning rather than learning, then sparring can lose much of its benefit.



I don't know that it's actually learning that's the aim... I'd say it's more in line with development, in application of lessons.



MJS said:


> I still stand by what I've said in my other post in this thread, as well as others through out the forum.  It's one part of the puzzle but it's an important piece.  No, it's not like real life, but does that mean it shouldn't be done?  OTOH, I've seen some sparring sessions that are closer than what is normally seen as sparring.  One of my old Kenpo instructors and I used to have some pretty hard, intense sparring sessions.  It was more MMAish, but rough nonetheless.  The sparring that I do in my Kyokushin dojo is pretty hard core.  There are valuable things to be gained from it.



In some cases, yes, it means it shouldn't be done. The most important thing is to have a clear understanding of what the realities of sparring are in the first place... what it's going to lead you towards, and how, and whether or not that fits with your goals and aims (or the arts goals and aims, which might actually take precedence over your own).



MJS said:


> Of course, keep in mind, working SD and doing sparring, are, IMO, 2 separate things.  Sure, I've used ideas from my SD techs, during sparring, but no, I never pulled off a full tech while sparring.



There's a reason for that, of course... 



MJS said:


> If it's something that you feel is important, if it's something you like to do, then do it.



Sure... unless there are very good reasons the system doesn't do it. Which is why you need to be clear about what it is in the first place... saying "if it's something you like to do, then do it", while ostensibly good, well meaning advice, can lead to a range of real issues, such as (in this case) counter-manning the methods of the actual art/system that is trying to be learnt (or, in more extreme cases, it's the argument we hear when someone makes up their own sword "techniques", saying "hey, I just want to do it, and there's no-one around me!").



Kframe said:


> For me sparring was the proving ground of the basics. Every art has basics. Punch's blocks movement ect.  Sparring was a fantastic way to train them against a random fully resisting opponent.



It's not random, and resistance is actually unrealistic. Real attacks/assaults don't really feature resistance in any major way, particularly not in any way resembling sparring/competitive training. Additionally, when talking about the art you've now started, all of that is built into the kata....



Kframe said:


> I also enjoyed it because it allowed me a good way to practice my experiments with grafting basic karate style deflections on to my mma training.  I loved pulling them out during sparring.  I attribute my success with using them to my instructor and the way he drilled them.  Learn the movement, then get ready cause he going to hit you repeatedly and you got to use them.  The defense drills were fast and hard and fun. I found my self using them in sparring instinctively very quickly.



Here's the problem. Sparring is a way to develop/emphasise personal application, it's really a way for you to do things that you think work for you... and, as such, it's fairly random in the way it develops skill. The idea of experimenting and trying things out (in this approach) typically means that you're ignoring what the actual system says you should do, in favour of your own preferences and ideas... regardless of whether or not you have any (or enough) experience to be able to tell if what the system is suggesting is valid or not... or if your idea is better, worse, or suicidal. The drills you're talking about are more in line with kata training... and, when you followed what they showed, you had success. Especially in arts like your new one, ignore what you think should be correct, and listen to the arts lessons... simply accept for a short time that whatever you've done before is different, and has no bearing on what you're doing now. Stop trying to treat them the same way, and you'll find that there's less confusion.



Kframe said:


> Victory in sparring, defined as a day I did well or didn't out right get my *** kicked, made me feel awesome. I have such confidence issues and how ever fleeting it felt good to win some times.. Though it never lasted, I just wish that feeling of I don't suck would have lasted.



Hmm, okay.... 



Kframe said:


> The point of all this is, that people who spar do better in a confrontation then people who don't.  Here is a video of a Taijutsu practioner facing a  TCMA. Its obvious who has aliveness in there training.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I post that? Because, it highlights, that had he had just a little bit of sparring experience he would have faired much better.  About the only thing he was able to do that whole fight was assume Jumonji no kamae and back peddle to a decision loss and a few random haymakers.



Other than a few half-hearted kamae, there was nothing Taijutsu in any of that clip. None of the movement, striking, kicking etc was from our approaches, so I'd hardly take it as an example of Taijutsu versus anything. In fact, neither of them looked to be doing anything that they were trained in... both resorted to a form of karate/kickboxing, with the CMA guy doing a few fancier kicks (but that was about it). What it showed me was that, when put in a sporting situation, both immediately went to what they unconsciously believe is "powerful" in that context... which is what they see in MMA, kickboxing etc... regardless of what they've actually done. In other words, it was like they've both done years of tenpin bowling, then end up on a badminton court trying to play volleyball (because that's what the court looks like to them). But we're going to start dealing with conscious versus unconscious beliefs, and so on, which can get a little intense pretty quickly there... 



Kframe said:


> I keep coming back to sparring because of its obvious benefits of dealing with randomness.



Obvious? Nah... What you have there are assumed benefits for an assumed context, neither of which are actually realistic when it comes to self defence.



Kframe said:


> Attacks are random, you need to be able to deal with the unknown.



Actually, no. Violence can be in the form of random assaults, but that's not the same as a random sequence of attacks. Dealing with that form of "random" or "unknown" is not dealt with in sparring.



Kframe said:


> Yes I know about what skill set my sparring partner has I have no idea what is coming in what order.



Realistically, it's not important. Self defence is not about trading blows.



Kframe said:


> Its that element of the unknown that gets hammered(literally) into you.



My guys (as well as the students in our other schools in other states, from my Chief Instructor on down) know to keep their awareness up at all times... and to not let us get too close to them. That's the result of actually preparing them for genuinely random and unknown attacks.... not sparring. 



Kframe said:


> There is another just as important thing. That is the adrenalin dump. Yes it is not as large as a self defense situation, it does begin to show you the effects of it.  I remember  it took me a few sessions to get used to the adrenalin dump. Then when I had my real life near fight, ya a real adrenalin dump hit but I was able to function through it.


 
The adrenaline experienced in sparring/competition is a slow-release form. There's a build up (preparatory) release, as you know that you're going to be engaging in a match fight or sparring drill, and the effects are greatly reduced (as you've missed the spike that is felt). A real assault, on the other hand, might have some pre-fight surge (with yelling, pushing, shoving etc), but it's going to hit in a sudden, large burst. There isn't the build-up, or evening out that sparring/match fighting gives you, and, as a result, it's not really much of a preparation for handling adrenaline in a real assault. There are, however, a range of training methods that specifically induce such an adrenal dump, and they are very good preparation. Not sparring, though.



Kframe said:


> I don't see how you can get that kind of thing with out sparring. NO matter how hard you do your partner kata you wont get a adrenalin dump response.



You really should train with me, then... believe me, you'll get an adrenal dump training paired kata with me.



Kframe said:


> If you are saying that use scenario sparring/ drills for aliveness and randomness training then that is exactly what I want. So far I have not seen it done, and apparently many  don't.



In the Bujinkan? Depends on the instructor. For the record, though, Takagi Yoshin Ryu specifically includes it, Kukishinden Ryu gets very random in it's attacks in the later parts of it's scroll (with attacks simply listed as "The opponent strikes freely"), and there are other free-responce training methods in other ryu-ha and sections within the schools. From there, you can look at various techniques that have a similarity, and use those to create a more free-form approach. As an example, this week I am teaching a kata called Hyo Fu, which has 5 formal variations. This weeks forms involve the opponent grabbing you in order to attempt a throw, which is stopped by you applying a choke. The opponent then relieves the choke by lifting one of your arms, which provides you an opening to change your grip and throw with a sacrifice throw. One of the forms has them moving your left arm, the other has them moving your right... so, after drilling each of the versions, we began to do some more "free-responce" methods.... the opponent would catch as before, and you would apply your choke. Then, the attacker could escape to the right or left, and the defender would simply respond depending on which way the attacker moved. The idea was to move without thinking or hesitating, as that would alter the timing, and remove the success of the techniques. In this drill, the defender didn't know which way they would need to apply their defence until it happened. From there, you can add more and more "unscripted" aspects (what happens if they move before the choke is on? How about if they get in to apply a throw? What about a strike?), similar to Mike's comments earlier. There's still an attacker and a defender, but it's now far more what you're thinking is necessary. And all of this is in the Bujinkan approach.



Kframe said:


> It just makes me wonder, how many of these non competing arts students, skill sets would be so much better if they had some kind of random resistance added to there training.



As RTKDCMB asked, what makes you think it's not there already?



Kframe said:


> Paired kata can be great for a good many things but random is not one of them. They are preset techniques for a reason, that by definition precludes their being anything random in them. If their was random in them they wouldn't be preset techniques.



To be frank, that's what is referred to in the e-budo thread as the beginners/intermediate understanding of kata.... there's plenty random in them, when you get to it... 



Kframe said:


> So, in the end, for me the answer is simple. When my situation permits it, im going to seek out a side training venue that will allow me a more free mode of sparring.. Not now of course, as I my life only permits one martial art while I am doing personal training for my weight loss body restructuring dream.(I wanna go from morbidly obese to ripped and cut)



So, with, what, a couple weeks training, and only a few short lessons at that, you've decided you know better than the art itself as to how to teach and impart the skills it's got to offer, as well as why it does or doesn't do things it's way, so you're going to go and do something that could easily counter-man what you're being taught? Hmm... okay....


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 22, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Sparring is a vital part of training if you want to be able to fight effectively at a high level, regardless of the context.  It teaches certain skills and attributes which no other training method really does.





			
				Chris Parker said:
			
		

> Large numbers of older arts would disagree with that idea, for the record...



Yep, I'm aware of the disagreement.

I should correct myself, though.  There is another training method which can work to develop all the skills and attributes that sparring does.  That method would be - actual fighting.  It's entirely possible to develop some fundamental skills through non-sparring methods, then go out and get in a bunch of fights.  If you survive the fights and can apply the lessons from your experiences then you could become a dangerous fighter without ever sparring.  It's not a path I would personally care to take, but it can work.



			
				Chris Parker said:
			
		

> this thread is in the Self Defence section... and that has little to nothing to do with fighting



As I mentioned in this thread, there is some overlap in the Venn Diagram of fighting and self-defense.  In the context of martial arts discussion, most people tend to be referring to that overlap area when they mention "self-defense."  Of course, you are correct that the overlap is a relatively small area.


----------



## KydeX (Jan 22, 2014)

I've been training in Kyokusinkai Karate for many years in my youth, doing full contact sparring and competition. I now train in the Bujinkan, which I also have been doing for some years now. I believe all the sparring would enable me to defend myself, but not to the same degree as i feel I can with the skills I have aquired through the Bujinkan. Like Chris always point out, it's different focusing and tactics. Not trying to imply that Bujinkan is a self defense art, but it doesn't have a competition focus. "anything goes", and you will recognize that in the tactics they employ.

I would say to the OP that its too early in your training to say if it works or not. You don't have the basics in yet, and you haven't practiced enough henka/variations to be able to act instinctively to different attacks yet, but you will with training.  

If I were to attend another full contact match again, I would surely get beaten up. However, out on the streets, I feel it might end differently. If I were to go up against one of my former friends from the Kyukushinkai it would not be random attacks to me. It would be rather predictable. 

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## MJS (Jan 22, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> To be fair, Mike, "faster pace, harder contact, and you get used to getting hit"... none of that has anything to do with sparring. It may well have been that that was where those elements shone through in the schools you train/ed in, but methodologies such as the ones I use are full pace, full impact (depending on the curriculum... we don't go full contact with weapons, for example, although the attacks are still going to be, if they hit...), and you can definitely get used to getting hit!



Be that as it may, the fact is, many places do not train the empty hand SD like it should be, thus my comment.  Sure, you can train SD in a fashion that is akin to sparring, of course, as I've said in the past, with the provision that it doesnt turn into a sparring match.    




> In some cases, yes, it means it shouldn't be done. The most important thing is to have a clear understanding of what the realities of sparring are in the first place... what it's going to lead you towards, and how, and whether or not that fits with your goals and aims (or the arts goals and aims, which might actually take precedence over your own).



If someone chooses not to do it, then that's fine.  I feel, as I said, that it has some value, though it's not the only thing that should be trained.  I still feel it has value.





> There's a reason for that, of course...



Of course.





> Sure... unless there are very good reasons the system doesn't do it. Which is why you need to be clear about what it is in the first place... saying "if it's something you like to do, then do it", while ostensibly good, well meaning advice, can lead to a range of real issues, such as (in this case) counter-manning the methods of the actual art/system that is trying to be learnt (or, in more extreme cases, it's the argument we hear when someone makes up their own sword "techniques", saying "hey, I just want to do it, and there's no-one around me!").



I would say more often than not, the majority of the arts out there, incorporate sparring.  If someone feels that it's that important, that its beneficial, that they're going to gain something out of it, and it's not done in the art they choose, then they either accept that the art doesnt do it, or opt to train in an art that does.


----------



## K-man (Jan 22, 2014)

MJS said:


> I would say more often than not, the majority of the arts out there, incorporate sparring.  If someone feels that it's that important, that its beneficial, that they're going to gain something out of it, and it's not done in the art they choose, then they either accept that the art doesnt do it, or opt to train in an art that does.


I don't think that's the issue. Most martial arts incorporate sparring without doubt. Most people training a martial art expect there to be sparring. Most martial arts also have a competitive element and whatever sparring is done in a martial art reflects the competition that you are training to compete in. 

I think this is seen in *Kframe*'s posts. How can you know where you are at if you don't spar? When you have trained an MA that spars and you change to a system that doesn't spar I think most times you can accept it, especially if the instructor can explain why there is no sparring. Where it gets harder is where someone from a system that spars looks at a system that doesn't and immediately assumes that the system that doesn't spar is inferior or lacking. What is harder still is the concept that sparring, as most people think of sparring, can be counter productive. What ever physical testing method a style employs is specific for that style. If it employs the type of sparring people expect, well and good. If it doesn't, fine. That's the way it is.

Many discussions distil down to the question, "in a fight, would System A beat System B"? Hence competition and MMA. But when that 'fight' comes down to a fight like we watched in the earlier post ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=visioCFH7II&desktop_uri=/watch?v=visioCFH7II  ) where neither side is using anything recognisable from their training, it shows the irrelevance of competitive sparring between people whose systems are not designed for competition.
:asian)


----------



## Kframe (Jan 22, 2014)

Chris parker, you may be correct that with my few weeks of training I am likely jumping to a conclusion. Ill try and state it as bluntly as possible. Im scared.. Im scared that im doing something that every time I go I find my self having a ball and enjoying my self immensely and that in then end, when the hammer drops it will be for nothing because of no sparring. I enjoy what im doing, I just have no way of knowing what is were and how good im doing or not doing if I don't have someone randomly trying to attack me and take my block off like happens in sparring.  Sparring for me was were I learned what I knew, and what I needed to work on. I don't have that now and I lack a point of reference. 

Fear that im doing something so great and enjoyable and that in the end it amounted to larping because of not sparring. I have no way of testing what I know, what I don't know and what im ok with, short of getting into a fight at a bar and I don't go to bars. Christ today I got out of class and I was on such a high, so damned happy and excited. Not only did I nail the back roll again on the 3rd attempt, i actually nailed the other side of the back roll on my second attempt.  Then we did URA and i was struggling with it a bit. He put a blind fold on me, turned off the lights and i was forced to feel through it. It clicked.  

I have been on a high ever since it ended so damn happy. The fear comes in, as stated above, that in the end, i wont be able to apply it when the hammer drops because i didn't spar. With out sparring i have no point of reference of my skills. Maybe you can provide it? Or a method of gauging were my skills are?

Its not just my life.. I cant just run away when the hammer drops. I wont abandon those behind me. My wife and daughter and autistic son. Retreat with them in tow is not going to be a option. Trust me, if im between harm and my family its going to be everything my wife can do to contain my special needs son and my daughter. Retreat wont be a very viable option. I will die for my family and ill take every last one of them with me if i have to. Of course ill be bringing my friends Smith and Wesson with me and his 6 110grain Friends. 

That is how serious i take my training friend. If you were serious about training with you for a day or so some day ill take you up on that offer if im ever Down under. 

So what is it about scenario drilling that is superior for self defense then traditional sparring? I have never done it so I don't understand.  How is it different and why is it better for this application?


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 23, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yep, I'm aware of the disagreement.
> 
> I should correct myself, though.  There is another training method which can work to develop all the skills and attributes that sparring does.  That method would be - actual fighting.  It's entirely possible to develop some fundamental skills through non-sparring methods, then go out and get in a bunch of fights.  If you survive the fights and can apply the lessons from your experiences then you could become a dangerous fighter without ever sparring.  It's not a path I would personally care to take, but it can work.



Hmm... no, actually, that's not what I was talking about. I'm referring to systems that specifically, overtly state that sparring and the like are to be avoided, with such methods being no part of the training methodology at all. Many Koryu systems, particularly weaponry ones, are like that. The reasoning is that the aim is to instill the approach that the system is teaching, and by adding such an uncontrolled element, the methods get distorted and inaccurate. One person might be able to do something well, but if others try it, the skills might not be transferable. This is what I meant when I said that sparring is far more random in developing specific skills than other methods. Schools such as Katori Shinto Ryu have relied on kata training pretty well exclusively, and actually have rules against engaging in fighting... but at the same time a trained practitioner should be able to cut down any opponent with a single strike... so their training methodology is geared towards application... and this has been the standard for some 5 and a half centuries now. By the same token, they're far from alone. In fact, thinking about it, sparring is a rarity for combative systems.... there might be some free-form training in one form or another, but not sparring... as sparring is really the domain of match fighting and competition.



Tony Dismukes said:


> As I mentioned in this thread, there is some overlap in the Venn Diagram of fighting and self-defense.  In the context of martial arts discussion, most people tend to be referring to that overlap area when they mention "self-defense."  Of course, you are correct that the overlap is a relatively small area.



I don't know that many are referring to only the small overlap... it seems to me more that people make the false association of "martial arts = fighting, fighting = violence, violence = street assault, street assault = self defence, &#8756; martial arts = self defence &#8757; fighting = self defence. Honestly, this misunderstanding is something I think is the bigger issue... even if a situation does get to a physical level, "fighting" (both people engaging aiming to defeat each other) is one of the rarest of all possible forms. In short, it starts with awareness (not fighting), then you get to avoidance (not fighting), physical de-escalation (body language, presenting a hard target, not fighting), verbal de-escalation (not fighting), pre-emptive striking (to provide an escape, not fighting), to defensive responses (which is where the "fighting" starts), to handling legal and psychological repercussions (not fighting again), and so on.​


MJS said:


> Be that as it may, the fact is, many places do not train the empty hand SD like it should be, thus my comment.  Sure, you can train SD in a fashion that is akin to sparring, of course, as I've said in the past, with the provision that it doesnt turn into a sparring match.



Hey Mike,

Hmm.... no, that's not really what I was getting at. My point was more that the benefits you listed as being found in sparring, with the implication that you couldn't get them without it, were found just as easily in other training methods, including technique drills (it's where you get it in traditional systems, for instance). Additionally, the list aren't necessarily there in sparring itself... only in a particular forms or particular forms of sparring. It's not anything to do with training in scenario training or other methods akin to sparring.



MJS said:


> If someone chooses not to do it, then that's fine.  I feel, as I said, that it has some value, though it's not the only thing that should be trained.  I still feel it has value.



  Except if the system itself has very good reasons to avoid sparring, such as sparring methodologies encouraging or requiring tactics and techniques that are not only different, but diametrically opposed to what the system is teaching. What it comes down to is that sparring has value provided it matches (fits) with what you're doing... for everything that I do, for instance, sparring has almost no value whatsoever (while it is very rarely used in my classes, it's never used for any form of reality), so we really don't use it (except in very rare cases, as mentioned).



MJS said:


> I would say more often than not, the majority of the arts out there, incorporate sparring.  If someone feels that it's that important, that its beneficial, that they're going to gain something out of it, and it's not done in the art they choose, then they either accept that the art doesnt do it, or opt to train in an art that does.



I don't know that I'd say it's the majority... there's certainly quite a lot of arts that use it in some form, and it might well be the majority of modern systems (and almost all competitive ones), but that's not quite the majority of all systems of course...

With your last sentence there (either accept that the art doesn't use it, or find a different art), yeah, I'd be with you there. Trying to insist that something be present just because you expect it, and don't understand the actual reasons for it's inclusion or lack simply doesn't work.



K-man said:


> I don't think that's the issue. Most martial arts incorporate sparring without doubt. Most people training a martial art expect there to be sparring. Most martial arts also have a competitive element and whatever sparring is done in a martial art reflects the competition that you are training to compete in.



Competitive arts need sparring. It's essential to what they do. Other arts don't, as it's not only not necessary, it can genuinely be detrimental. Of course, this is just me agreeing with you, and adding a bit as to why it's seen so much, and why it's expected today (to a fair degree). 



Kframe said:


> Chris parker, you may be correct that with my few weeks of training I am likely jumping to a conclusion.



It's not that you're jumping to a conclusion, it's that you're still at the point of just learning the very basic mechanical aspects... you're simply not up to having anything there that you can test yet, so it's hardly surprising that you haven't seen much in the way of testing methods. I'll say this once more.... this ain't MMA/Kempo, or anything you've done before. You have no real experience or skill in it yet (simply due to being so new to it)... so I suggest some patience until you're at a point where testing might be appropriate. But you still need to come to grips with the context, as you're way out still (in this post).



Kframe said:


> Ill try and state it as bluntly as possible. Im scared.. Im scared that im doing something that every time I go I find my self having a ball and enjoying my self immensely and that in then end, when the hammer drops it will be for nothing because of no sparring.



Then I'll be blunt as well. Sparring proves nothing. All it does is give a sense of confidence (in cases, false confidence) by using a false analogue and different context. Being able to do things in sparring really means nothing other than you did it once in sparring. There are plenty of anecdotes of sparring methods simply not preparing anyone for "when the hammer drops", no matter what they thought at the time.



Kframe said:


> I enjoy what im doing, I just have no way of knowing what is were and how good im doing or not doing if I don't have someone randomly trying to attack me and take my block off like happens in sparring.



Which still wouldn't tell you anything about what you were doing, or how well. I know that won't make sense to you, but it simply won't. And the simple fact of the matter is that, when training the techniques (once you have the basic mechanical skill down), your partner should absolutely be trying to take your head off. Believe me, if you're doing it properly, you'll know if what you were doing worked or not.



Kframe said:


> Sparring for me was were I learned what I knew, and what I needed to work on. I don't have that now and I lack a point of reference.



Your first frame of reference now is your instructor. Then it'll move to self criticism and appraisal. This will then go hand in hand with keeping your training and practice "honest" (and you'll know if you are or not).



Kframe said:


> Fear that im doing something so great and enjoyable and that in the end it amounted to larping because of not sparring.



Okay, this is a pet peeve of mine... the usage of the term "larping" is inaccurate, and is most commonly applied by people who don't understand a non-sparring training methodology... but the term refers to living out a fantasy life (quite simply, it means "Live Action Role Playing", and refers to people who act out a particular role, such as a Knight of a Court in the SCA)... just because a training methodology is different (in this case, not sparring) doesn't mean that there is anything like larping going on. Larping, in this instance, would be you adopting a Japanese (or Japanese-sounding) name, the dress and manner of a particular social class, and interacting with others who are similarly acting out such roles. It would be you actually pretending to be a "ninja" or "samurai"... and this has no real resemblance to training in a martial art school. Additionally, groups such as the SCA do spar... so the lack of it could be seen as moving it away from such terminology.

But, again, sparring or not is not what makes something of value (in training). Honesty in training is.



Kframe said:


> I have no way of testing what I know, what I don't know and what im ok with, short of getting into a fight at a bar and I don't go to bars.



You're right, you don't have any way of testing it yet. You also don't have anything to test. Relax, learn, listen to your instructor, and have a bit of patience. You need to develop a lot more before you get anywhere close to testing anything.



Kframe said:


> Christ today I got out of class and I was on such a high, so damned happy and excited. Not only did I nail the back roll again on the 3rd attempt, i actually nailed the other side of the back roll on my second attempt. Then we did URA and i was struggling with it a bit. He put a blind fold on me, turned off the lights and i was forced to feel through it. It clicked.



Good for you. All rather irrelevant, though, if I'm being blunt. You did a couple of things well today... now you need to be able to do them consistently. Then you'll be needing to apply them consistently against higher pressure. And that's where the testing will begin. Ideally, every time you train (after you have the basic mechanics down) it should be under enough pressure to qualify as a testing method.



Kframe said:


> I have been on a high ever since it ended so damn happy. The fear comes in, as stated above, that in the end, i wont be able to apply it when the hammer drops because i didn't spar.



Forget about that. It doesn't mean anything, and is just you trying to compare your new system with your past experience. And, in this case, it just doesn't work.



Kframe said:


> With out sparring i have no point of reference of my skills. Maybe you can provide it? Or a method of gauging were my skills are?



You do have a point of reference... you've given it yourself a few sentences ago. You know when you've done a rear roll properly or not. You know the feeling when an Ura Gyaku just "clicks". That's the start... then you add more and more pressure.



Kframe said:


> Its not just my life.. I cant just run away when the hammer drops. I wont abandon those behind me. My wife and daughter and autistic son. Retreat with them in tow is not going to be a option. Trust me, if im between harm and my family its going to be everything my wife can do to contain my special needs son and my daughter. Retreat wont be a very viable option. I will die for my family and ill take every last one of them with me if i have to. Of course ill be bringing my friends Smith and Wesson with me and his 6 110grain Friends.



Hmm, yeah, I get that attitude (we teach Partner Protection and similar topics for just that situation/occasion). Sparring isn't going to do anything for them, though, especially if it means you leave them to go and engage the "attacker"... which can leave them open to other attackers, or have them run off in a panic, or anything. Sparring is going to give you the opposite of what you need there.



Kframe said:


> That is how serious i take my training friend. If you were serious about training with you for a day or so some day ill take you up on that offer if im ever Down under.



Oh, I get how serious you are. The problem is that you're looking at the wrong thing, and (because you're taking it so seriously) not letting go of an idea that simply doesn't have a place. And yeah, should you find yourself down here, you'd be more than welcome.



Kframe said:


> So what is it about scenario drilling that is superior for self defense then traditional sparring? I have never done it so I don't understand. How is it different and why is it better for this application?



Scenario drilling is designed to be a direct analogue of various self defence situations (scenarios). It is meticulously crafted to be as close to reality as possible. It addresses all the realities of a real encounter (from the distancing, the likely attacks, the numbers you might face, weapons, psychology, de-escalation, tactical approaches, strategies, and far, far more), and commonly is done with a specific, particular aim in mind, rather than the more random "try to apply your techniques" that sparring engenders.


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 23, 2014)

Scenario drilling as Chris mentioned above is the Alpha and Omega of self defense PERIOD, not only from a physical standpoint but educationally as well. Direct sparring is nothing more than fighting and fighting IS NOT self defense. From a tactical standpoint you want to apply the proper force to get the job done and leave and that is difficult to accomplish on a training partner fighting back. Pads and bags are for technique and confidence training. Partners are for feel and movement drilling


----------



## K-man (Jan 23, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> Scenario drilling as Chris mentioned above is the Alpha and Omega of self defense PERIOD, not only from a physical standpoint but educationally as well. Direct sparring is nothing more than fighting and fighting IS NOT self defense. From a tactical standpoint you want to apply the proper force to get the job done and leave and that is difficult to accomplish on a training partner fighting back. Pads and bags are for technique and confidence training. Partners are for feel and movement drilling


Good post Steve. Now we are on the same page.


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2014)

K-man said:


> I don't think that's the issue. Most martial arts incorporate sparring without doubt. Most people training a martial art expect there to be sparring. Most martial arts also have a competitive element and whatever sparring is done in a martial art reflects the competition that you are training to compete in.
> 
> I think this is seen in *Kframe*'s posts. How can you know where you are at if you don't spar? When you have trained an MA that spars and you change to a system that doesn't spar I think most times you can accept it, especially if the instructor can explain why there is no sparring. Where it gets harder is where someone from a system that spars looks at a system that doesn't and immediately assumes that the system that doesn't spar is inferior or lacking. What is harder still is the concept that sparring, as most people think of sparring, can be counter productive. What ever physical testing method a style employs is specific for that style. If it employs the type of sparring people expect, well and good. If it doesn't, fine. That's the way it is.
> 
> ...



Points taken.   IMO, anyone that trains in an art that has competition, isn't or shouldn't be required to compete.  While I and others, do feel that it's a good venue to 'test' yourself, I have other ways to do that.  In the 2+yrs that I've been training Kyokushin, I've only fought once in a tournament.  Had to pass last year because of a prior engagement, but I would like to do at least 1 more tournament.  But for me, it's not something I have to do.  I'm more interested in learning the art.  

I also get the impression that some think that I'm very pro sparring.  Not the case at all.  I feel it's good to do, but as I've said, it's only 1 part of the puzzle.  As long as the person training is doing something to test themselves, and their material, that is all that matters, IMO.


----------



## K-man (Jan 23, 2014)

MJS said:


> Points taken.   IMO, anyone that trains in an art that has competition, isn't or shouldn't be required to compete.  While I and others, do feel that it's a good venue to 'test' yourself, I have other ways to do that.  In the 2+yrs that I've been training Kyokushin, I've only fought once in a tournament.  Had to pass last year because of a prior engagement, but I would like to do at least 1 more tournament.  But for me, it's not something I have to do.  I'm more interested in learning the art.
> 
> I also get the impression that some think that I'm very pro sparring.  Not the case at all.  I feel it's good to do, but as I've said, it's only 1 part of the puzzle.  As long as the person training is doing something to test themselves, and their material, that is all that matters, IMO.


Your quite right. When I trained Japanese Goju my last tournament was when I was 58. That actually looks quite young from where I'm looking now.   I enjoyed it and I enjoyed the sparring that we used to do. With the style of Goju I teach now, that type of sparring goes against so much of our training you just don't do it. Mind you, what we do now can be punishing. The young guy practising an uppercut missed the mitt and took my jaw. Mmm!    Who needs to spar?


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 23, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Its not just my life.. I cant just run away when the hammer drops. I wont abandon those behind me. My wife and daughter and autistic son. Retreat with them in tow is not going to be a option. Trust me, if im between harm and my family its going to be everything my wife can do to contain my special needs son and my daughter. Retreat wont be a very viable option. I will die for my family and ill take every last one of them with me if i have to. Of course ill be bringing my friends Smith and Wesson with me and his 6 110grain Friends.
> 
> That is how serious i take my training friend. If you were serious about training with you for a day or so some day ill take you up on that offer if im ever Down under.


Stop right there.  The absolute best, safest, and smartest thing you can do if your family is with you is AVOID THE DAMN SITUATION.  Period.  The odds of you and your family being assaulted when together are pretty damn low, unless you go out of your way to put yourself in places that it's likely to happen.  If it does happen, they need to know how to respond and get away while you run interference.  Honestly, if something does happen while you're with them -- the chances are pretty good it'll be a resource predator, counting on them to deter your resistance.  You know what?  He's probably right, because I know that, despite my training (personal and professional), if I'm out with my son or family, and someone wants my wallet -- I'm giving it to them, unless I think that they're going to attack anyway.  Because that's the safest way to resolve that situation.

As to the gun...  If you're going to carry for self defense, get proper training.  That means spending time and money in combat oriented classes, not simple marksmanship.  And buy yourself a Blue Gun or Red Gun or similar non-firing replica, and (with your instructor's permission!) begin to integrate it into your "unarmed" training, at least occasionally.  You need to develop the habits of retention and transitions.



> So what is it about scenario drilling that is superior for self defense then traditional sparring? I have never done it so I don't understand.  How is it different and why is it better for this application?



Scenario training makes an attempt to replicate real situations.  It's active rehearsal for what you want to do in a real situation.  Just like your kata training in BBT, at first, a scenario should be easily resolved.  As you practice, the complexity of the scenario should advance.  Because I can show the transition more simply, I'm going to use room clearing practice for LE as an example.  The first time you run through, you probably don't have anyone hide.  No weird angles, no locked doors...  Just go in, move through, and be done.  After the first time or two, you start throwing monkey wrenches in.  Maybe a role player who doesn't open the door and come out.  Or who hides behind the sofa.  In time, you might escalate to using some sort of marking cartridge or other simulation, and have role players actually trying to take you out.   At the end of the day, you should be able to go through a scenario that would have "beaten" you when you started with confidence. 

Proper scenario training is HARD work.  Way too many people claim to do scenario training, but are really just doing a fantasy "what if" game.   "OK, so you're in a bar, and you see a guy roughing up his date...  Billy, there, he's the guy...  What are you gonna do?" type stuff.  Usually that encourage being a superhero and intervening when the best answer is probably call the cops and alert the management.  Or someone does a totally unrealistic knife attack as a robbery, and then stands there while the defender does an stupidly complicated disarm and attack.  Do it right, and scenario training should be a really close simulation of situations in the way that they are likely to happen.  The best scenario would be in an actual location -- so if you want to do barroom scenarios, you should ideally be in a barroom, with music, dim lighting, and the works (except actually drinking!).  Situations to create there would range from a Monkey Dance with another customer, to being present during a robbery.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 23, 2014)

By the way -- before you can do scenario training, you need to develop an appropriate tool set, or you'll engrave bad responses powerfully into your reaction set.  In the room clearing example, you have to have the basics of moving around with guns and partners, entering, forcing doors, and so on before you can practice it.  For martial arts training, that's the line drills and kata (solo or partnered) practice.  

Sparring really reinforces some very dangerous habits for protecting yourself.  One of the worst is the idea of what a "win" consists of.  (What's the goal of self defense versus the goal of a sparring match?  A self defense "win" for a sparring match is simple: don't get in the ring!)  Another is the practice of re-engaging after an exchange...  There are more, left as an exercise for the student to discover.


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> Hmm.... no, that's not really what I was getting at. My point was more that the benefits you listed as being found in sparring, with the implication that you couldn't get them without it, were found just as easily in other training methods, including technique drills (it's where you get it in traditional systems, for instance). Additionally, the list aren't necessarily there in sparring itself... only in a particular forms or particular forms of sparring. It's not anything to do with training in scenario training or other methods akin to sparring.



How do you train your techniques Chris?  I know you work scenarios, as do I.  I assume that your partner is really trying to hit you.  I assume that things are spontaneous, so you react to whatever is happening?  ie: the guy grabs you, and as you're dealing with that, he then tries to punch, etc, or things of that nature?  I gave an idea of what I did in class one day, where I picked a technique, had them go through it, and then slowly do something else, so as to break the pattern of the 1 attack, stand like a statue, while the other guy defends, mentality.  They'd have to deal with the lapel grab, then whatever else the other guy did, be it a punch, adding in his other hand now making it a 2 hand grab, pulling, pushing, etc.  This can easily turn into sparring, if it's not watched closely.  





> Except if the system itself has very good reasons to avoid sparring, such as sparring methodologies encouraging or requiring tactics and techniques that are not only different, but diametrically opposed to what the system is teaching. What it comes down to is that sparring has value provided it matches (fits) with what you're doing... for everything that I do, for instance, sparring has almost no value whatsoever (while it is very rarely used in my classes, it's never used for any form of reality), so we really don't use it (except in very rare cases, as mentioned).



Then it's simple...if the art doesn't benefit from it, then don't do it.  Easy right!   I just get the impression that you think that any art that includes sparring, isn't as good as one that doesn't.  No offense to you but that's the impression I get, and of course, I might be wrong.  My teacher sparred in class and fought in many tournaments back in the day, although now he no longer does.  Despite that, I'm confident that he's more than capable of defending himself and would not be hindered in any way, because of his past sparring.





> I don't know that I'd say it's the majority... there's certainly quite a lot of arts that use it in some form, and it might well be the majority of modern systems (and almost all competitive ones), but that's not quite the majority of all systems of course...
> 
> With your last sentence there (either accept that the art doesn't use it, or find a different art), yeah, I'd be with you there. Trying to insist that something be present just because you expect it, and don't understand the actual reasons for it's inclusion or lack simply doesn't work.


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> Scenario drilling as Chris mentioned above is the Alpha and Omega of self defense PERIOD, not only from a physical standpoint but educationally as well. Direct sparring is nothing more than fighting and fighting IS NOT self defense. From a tactical standpoint you want to apply the proper force to get the job done and leave and that is difficult to accomplish on a training partner fighting back. Pads and bags are for technique and confidence training. Partners are for feel and movement drilling



I agree with the scenario training.  Problem is, some don't seem to see the value in it.


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 23, 2014)

Lets just deal with the "I have no choice but to turn physical aspect". If somebody(s) attacks you and you don't see it for whatever reason you are looking at pure reaction plain and simple and your mindset, if you have prepared as you should will be ending the altercation in mere seconds. Sparring CAN NOT simulate that. If you have to use physical tactics, trading blows (fighting) is not in your best interest and "fighting" is what sparring is.

Now if you are dealing with a situation where somebody is in your face and avoidance just isn't going to work you enter a pre-emptive frame of mind where you strike first to get the job done and move on. If you end up "fighting" you are in essence "sparring" and something has gone wrong. I know people tell you to train for the worst case scenario but in my mind your efforts are best spent insuring that the worst case scenario isn't going to occur.


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> No, it really shouldn't. That might be part of your tactical response (physically), if it comes to that, but even then, it's not the only, or even primary approach that should be looked for.



I know you were addressing this to someone else Chris, but I'd be interested in hearing a bit more from you, on this.


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 23, 2014)

MJS said:


> I know you were addressing this to someone else Chris, but I'd be interested in hearing a bit more from you, on this.



Chris was responding to one of my post so until he gets back to you I will address it myself from a more detailed POV. When I comment on things I don't normally go into great depth and sometimes than can lead to vagueness on my part. My hit hard and hit first strategy is certainly not the only option but it's the most common option as far as physical tactics goes that you will face (from a blindside attack). That strategy could be a combination of lots of things including punch, palm heel, elbow, shin kicks but I like quick reactors that you can throw fast, with easy combinations and follow-ups and little risk to injuring yourself. I am very fond of sumo slaps to the face and side of the head in certain situations (its hard to accurately describe how I do this but it is effective). One thing I like to point out to people from the educational side is the legal ramifications that is always a part of the equation. You are less likely to face legal action if you strike someone open handed. It can be hard to convince inexperienced people the value of open hand when punch has been in their minds their entire life but I focus heavily on this.

Confrontations (drunks, punks, bullies)? You can and should be able to avoid 99% of those unless the ego is fragile. THIS is where self defense shines but it's also the most demanding aspect for anybody to understand and the most difficult to teach

Multiple attackers and weapons are just a different animal. Perhaps I will dive into that later


----------



## Kframe (Jan 24, 2014)

Part of my brain understands what you guys are saying.  How ever there is another part that I hear in my head that says. " If you cant do it in sparring what makes you think you can do it on the street?". I hear this all the time on sherdog and other forums with regards to arts of this flavor, be it any Aiki art, or most koryu arts, or krav maga or systema. Its that voice I am having hard time letting go of.

What they would ask is, "how often have you really kicked out a guys knee, or really gouged out a eye in your practice?" "How often do you apply those fancy standing armlocks against live resistance?"    The questions usually follow this same vein.  They usually reply with, "how many times does a boxer or Nak-muay actually hit someone a day in practice?" "How often does a BJJ guy actually crank a joint in practice?"  "They do it with resistance, you do it with compliance".  

Its those things I hear constantly and in the back of my head.   I guess for me, I just need to trust my instructors. Why am I finding that so hard?  They are all obviously skilled.(Check out my update post from a previous practice)   

From my conversations there is resistance in what we do, just not at the lower levels. He stated that the basics class was for drilling the basics in a correct manner with out much resistance. 

I have entered a non competing art, from a competitive back ground. I guess boiling it down to its barest level, Im having issue with the fact that the only person im competing with now is my self. No one to spar, no one to defeat, nothing really to prove.  It just felt so good to win in sparring. It made some of the other crap in my head and life feel far away if only a for a bit. 

Ok for other people in other arts that do spar competitively, how can they adjust portions of there sparring time so that they can add something that will add to there self defense capabilities?


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 25, 2014)

Kframe

What does proving yourself in sparring "really prove" when it comes to self defense? Sparring from the POV you are coming from is fighting like myself and a few others have pointed out and that is exactly what you are trying to avoid. If I were asked to describe the majority of likely attacks and defense of those attacks the physical part would be less than 10 seconds period. How does that relate to sparring? It sounds to me that you pretty much enjoy the fighting and contact. The job of self defense purist is to first and foremost teach people to understand and control fear and violence (mainly their own). This "mental sparring" is of far more value than the physical end.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 25, 2014)

MJS said:


> How do you train your techniques Chris?  I know you work scenarios, as do I.  I assume that your partner is really trying to hit you.  I assume that things are spontaneous, so you react to whatever is happening?  ie: the guy grabs you, and as you're dealing with that, he then tries to punch, etc, or things of that nature?  I gave an idea of what I did in class one day, where I picked a technique, had them go through it, and then slowly do something else, so as to break the pattern of the 1 attack, stand like a statue, while the other guy defends, mentality.  They'd have to deal with the lapel grab, then whatever else the other guy did, be it a punch, adding in his other hand now making it a 2 hand grab, pulling, pushing, etc.  This can easily turn into sparring, if it's not watched closely.



  Well, the first question would be what part of my training you're talking about... we've kinda covered both my self defence training and my traditional training in this thread... so I'll cover both, as it really does use both sections (the martial arts side of things inform the self defence side of the training). Of course, the issue is that it can change to a fair degree based on the exact topic/theme I'm covering at the time, the experience level of the group (for that topic), and what I want to get across. To that end, let's start with the martial arts side of things...

The martial art side of things is a large repertoire of kata/techniques taken from some 6 or 7 (depending on how you look at it... although you could further break it down into some 12 or more distinct lines/arts if you really get technical about it...) martial systems, containing both unarmed and weaponry methods. The kata in each system are in a specific order, divided into sections, with each system having it's own particular idiosyncrasies, approaches, methods, concepts, distancing, timing, movement, preferred angling, and so on. And, as a result, there are a couple of different ways to approach these techniques. The first is the approach found in many of the Ninjutsu schools (Bujinkan etc) around the world, which is to look at the techniques separate from the system they come from, and use them as an exploration of mechanics and tactics in a more general fashion; the second is to separate the methods of each particular system out, and cover them in the defined order, in order to explore the mechanical and tactical approach of a specific system, as opposed to a more overarching skill set. This second approach is rarer, but is found in places (higher level training in the Genbukan, in the Jinenkan to a degree, and so on).

As a result, there are two ways of addressing the traditional martial art side of what I do, and I try to kinda straddle both. I teach the kata of the systems in order, from the first (basic) section to the last, highlighting the tactical and strategic preferences of whichever system as we go, while also using the kata as a way to further develop skills in particular throws/locks/transitions/strikes/kicks etc. But, because I'm dominantly following the Ryu's methods as they've been specified, the techniques are very much "this to that to this to that", with little random aspects thrown in (there are exceptions to this, most particularly when the system in question dictates as such... for example, one of our systems, the Kukishinden Ryu, has it's later kata done against a type of free-form striking attacks, rather than against anything specific). The big benefit, of course, is that both sides know what's going to happen, so the attacks can be done very much "for real"... throws are designed and applied to actually throw you (so you know when your counter/stopping of the throw works or not), strikes are aiming for their target, at speed and power (so you know if you've gotten out of the way or not, ha!), and so on. Of course, this is the later way of training it... initially the "attacker" simply moves into position with the throw, the strikes are slower (but still to target, of course), and so on. The "defending" student can then work on specific aspects (such as ensuring the timing, or distancing, or angling) are all correct (the evasion doesn't start too early, or too late, you don't avoid in a way that leaves you unable to counter, and so on), and mechanically sound. In other words, it's a way to fine-tune your technique... and, as you get better and better at them, your partner can add more and more pressure, speeding up the attacks, striking with full power, throwing properly, and so on, which then works to highlight where your technique goes off the rails.

What there isn't there is much in the way of "spontaneous" action... although that can be sometimes added in. For example, this last week we were training a kata that has a number of variations, depending on how your opponent reacts (you choke, they might escape to the left or the right, and you then change your grip and drop to throw them with a sacrifice throw, which changes direction depending on which way they escaped in the first place). After training both versions for a while, I got everyone to simply do the start of the technique (up to the choke)... then, the "attacker" would escape one way or the other (undetermined or announced). The "defender" would then spontaneously move and drop to throw in the right direction, with the idea being that the students didn't stop to think about which way to go, but simply responded to the impetus they were being given. The idea of adding strikes to a grab or similar are actually more often than not already dealt with in the systems themselves... so there's little reason for me to change anything in that way (as well as it being, in many cases, a redundant and impractical thing to add).

Of course, that's the martial art side of things... it's designed to give a specific education in the methods of a specific martial tradition, in the context of that particular system (in other words, you don't aim to just learn "how to strike, how to throw", you learn how to do such things in that systems methodology, you learn the timing and entering methods of that specific system, you learn it's reasons and beliefs, and so on). Self defence training, on the other hand, is a bit different to all that, as it is more about general skills and education in a context outside of the, I suppose, isolated context of a martial art. So let's look at the training of techniques there.

I guess the first thing to get around is the idea of there being techniques in the first place with my self defence methodologies, as, really, there aren't any. The techniques are all in the martial art side of things. What I have in the self defence curriculum is a range of topics, drills, scenarios, and adrenaline training methods. This is combined with education on psychology, body language, primal behaviour, different forms of violence and assault, legal realities, recognition of pre-fight indicators, and a lot more. These aspects are covered in class in discussions and demonstrations, as well as in emails and communication with the student body itself. All of this is held together with a simple, clear directive: Get Home Safe.

But what do I mean by there not being any "techniques"? Well, I don't mean that there aren't any mechanical methods taught... there are... but that they are more given as a framework, a guide to possibilities and potential expressions of the tactics we're exploring, and are by no means set in stone. I rarely, if ever, show the same thing more than once... there's always some variation... which might be moving to the opposite side, or applying a different grip, or altering my strike or target, or anything, really. The way a particular section is done is that, each month, I pick a topic to be covered (topics might be verbal de-escalation [passive and aggressive], pre-fight indicators, knife defence, group defence, pre-emptive striking, ground escapes, surviving the pre-fight, a tactical approach we call "Fight Science", street-applicable throws, street-applicable kicking, close-quarters brawling, body-guarding for family and friends, partner protection, protective driving, escape and concealment, anti-surveilance [to avoid being targeted, particularly useful for traveling], and more)... for an example, let's pick knife defence. From there, I'll decide on a particular aspect, or focus I want to work on (one month it might be working on control of the weapon hand, another it's looking at mugging-style threats [holding a knife to the throat, or at your back, or similar], and so on).

Once I've chosen a topic and a focus, I start to put together exactly how I'm going to present it... most commonly I'll use a basic drill that might have a few variations, or simply stay the same throughout the month, which is used to develop a particular skill (in knife defence, it's a form of a box-drill, which teaches to move the body in past an attacking knife's optimal range, and to have a protective barrier inbetween the knife arm and your body, as well as teaching a redirecting flow) and is practiced at the beginning of each session that month, commonly with improvements/alterations to the execution each week (which could be simply speeding it up, or streamlining the action, or adding new aspects to make it a bit more complex). From there, we'll move into either a skill-development drill, or a scenario (or possibly the drill, then the scenario). Each drill or scenario is designed to build on the skills and scenario of the previous week, kind of in a similar way to the martial arts methods I was discussing earlier. An example would be the last time I did knife defence in class... the focus of the month was on evasive movement, so the box drill was altered to suit that concept. From there, we moved into a skill-building drill of evasive movement and angling against a series of continuous cuts from the attacker. Each week the drill was altered (the cuts being made were changed, and the angles used to evade were likewise adapted) to give a more complete skill set (the students weren't locked in to only a single evasive action being "right"), and the speed and intensity was raised, until at the end, the attacker would come in with random, free attacks (although a specific number of them, otherwise it could just keep going all night... and we have other stuff to cover, ha!), with the aim that the student could successfully employ evasive footwork against any incoming attack. Then, we put it in a scenario, where we had an aggressor approach, then pull a knife (we have other drills and methods that deal with before it's drawn, and so on, but this one started with an approach and draw/reveal), from which the student would move back to gain distance. The attacker would then come in with a series of cuts, and the defender would evade them, until the last one, where (it now being obvious that either you couldn't simply escape, or that the attacker wasn't stopping) the defender would move in, control the knife arm, and apply a takedown/control/disarm. Again, this was repeated each week with large or small variations to give a wide skill set, including moving to the inside, the outside, and a range of methods for the end of the scenario.

These scenario drills are done as a real encounter... in other words, the knifeman has a specific mandate given to them, and the psychology of the attack is understood. They don't simply stop when their arm is grabbed, but continue to try to maintain control of their weapon by pulling back, and other actions (which are a realistic form of response, but isn't really anything like resistance as found in sparring or competition), all of which have the basic aim of enabling the attacker to continue their attack. This type of understanding is crucial to an honest, realistic method of training such drills. You need to understand what the attacker is doing, how they're doing it, and why...otherwise your training simply won't be realistic. It's got far more to do with understanding the attacker than it does in having "realistic techniques".

The confusion can come in with regards to there not being any "techniques", as the physical methods are markedly different to what's seen in the "martial arts" side of things when you watch them. Of course, when it all comes down to it, they are most often just different cultural expressions of the same thing... a traditional expression of a particular posture, for instance, simply doesn't fit modern violence, so it's altered... but it's essence remains exactly the same. Striking is done differently, but the basic mechanics and ideas of power generation are identical. The attacks are different, which leads to the changes in the physical expression of the modern self defence methods, but it's really just a cultural thing. All of our "techniques" come, in essence, from the martial arts side of things... they just get a new application and expression in the self defence methodology... and the tactics are either subtly or overtly different.

So, how do we train these methods? Honestly. There might be some form of spontaneity, there might not. There might be "breaking of the technique" to add other things to deal with, or there might not (it'd depend on what I'm going through, but frankly, that's not a real priority). What we don't train, though, are techniques. We train tactics and principles which are expressed in certain collections of actions... but always with the freedom to realize that things can (and do) change in the moment, so provided the basic tactic is being applied, a variation/different "technique" is more likely to get praise than anything else... unless it's changed because the student couldn't get what was being shown (or, sometimes, when they've stumbled upon something that's going to be shown the next week or the one after... I'll often congratulate them on seeing the other possibility, then explain that I'll be giving that to the group in the coming lessons, so for tonight, work on what we're doing now).

Hmm, that might not have been what you were after, but it's the answer I can give.



MJS said:


> Then it's simple...if the art doesn't benefit from it, then don't do it.  Easy right!  I just get the impression that you think that any art that includes sparring, isn't as good as one that doesn't.  No offense to you but that's the impression I get, and of course, I might be wrong.  My teacher sparred in class and fought in many tournaments back in the day, although now he no longer does.  Despite that, I'm confident that he's more than capable of defending himself and would not be hindered in any way, because of his past sparring.



No, I just think that any art that includes sparring without a real context or understanding of it is lacking (more in their own understanding of what they're doing than anything else). Each art has it's own context, and some of those require sparring. There's nothing about any being "better" or "worse" than any other... just that you need to understand the reasons and application of whatever you're doing. And, in what I do, sparring really has little relevance or place.

Like you, I would have little to no doubt of your Kyokushin instructors ability to handle himself... or of an MMA competitor... or a Judoka... or a BJJ practitioner. And I'm sure sparring helps with some benefits in that regard. But when you're looking specifically at self defence, rather than fighting skill, there are far more direct and directly applicable methods to use... and I prefer more of a straight line approach, rather than a round about way that will help along the line.



MJS said:


> I know you were addressing this to someone else Chris, but I'd be interested in hearing a bit more from you, on this.



Let's review what was said, first:



Chris Parker said:


> SteveNC said:
> 
> 
> > Your goal in defending yourself (mental and awareness training aside) should be to hit first with deception and how ever many times needed to escape and that's it.
> ...



What I was meaning was that the idea of your goal in defending yourself being striking first (with deception) and continuing to attack wasn't actually the goal at all... the goal is to get home safely. That might (if things get physical) be best achieved by a pre-emptive strike (the deception isn't going to be necessary in all cases, unless you need to cover distance first... which isn't going to be the majority of cases), but the striking (initial and continuing) are not the goal or the aim. They are just a possible way of achieving the actual aim. Once you start looking at physical methods as being the "aim", you start to move into engaging in a fight, and start to look at "beating" the other guy.



SteveNC said:


> Chris was responding to one of my post so until he gets back to you I will address it myself from a more detailed POV. When I comment on things I don't normally go into great depth and sometimes than can lead to vagueness on my part. My hit hard and hit first strategy is certainly not the only option but it's the most common option as far as physical tactics goes that you will face (from a blindside attack). That strategy could be a combination of lots of things including punch, palm heel, elbow, shin kicks but I like quick reactors that you can throw fast, with easy combinations and follow-ups and little risk to injuring yourself. I am very fond of sumo slaps to the face and side of the head in certain situations (its hard to accurately describe how I do this but it is effective). One thing I like to point out to people from the educational side is the legal ramifications that is always a part of the equation. You are less likely to face legal action if you strike someone open handed. It can be hard to convince inexperienced people the value of open hand when punch has been in their minds their entire life but I focus heavily on this.
> 
> Confrontations (drunks, punks, bullies)? You can and should be able to avoid 99% of those unless the ego is fragile. THIS is where self defense shines but it's also the most demanding aspect for anybody to understand and the most difficult to teach
> 
> Multiple attackers and weapons are just a different animal. Perhaps I will dive into that later



Okay. I'd still have a few alternate interpretations, but nothing too important for here.



Kframe said:


> Part of my brain understands what you guys are saying.  How ever there is another part that I hear in my head that says. " If you cant do it in sparring what makes you think you can do it on the street?". I hear this all the time on sherdog and other forums with regards to arts of this flavor, be it any Aiki art, or most koryu arts, or krav maga or systema. Its that voice I am having hard time letting go of.



Bluntly, everyone can only make sense of something based on the their experience and frame of reference (as you are finding out here!), I really wouldn't put too much stock in the opinions of people who have no real experience or understanding of the alternate when they try to critique it. They have an opinion (based on no actual understanding), which is fine... but don't take it as an informed one.



Kframe said:


> What they would ask is, "how often have you really kicked out a guys knee, or really gouged out a eye in your practice?" "How often do you apply those fancy standing armlocks against live resistance?"    The questions usually follow this same vein.  They usually reply with, "how many times does a boxer or Nak-muay actually hit someone a day in practice?" "How often does a BJJ guy actually crank a joint in practice?"  "They do it with resistance, you do it with compliance".


 
Yeah... compliance is used in BJJ just as much as anywhere else, you realise. It's a training and learning device. It's not the end of it, it's the beginning. I'd ask how often they break an elbow in training when they try the "how many times have you really gouged an eye?" type of defence....  



Kframe said:


> Its those things I hear constantly and in the back of my head.   I guess for me, I just need to trust my instructors. Why am I finding that so hard?  They are all obviously skilled.(Check out my update post from a previous practice)



Yep.



Kframe said:


> From my conversations there is resistance in what we do, just not at the lower levels. He stated that the basics class was for drilling the basics in a correct manner with out much resistance.



Yep. 



Kframe said:


> I have entered a non competing art, from a competitive back ground. I guess boiling it down to its barest level, Im having issue with the fact that the only person im competing with now is my self. No one to spar, no one to defeat, nothing really to prove.  It just felt so good to win in sparring. It made some of the other crap in my head and life feel far away if only a for a bit.



Okay... how good did it feel to get the backwards roll, then? Or when the Ura Gyaku just "clicked"? My point is that you can get the "win" in a number of ways... sparring is just one. 



Kframe said:


> Ok for other people in other arts that do spar competitively, how can they adjust portions of there sparring time so that they can add something that will add to there self defense capabilities?



The first thing is understanding the actual context and realities of modern violence... from there it all becomes rather obvious, I find...


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 25, 2014)

Kframe said:


> I have entered a non competing art, from a competitive back ground. I guess boiling it down to its barest level, Im having issue with the fact that the only person im competing with now is my self. No one to spar, no one to defeat, nothing really to prove.  It just felt so good to win in sparring. It made some of the other crap in my head and life feel far away if only a for a bit.
> 
> Ok for other people in other arts that do spar competitively, how can they adjust portions of there sparring time so that they can add something that will add to there self defense capabilities?



Speaking as someone who does believe in the importance of sparring (see my earlier comment) and who left the Bujinkan in part because of my dissatisfaction with their training methods ...

For pure self-defense purposes (as opposed to fighting), I would say that realistic scenario drills are more useful than sparring.  SteveNC and Chris are correct on that much. I have no idea if your Bujinkan instructor offers those or is even qualified to offer them, but you might be able to find that training elsewhere.  Once you've been through that sort of training a few times, you'll start to see what aspects of your regular martial arts training are most applicable to those sorts of circumstances.

Your comment about proving things and sparring making you feel good makes me think that you were using sparring for emotional reasons unrelated to self-defense.  There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it's good to separate the emotional benefits of a competitive art from the combative and the self-defense aspects.


----------



## MJS (Jan 25, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> Chris was responding to one of my post so until he gets back to you I will address it myself from a more detailed POV. When I comment on things I don't normally go into great depth and sometimes than can lead to vagueness on my part. My hit hard and hit first strategy is certainly not the only option but it's the most common option as far as physical tactics goes that you will face (from a blindside attack). That strategy could be a combination of lots of things including punch, palm heel, elbow, shin kicks but I like quick reactors that you can throw fast, with easy combinations and follow-ups and little risk to injuring yourself. I am very fond of sumo slaps to the face and side of the head in certain situations (its hard to accurately describe how I do this but it is effective). One thing I like to point out to people from the educational side is the legal ramifications that is always a part of the equation. You are less likely to face legal action if you strike someone open handed. It can be hard to convince inexperienced people the value of open hand when punch has been in their minds their entire life but I focus heavily on this.
> 
> Confrontations (drunks, punks, bullies)? You can and should be able to avoid 99% of those unless the ego is fragile. THIS is where self defense shines but it's also the most demanding aspect for anybody to understand and the most difficult to teach
> 
> Multiple attackers and weapons are just a different animal. Perhaps I will dive into that later



Hey Steve,

First, not sure if I welcomed you to the forum before, but if not...welcome!  I look forward to your posts! 

Yeah, after reading your initial post to Chris, I kind of figured what you were talking about.  As I've posted on other threads here, I'm a big fan of pre-emptive strikes, so I'm in agreement with you.  Likewise, I'm also a fan of open handed strikes.  Nothing wrong with the closed hand, but if your hands are up in a defensive, non threatening manner, open handed is the best bet.  

Anyways, I was just a bit curious as to what Chris was getting at, as it seemed to me, that he was disagreeing with what you said.  I'll wait for his reply.


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 25, 2014)

Chris

Perhaps I should be clearer but I was referring to common blindside attacks where you might not be able to escape and you must resort to physical tactics. You dont talk your way out of conflict with a predator. Now if the threat is recognized and you have every opportunity to de-escalate there are no good excuses for a fight to occur.


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 25, 2014)

MJS said:


> Hey Steve,
> 
> First, not sure if I welcomed you to the forum before, but if not...welcome!  I look forward to your posts!
> 
> ...



I favor as much open hand as possible. Its best for self defense IMO along with hammer fist, forearms, elbows and knees


----------



## MJS (Jan 25, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Part of my brain understands what you guys are saying.  How ever there is another part that I hear in my head that says. " If you cant do it in sparring what makes you think you can do it on the street?". I hear this all the time on sherdog and other forums with regards to arts of this flavor, be it any Aiki art, or most koryu arts, or krav maga or systema. Its that voice I am having hard time letting go of.
> 
> What they would ask is, "how often have you really kicked out a guys knee, or really gouged out a eye in your practice?" "How often do you apply those fancy standing armlocks against live resistance?"    The questions usually follow this same vein.  They usually reply with, "how many times does a boxer or Nak-muay actually hit someone a day in practice?" "How often does a BJJ guy actually crank a joint in practice?"  "They do it with resistance, you do it with compliance".
> 
> ...



As it's been said, sparring and SD are 2 different animals.  For me, I drill my SD techs a certain way.  I'll work them in a static, cooperative fashion, and gradually add in more aliveness, resistance, other attacks, etc.  When I spar during my Kyokushin class, well, it's just like what you see on YT.  Sometimes, before we spar, our teacher will give us certain drills to work on, and then we try to pull those things off during sparring.  I've had success with some, and others, well, not so much.  But that all comes with time and practice.  I've also done sparring that is more MMA like.  I've found that when I train like that, the opportunity to work on some SD, presents itself a little more often.  

You pretty much answered your own question...you went from a competitive art, to a non competitive one.  I'm far from an expert on BBT, but from what I've seen and heard, while it is a good art (providing you've got a good teacher) the 'instant gratification' isn't there.  What I mean is...it may take a while longer to be able to really be able to apply something, due to the way things are trained.  Nothing wrong with this, but that may be one thing that's frustrating to you.

It seems like you're enjoying your new art, so my suggestion would be to stick with it.  I'm sure with time, things will be a bit easier and more clear for you.


----------



## Kframe (Jan 25, 2014)

TBH Chris, It felt really good to nail that back roll. I Still cant do it on the first try but I can get it now by the second or third.  Now im looking at the proper side roll.  We have  several variants and this one that im working on is unique. Its trained in the basic sword evasion drill.. Its like a Side breakfall, then you roll over your shoulder while on your side.. He said its kinda like the same principals of the back roll. I don't think I described it right, but that's the best I can do lol.  

You are right, it did feel good to nail URA blindfolded. Its like my eyes were screwing things up.. So focused on my hands that I found my self looking at them and not the opponent.  

Ill admit part of the problem for me is the judgment I get from a community I was(and still consider my self) a part of.   It seams the only people I associate with now that take this art seriously besides me and the Dojo gang is my wife, and father and family.  

Im going to stick with it, MJS, I enjoy my self to much. I just need to find a way to come to terms with my self on this new training protocol.


----------



## MJS (Jan 25, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, the first question would be what part of my training you're talking about... we've kinda covered both my self defence training and my traditional training in this thread... so I'll cover both, as it really does use both sections (the martial arts side of things inform the self defence side of the training). Of course, the issue is that it can change to a fair degree based on the exact topic/theme I'm covering at the time, the experience level of the group (for that topic), and what I want to get across. To that end, let's start with the martial arts side of things...
> 
> The martial art side of things is a large repertoire of kata/techniques taken from some 6 or 7 (depending on how you look at it... although you could further break it down into some 12 or more distinct lines/arts if you really get technical about it...) martial systems, containing both unarmed and weaponry methods. The kata in each system are in a specific order, divided into sections, with each system having it's own particular idiosyncrasies, approaches, methods, concepts, distancing, timing, movement, preferred angling, and so on. And, as a result, there are a couple of different ways to approach these techniques. The first is the approach found in many of the Ninjutsu schools (Bujinkan etc) around the world, which is to look at the techniques separate from the system they come from, and use them as an exploration of mechanics and tactics in a more general fashion; the second is to separate the methods of each particular system out, and cover them in the defined order, in order to explore the mechanical and tactical approach of a specific system, as opposed to a more overarching skill set. This second approach is rarer, but is found in places (higher level training in the Genbukan, in the Jinenkan to a degree, and so on).
> 
> ...



Well, that was one hell of a post Chris! LOL!  That's one thing that I can always count on with you...I ask a question, and I get a thorough, detailed reply!!!   Yes, that answered my question perfectly!!





> No, I just think that any art that includes sparring without a real context or understanding of it is lacking (more in their own understanding of what they're doing than anything else). Each art has it's own context, and some of those require sparring. There's nothing about any being "better" or "worse" than any other... just that you need to understand the reasons and application of whatever you're doing. And, in what I do, sparring really has little relevance or place.
> 
> Like you, I would have little to no doubt of your Kyokushin instructors ability to handle himself... or of an MMA competitor... or a Judoka... or a BJJ practitioner. And I'm sure sparring helps with some benefits in that regard. But when you're looking specifically at self defence, rather than fighting skill, there are far more direct and directly applicable methods to use... and I prefer more of a straight line approach, rather than a round about way that will help along the line.



Ok, points taken!  Makes sense, and I can agree with this! 





> Let's review what was said, first:
> 
> 
> 
> What I was meaning was that the idea of your goal in defending yourself being striking first (with deception) and continuing to attack wasn't actually the goal at all... the goal is to get home safely. That might (if things get physical) be best achieved by a pre-emptive strike (the deception isn't going to be necessary in all cases, unless you need to cover distance first... which isn't going to be the majority of cases), but the striking (initial and continuing) are not the goal or the aim. They are just a possible way of achieving the actual aim. Once you start looking at physical methods as being the "aim", you start to move into engaging in a fight, and start to look at "beating" the other guy.



Ok, that makes sense!


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 25, 2014)

K-man said:


> With the style of Goju I teach now, that type of sparring goes against so much of our training you just don't do it.



this.  yes.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 25, 2014)

MJS said:


> I agree with the scenario training.  Problem is, some don't seem to see the value in it.



but is that really a problem?  It's only a problem when people think that everyone else needs to do it the same way.  People can train whatever methods they find value in.  And likewise people can NOT train whatever methods they do not find value in.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 25, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Okay... how good did it feel to get the backwards roll, then? Or when the Ura Gyaku just "clicked"? My point is that you can get the "win" in a number of ways... sparring is just one.



This is actually a really big piece...  Understanding what a "win" consists of.  As I type, police in Maryland are clearing a mall after an active shooter incident.  There aren't many details available.  For 90% of the people in that mall when the incident went down -- a "win" consisted of getting out of the mall, staying out of the way of responding authorities, and simply going home.  For the cops, a "win" would be finding, isolating, and containing the shooter, with minimum casualties to themselves and the public.  Where a really bad situation could develop in a scenario like that is when you get the CCW "savior" (I'm NOT saying that everyone with CCW has this mindset!!) who thinks his job and his win is to get the shooter -- and begins spraying rounds without regard to the others in the mall.  

For my martial arts training, I generally describe a "win" as doing what I've been taught, especially under any sort of pressure, because we know that pressure makes the mind go blank.  That pressure might be anything from demonstrating on the floor in front of my teacher, to a training partner throwing a punch that's going to take my head off if I don't block it, or a sparring match against someone I've never met.  In a match, I don't care what the judges say -- IF my teacher says I did the lesson.  The judges may give me the win or not... it just depends.  They may like the other guy more, they may cheat against me (it's happened!), or they just might not have seen what I did.  (In one match, I would have pretty much broken every rib of my opponent, but the judges give him the "point" because everything I did was inside and hidden by our bodies, but his looping hook that actually missed was more visible and on the outside...)


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 25, 2014)

One more thing... and this is getting philosophical and deep for a moment, but it's related to the whole idea of assessing progress and coming to terms with the differences in the arts.  There are two broad ways to obtain satisfaction or motivation.  One is externally oriented, the other is internally oriented.  I can look for my satisfaction and motivation in rewards and recognition given to me (belts, awards, trophies, sparring wins, pats on the back, etc.) or I can look for it within myself (getting something right finally, understanding something, knowing something I didn't know yesterday...)  I think a lot of people who look towards the more competitive stuff are externally motivated; in the context of this thread, they look for someone else to tell them that they won, that they did well, that it "worked."  A lot of the more traditional training methods are really more internally geared, and they don't tend to have a lot of back pats and the like.  You have to look at the technique, and really come to understand it and the training method to know that it'll work -- and sometimes, that may mean understanding that a kata isn't about a technique, but about the principle demonstrated.

Let me expand on that as I wander a bit...  Our first basic form is the Point Form.  It consists of several sets of 2 counts; the first count is a step & block, the second a strike.  The first set is a forward full step with an upward block, then a punch.  Pretty simple; someone punches at you, you step in, block, and punch 'em back.  But... if you look at the entire form, you see the underlying principle of holding one spot and moving off the line of the attack, then returning a counter strike.  So, keeping the principle intact, I can do that first set with a elbow cover/block followed by a kick or a downward block and a throw or a step, trap and joint lock...  And I get my "reward" not from having someone tell me I did that form properly, but from finding the lesson within it.  

Hope this makes a little bit of sense...


----------



## Kframe (Jan 25, 2014)

JKS I find your characterization of CCW as hero wannabes that will spray and pray kind of insulting.  You do realize many of us do train with our weapons more then 17hours a year?(which just so happens to be the average time the local police spend actually training with there guns here)   Only someone with a mindset and agenda against CCW and carry laws would use that specific wording.   You are correct that we CCW should move out when stuff like that goes down. How ever does that mean, if I happen to find my self in close proximity when it happens  as in say 15 feet, that I shouldn't engage?   Sorry that is dumb, especially if im literally right there and can do something.   

Just the thing progressives want. Don't try to help people, just keep to your self and don't make a stir. Let the Government handle all your problems, we know better then you whats good for you.


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 25, 2014)

Kframe said:


> JKS I find your characterization of CCW as hero wannabes that will spray and pray kind of insulting.  You do realize many of us do train with our weapons more then 17hours a year?(which just so happens to be the average time the local police spend actually training with there guns here)   Only someone with a mindset and agenda against CCW and carry laws would use that specific wording.   You are correct that we CCW should move out when stuff like that goes down. How ever does that mean, if I happen to find my self in close proximity when it happens  as in say 15 feet, that I shouldn't engage?   Sorry that is dumb, especially if im literally right there and can do something.
> 
> Just the thing progressives want. Don't try to help people, just keep to your self and don't make a stir. Let the Government handle all your problems, we know better then you whats good for you.



In 100% agreement with you here my friend


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 26, 2014)

Kframe said:


> You do realize many of us do train with our weapons more then 17hours a year?(which just so happens to be the average time the local police spend actually training with there guns here)



But do you have the same or equivalent training as the local police in regards to protecting bystanders from collateral damage and tactics etc?


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 26, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> Chris
> 
> Perhaps I should be clearer but I was referring to common blindside attacks where you might not be able to escape and you must resort to physical tactics. You dont talk your way out of conflict with a predator. Now if the threat is recognized and you have every opportunity to de-escalate there are no good excuses for a fight to occur.



Hmm. Not much here that I agree with... yes, you can talk your way out of conflict with a predator, but not in the way most think of as "talking your way out of things". A blindside attack is one launched from an unseen position, and negates any pre-emptive striking (you've already been hit, nothing pre-emptive about what you'd do), so it's not the right context for "hit first", or anything else mentioned. As far as the threat being recognised, I also wouldn't say there's no good excuse for a fight to occur... but we're really getting into the broader range of possible situations, and at that point, the only thing you can really say is that there aren't any absolutes.



SteveNC said:


> I favor as much open hand as possible. Its best for self defense IMO along with hammer fist, forearms, elbows and knees



Nah, none of those are "best" for self defence... you're getting focused on a physical action, which is not the way to approach it (I've mentioned previously that "the technique aren't the important thing"...). Within a self defence scenario, each of those might indeed be your best physical tool to apply... but the tool itself is really nothing. If you really know what you're doing, it won't matter too much what you use, as they can all have relatively equal value. For the record, I teach primarily open hand methods as well... but not for the reasons you've listed.



Kframe said:


> TBH Chris, It felt really good to nail that back roll. I Still cant do it on the first try but I can get it now by the second or third.  Now im looking at the proper side roll.  We have  several variants and this one that im working on is unique. Its trained in the basic sword evasion drill.. Its like a Side breakfall, then you roll over your shoulder while on your side.. He said its kinda like the same principals of the back roll. I don't think I described it right, but that's the best I can do lol.
> 
> You are right, it did feel good to nail URA blindfolded. Its like my eyes were screwing things up.. So focused on my hands that I found my self looking at them and not the opponent.
> 
> ...



Okay. Who's training BBT? You, or the guys on Sherdog? If it's not them, what does their opinion matter? You really might as well be asking the guys on Sherdog about their opinion of ballroom dance versus hip-hop.... it doesn't mean anything.

Look, even here I don't really care what anyone thinks of the training I do, I'm not doing what I do for them, I'm doing it for me (and some other reasons, but that's quite a different discussion). Mike asked about my training, and I gave a rough overview of two-thirds of a regular class I hold... but there was no need for any validation from him at all. Don't get me wrong, I hope Mike got something out of my explanation, but when all's said and done, it's my training, not his, so all that needs to be there is that I need to see the value in it.



Kframe said:


> JKS I find your characterization of CCW as hero wannabes that will spray and pray kind of insulting.  You do realize many of us do train with our weapons more then 17hours a year?(which just so happens to be the average time the local police spend actually training with there guns here)   Only someone with a mindset and agenda against CCW and carry laws would use that specific wording.   You are correct that we CCW should move out when stuff like that goes down. How ever does that mean, if I happen to find my self in close proximity when it happens  as in say 15 feet, that I shouldn't engage?   Sorry that is dumb, especially if im literally right there and can do something.
> 
> Just the thing progressives want. Don't try to help people, just keep to your self and don't make a stir. Let the Government handle all your problems, we know better then you whats good for you.



Hmm. 

Very far from agreement with you here. To begin with, JKS was not saying that all CCW holders are wanna-be heroes, he was talking about those that do want to see themselves in that way (which is a particular sub-set, not an indictment of all holders), so you've really jumped the gun there and read something that wasn't in his comments. From there, you pull out "we train more than the cops do!"? Really? You do realise that that's just going to feed directly into the idea of the "hero mentality" that can be present, yeah?

And, yes, if you do find yourself in close proximity, you shouldn't engage. You should be looking for a way to escape safely. If you can't do that, you should do what you can to not escalate (remain safe). Only if specifically endangered should you even consider engaging. This idea of "Sorry that is dumb", combined with everything in your post, is exactly the mentality JKS was talking about, you know. So you've tried to complain that he made an unfair generalization, then you've lived up to it... hmm.

Psychologically speaking, this entire attitude is not a healthy one... it's based in a range of things, which I'm not going into here. But it's a follow on from what was seen in your post about your reasoning earlier.


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 26, 2014)

Chris

Maybe I should just create a blog detailing every thought I ever had on the subject of self defense. You could read it once, tell me everything that sucks about it (probably the majority) and then be done with it.


----------



## Kframe (Jan 26, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> But do you have the same or equivalent training as the local police in regards to protecting bystanders from collateral damage and tactics etc?



Ya you do realize that most police here are woefully undertrained. When I said 17hours I was not joking. That is all the proficiency training they get here. That includes Tactics and marksmanship. How do I know, I have several family members on the force.  The only ones with quality training are the swat and srt guys, and the rare few that do there own training. 

No the police don't typically do a good job protecting civillians. Just look to NYC for gods sake. They kill Civvies by accident frequently there. The statistics show that cops typically have a HORRID hit percentage, on the order of 17% of shots fired hit the opponent.


----------



## Kframe (Jan 26, 2014)

Chris non of that changes the fact that I put in more time and more rounds down range then most of the dept here.. Sorry nothing you say can change the reality of my firearms training.. I have been doing it for 10 years, with training from sources.   Most cops put 200 rounds a year in training, I do that in aday when im on the ball seriously training. With regards to cops in my town, I DO TRAIN MORE.  So no I didn't live up to your and JKS progressive BS.  


Secondly Why in gods name, if im that close to a shooter would not take the shot? Just run away from him and let him continue shooting when I can do something right now and im close?  By close im talking with in 20feet.  Any further then that and im gonna run, simple as that.   

Its nice to know you think im crazy. Sorry to burst your bubble but out side of some confidence issues im just fine.   Unless your a Doctor in Psychology don't pretend to analyze me.. If you truly have some issue with me then PM me with it and lets work it out.

Sometimes Chris talking to you is like handling a  double edged sword. On one hand you can be nice and great to chat with, then on the other you cut and sting.  It makes conversation with you difficult.


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 26, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Ya you do realize that most police here are woefully undertrained. When I said 17hours I was not joking. That is all the proficiency training they get here. That includes Tactics and marksmanship. How do I know, I have several family members on the force.  The only ones with quality training are the swat and srt guys, and the rare few that do there own training.
> 
> No the police don't typically do a good job protecting civillians. Just look to NYC for gods sake. They kill Civvies by accident frequently there. The statistics show that cops typically have a HORRID hit percentage, on the order of 17% of shots fired hit the opponent.



Agree. I was a sniper in various recon units during my 20 year service and when I shoot with LEO's I am often amazed at the less than average ability of many of them to handle their service weapon. I take this sort of thing seriously........Not trying to bash the profession in any way, shape or form so hope nobody takes the comment negatively. I have seen some cops that handed me my **** on the "pistol" range


----------



## Kframe (Jan 26, 2014)

Not to derail this thread with the 2a talk, ill start another thread on the Firearms section for us to discuss this issue separately.  

I failed to return to MT in time to edit my previous post, so ill say im sorry to JKS and Chris Parker for calling their POV "progressive BS".  I am very passionate about my 2a rights and when it comes to arguing for them I am not doing the cuase any favors. I have yet to learn how to debate and post effectively like the veterans here. I as you may know, tend to free type my thoughts, from my brain to my keyboard with little filter between. I must learn a filter and learn to not post emotionally for emotional posts are not helping my position nor any debate on either side of any issue.  So for my part in overreacting I apologize. 

I don't know what my issue is.. When I feel like I was insulted(like I felt with JKS and Chris Parkers post) I just let go my feelings from my head. I was angry and I needed to get it out. TBH though it added nothing to thread or the side discussion. So ya I still have much to learn about proper debate and as CP is quick to point out patience. 

Back to the topic at hand. 

So One thing that I hear on sherdog and other mma forums is that those that spar do better in real situations then those that don't.  Now the discussion up to this point is that, that is not true. So does anyone have any numbers or facts to back either side of that argument up? Maybe some anecdotal evidence? Not just the differences between a real attack and sparring but something from people that have had both types of training and been in real situations?


----------



## K-man (Jan 26, 2014)

Kframe said:


> So One thing that I hear on sherdog and other mma forums is that those that spar do better in real situations then those that don't.  Now the discussion up to this point is that, that is not true. So does anyone have any numbers or facts to back either side of that argument up? Maybe some anecdotal evidence? Not just the differences between a real attack and sparring but something from people that have had both types of training and been in real situations?


I'll throw a couple of things into the mix. The biggest problem I find is the guys who spar tend to engage and disengage. What I teach is to get it, trap and use knees and elbows. In my style of fighting there is not much room for throwing punches or kicking.  

The next problem is when a punch is thrown or even a kick the guys who spar, in the conventional sense, often move back and out of the way where I teach to deflect and enter. They tell me it is the hardest thing for them to change. 
:asian:


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 26, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Where a really bad situation could develop in a scenario like that is when you get the CCW "savior" (I'm NOT saying that everyone with CCW has this mindset!!) who thinks his job and his win is to get the shooter -- and begins spraying rounds without regard to the others in the mall.





Kframe said:


> JKS I find your characterization of CCW as hero wannabes that will spray and pray kind of insulting.  You do realize many of us do train with our weapons more then 17hours a year?(which just so happens to be the average time the local police spend actually training with there guns here)   Only someone with a mindset and agenda against CCW and carry laws would use that specific wording.   You are correct that we CCW should move out when stuff like that goes down. How ever does that mean, if I happen to find my self in close proximity when it happens  as in say 15 feet, that I shouldn't engage?   Sorry that is dumb, especially if im literally right there and can do something.
> 
> Just the thing progressives want. Don't try to help people, just keep to your self and don't make a stir. Let the Government handle all your problems, we know better then you whats good for you.



Read again.  I think I made it at least reasonably clear that I don't lump all CCW holders in that category.  You wanna deny they're out there?  

Look through my history here.  I'm pretty open that I believe the 2nd Amendment means just what it says -- that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  I live and work in Virginia -- an open carry and shall issue state.  Don't have a problem with the large majority of the folks who either open carry or have a CCW permit or both.  The handful that have fantasies of saving the day?  Yep.  Because they're the ones who will cause a problem.  There are even cops who are so locked into being the hero that they'll do stupid things...  I haven't been able to dig up an article (I've looked several times), but I've heard of an incident where an off duty cop was in a fast food restaurant when a robbery went down.  He jumped into cop role, and did get the bad guy.  But in the fire fight, the cop's young son got killed.  Even if it was just a story to drive the point home in training -- not a price I ever want to pay.  Off duty, with my family, my "win" would be getting them out safe.  Not making an arrest, not saving the day.


----------



## Kframe (Jan 26, 2014)

Ya I noticed that as well. BBT, at least up to what I have seen from the seniors, is kinda the same way. Though from what I have been told we have a distance we prefer. It feels as if we don't want to be in the typical MMA clinch distance but just outside it.  Kukan I think it is called, or as my instructor called it the tactical space between us and them. 

I think that is partly why BJJ/grapplers do so well against pure strikers in a mma sense.  Were the pure strikers are basically sparring but at full speed, staying to the outside and doing the engage/disengage dance, the grappler is covering and crashing. They don't screw around at that distance they cover their head, eat a few shots on the way in, and engage the deep clinch and take down. The Gracies actually only teach 2 ranges for fighting. One is the "outside" which is so far out your out of kicking range and then there is the "clinch". They don't stand in between. They are either so far out you cant hit them, or so far in that  your strikes have less effectiveness, and they can use there takedowns on you.   I honestly think that GJJ(not the same as BJJ) is a good system for self defense, at least for some situations. 

You wont find it on youtube the the GJJ system actually spends a lot of time(for BJJ at least) on stand up street defense. Such as knife defense and stick defense, gun disarms and a smattering of standing arm locks.  Here is a sample of the knife defense they teach. 



  Here is there standing armbar from there white to blue belt, from about 2.5 on from this video. 



  Here is a better video http://www.gracieacademy.com/news/gracie-instructor-attacked-in-road-rage-incident.asp 

I guess what im saying is that, I am starting to see that sparring strategies are not all the suited to the street. Now I think the Cover and crash tactics of GJJ are good, but still it has a heavy sports emphasis. At least they are putting in time on street applicable things.  

K man, it never occurred to me just why sparring was some times deleterious to street defense, until your post. It made me think about things we didn't do. We didn't use elbows or knees in sparring, or any other vicious tech.  Our stand up  was  mostly the in out engage disengage quick bursts of striking bit that you see. Though sometimes we would clinch and instead of striking from clinch, we go for a hip toss and ground fight. So much we could be doing but, we don't. In fact im vary much aware of what im doing in sparring, and the things I cant do I just didn't even think of looking for openings for them. In fact that stuff never really entered my mind.  I always had to be mindfull of my partner even though were trying to nail each other.  

So I think im getting closer. To recap, I never really thought about the off limits stuff(for mma) during sparring. Our sparring followed a pattern(as outlined above), unless I was loosing badly to a instructor or competing fighter then it  tended to end quickly. Then we disengage and step back, touch gloves and I try again.  So hmm.   I remember doing better as a pure counter fighter, but getting admonished for not being aggressive enough. So id move in to attack and get creamed. Of course my defense at that time was not fully developed.   

I think its not the free sparring that is the issue, but the way it is utilized. They way we sparred, made us cautious in a aggressive way.   Usually clinching only happened when someone was loosing the standup.

I do remember my most epic moment that didn't follow the typical sparring routine. TKD BB had joined us, he had like 4 years in tkd, and me at 6months. We were sparring full rules. I remember he came in with a front kick, and instead of backing up and playing to the outside like always, I side stepped and came in with a strike and forcefully took him down for gnp.. God it was awesome to dismantle him.  Watch the look in his eye as I made it past his kick, with my strikes hitting home. That look of "OH ---". 

So I guess for sparring to be  more productive for self defense, I guess it needs to be changed a bit. So Lets assume a mma place wants to dedicate a few rounds of sparring to a more self defense orientation. What changes should they make first??


----------



## Kframe (Jan 26, 2014)

JKS please see PM.


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 26, 2014)

Self defense carries a different mindset on the tactical side. Like K Man pointed out elbows, knees, kicks to the shin become more of a focus than in traditional competition sparring. You also train to throw a strike or series of strikes that END IT quickly so you can get away (that doesn't mean a knockout). You can't simulate that on a friend and training partner nor can you simulate the state of mind you will be in during a real altercation with a friendly in front of you. One of the main reasons I have been migrating a bit towards Systema is that it does a great job of teaching feel and contact without the fighting.


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Jan 26, 2014)

K-man said:


> I don't think that's the issue. Most martial arts incorporate sparring without doubt. Most people training a martial art expect there to be sparring. Most martial arts also have a competitive element and whatever sparring is done in a martial art reflects the competition that you are training to compete in.
> 
> I think this is seen in *Kframe*'s posts. How can you know where you are at if you don't spar? When you have trained an MA that spars and you change to a system that doesn't spar I think most times you can accept it, especially if the instructor can explain why there is no sparring. Where it gets harder is where someone from a system that spars looks at a system that doesn't and immediately assumes that the system that doesn't spar is inferior or lacking. What is harder still is the concept that sparring, as most people think of sparring, can be counter productive. What ever physical testing method a style employs is specific for that style. If it employs the type of sparring people expect, well and good. If it doesn't, fine. That's the way it is.
> 
> ...



What about this one 



? Some elements of the art is there but at the same time it kind of is lost and just look a fight at times.


----------



## K-man (Jan 26, 2014)

TKDTony2179 said:


> What about this one
> 
> 
> 
> ? Some elements of the art is there but at the same time it kind of is lost and just look a fight at times.


To me the Bagua guy didn't have a clue as to what was expected. He started ok but couldn't take advantage of what he had. After that he just wasn't there. The other guy was doing his TKD but his kicks would cause him grief in a non sporting arena. Even in that short scenario he lost his balance and fell. At times they both moved in to grab, great. Problem being neither had the faintest clue as to what to do next. I'm sure that if either of those guys fought an MMA guy or someone training Kyokoshin they would have had to call an ambulance. To me, if you enjoy that type of sparring go for it and have fun. After all that is why most of us train.  Just don't confuse sport with the violence of a street fight. 
:asian:


----------



## Kframe (Jan 26, 2014)

I get the feeling that the Baqua guy was not a high level practitioner. From my reading on internal arts, they take a fair bit of time to get to the point you can use them and spar with them. You can see it in his movements. After he gets stood up from the suplex, he doesn't even assume the traditional fighting stance he came in with and was in a kick boxing type stance.  Clearly he was not ready for that kind of training. 

Now im not sure about Internal arts,  and I hope the expert internal guys chime in. So far my reading says it takes a long time of training to make them practical for combat and sparing and what not.


----------



## K-man (Jan 26, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Ya I noticed that as well. BBT, at least up to what I have seen from the seniors, is kinda the same way. Though from what I have been told we have a distance we prefer. It feels as if we don't want to be in the typical MMA clinch distance but just outside it.  Kukan I think it is called, or as my instructor called it the tactical space between us and them.
> 
> I think that is partly why BJJ/grapplers do so well against pure strikers in a mma sense.  Were the pure strikers are basically sparring but at full speed, staying to the outside and doing the engage/disengage dance, the grappler is covering and crashing. They don't screw around at that distance they cover their head, eat a few shots on the way in, and engage the deep clinch and take down. The Gracies actually only teach 2 ranges for fighting. One is the "outside" which is so far out your out of kicking range and then there is the "clinch". They don't stand in between. They are either so far out you cant hit them, or so far in that  your strikes have less effectiveness, and they can use there takedowns on you.   I honestly think that GJJ(not the same as BJJ) is a good system for self defense, at least for some situations.
> 
> ...


I like the scenario based fighting best. Pick your poison, the guy standing beside you in the pub. The guy on the street asking for something, walking along and someone deliberately walking into you, straight out attack with a weapon etc. then do that against two guys etc. (Just don't forget the mouth guard and groin guard.) Then get a dozen guys together forming a circle. Initially taking turns to attack, then several at a time. 
:asian:


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 27, 2014)

Agree with K-Man. I call it line drill when it's individual on individual for short 10 second burst and I do a lot of multiples as well. We also do circles and snake drills where you attempt to better your chances by moving to turn (spread) that mob circle into a snake with a head and a tail. We do flanking, pinning drills and ground to feet drills. Anything I can think of I throw it out there including the clients work related situations. We use a lot of focus mitts, thai pads, shields and light mma gloves (until their hands get calloused). Granted this is just the physical tactical part. Verbal exchange is a part of almost every scenario 

Sometimes I give them pre-determined strike sequences and other times they are masters of their own solution


----------



## MJS (Jan 27, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> but is that really a problem?  It's only a problem when people think that everyone else needs to do it the same way.  People can train whatever methods they find value in.  And likewise people can NOT train whatever methods they do not find value in.



Well, as I've said, anyone is free to train however they wish.  IMO, I'd imagine that if someone was serious about SD, then they'd ensure their training was realistic, or as realistic as possible, and that scenario training would certainly be a part of it, or at least something similar.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 27, 2014)

I only read the first two pages.  So I'm in no position to agree or disagree with all that has been said.  I can only give my thoughts which will no doubt agree with and strengthen some comments, and disagree or weaken some comments.

Essentially I am a Hapkidoist.  We are very defensive in nature.  We tend to learn specific sets of defenses at a time; against punches, kicks, locks, throws, etc.  So there is a legitimate argument of how do you learn randomness if you don't spar?  I think that is something the student must do on their own.  One, two, and three step sparring in TKD has its strength there.  But even then, the student should learn indicators of the likely attack so they can better respond.  We need to do those things if we are going to be effective, and we need to be able to adjust quickly, because we tend to move into attacks.  Speed and accuracy are essential!

Could we better learn from one, two and three step sparring?  Perhaps.  But apparently the old masters didn't think so.  My ideal consisted on never having a preferred defense.  I was taught more than one defense against any type of attack, and I would just allow my mind to spring to one without thinking.  I had no specific response that I would always use.  I think it worked well for me, but YMMV.

When I studied TKD many years ago, and in my Hapkido training, we weren't taught to take any blows but blocks.  Those were done full force.  It hurt a lot for a while, and leg blocks with a leg tended to hurt anytime.  But we coped.  If we were striking or kicking, we learned control.  From reading here, that doesn't seem to be taught much.  The idea was that if we had sufficient control to stop 1/8 to 1/4 inch from a person, we could stop 1/2 to 1 inch inside a person.  We learned to do that making adjustments quickly as we struck.  It can be done.  But it doesn't seem to be taught much these days.

A reason to use more than one opponent in free sparring is to learn how to confuse opponents in whatever way so you can pick and choose those you will do the most damage to.  That I think has value.  Why wasn't that done in the Hapkido I learned?  I don't know, other than perhaps I hadn't reached a level where I could do that without hurting or damaging joints, or fellow students hadn't learned to protect themselves well.

But my personal belief is that sparring, all types of sparring (up to the second page I think I only saw one mention of one step sparring), has value, even in grappling arts.  But free sparring is very dangerous in our art, and can only be done with great care, which might defeat its effectiveness.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 27, 2014)

Okay.



SteveNC said:


> Chris
> 
> Maybe I should just create a blog detailing every thought I ever had on the subject of self defense. You could read it once, tell me everything that sucks about it (probably the majority) and then be done with it.



Do you really want to start travelling down that path, Steve? I've really been incredibly gentle so far, and only commented on what I disagree with... you're free to (hell, you're welcome and invited to) counter with anything you want. Kinda the point of a discussion forum, you know... not for you to just get upset when your ideas are challenged. 



Kframe said:


> Ya you do realize that most police here are woefully undertrained. When I said 17hours I was not joking. That is all the proficiency training they get here. That includes Tactics and marksmanship. How do I know, I have several family members on the force.  The only ones with quality training are the swat and srt guys, and the rare few that do there own training.
> 
> No the police don't typically do a good job protecting civillians. Just look to NYC for gods sake. They kill Civvies by accident frequently there. The statistics show that cops typically have a HORRID hit percentage, on the order of 17% of shots fired hit the opponent.



Have you considered that you're not quite getting what the police's job is? Despite having several family members on the force, you really seem to be expecting them to be what you think they should be, rather than looking at what they actually are.



Kframe said:


> Chris non of that changes the fact that I put in more time and more rounds down range then most of the dept here.. Sorry nothing you say can change the reality of my firearms training.. I have been doing it for 10 years, with training from sources.   Most cops put 200 rounds a year in training, I do that in aday when im on the ball seriously training. With regards to cops in my town, I DO TRAIN MORE.  So no I didn't live up to your and JKS progressive BS.



So? I'm actually serious here, what's the point you're making? It really isn't about who trains more, but who trains what, and why... the police have to train in a large and broad number of areas, from legal to clerical, from physical to academic, and more... and when it comes to firearms, the training needs to address the need, which is the job expected... and, here's a hint, a cops job is not to shoot people. So who cares if you fire more rounds? It's meaningless. It's such a tiny, low priority skill in the repertoire of an average police officers training that I'm not surprised you'd spend more time on the range. I'm also not impressed by it, either.

To take this to the thread topic, I have no doubt whatsoever that a MMA competitor would eat me alive in an MMA match, because they spend more time training that. But, in my context, and with my needs, that's thoroughly meaningless and unimpressive... you spar more, so you're better at sparring? Good for you. I'll take my skills outside of that arena any day of the week. You shoot more than most police officers? Great, good for you. I'm still going to go with them for understanding when and why a firearm needs to be put in the equation in the first place, let alone all other areas of their job.

But I'm going to address something a bit off topic here... you've labeled both JKS and myself as "progressive"... not being American, not involved or really interested in American political terminology and rhetoric, I'm a little unsure of why being "progressive" would be a bad thing... I mean, the word implies someone who is looking to develop, progress, improve, and further the society around them, rather than staying lost in an archaic, outdated, staid, pointless, and dangerous practices of the past. But hey, I use a dictionary to define words... it seems sometimes that American politics likes to use diametrically opposed definitions... "Liberal" being the "enemy of freedom", when "liberal" refers to the ideology of liberty (freedom) and support of liberation (freedom) from close-minded attitudes and thinking... "Conservative" being the guys concerned with not infringing on any of these "freedoms", when "conservative" actually means safe, restrained, a lack of embellishment, holding to old (safe) ideas, and is fairly well the opposite of freedom, as it's constrained by it's own limitations (conserving it's ideals)... So, if you're going to label me "progressive" because I'm wanting the world to improve, and for you (as a culture) to move past the paranoia and violent fantasies of your culture, I'm pretty fine with that.



Kframe said:


> Secondly Why in gods name, if im that close to a shooter would not take the shot? Just run away from him and let him continue shooting when I can do something right now and im close?  By close im talking with in 20feet.  Any further then that and im gonna run, simple as that.


 
There are any of a number of reasons, ranging from you potentially putting yourself (and those around you) in more danger than you need to be, to the psychological trauma you are going to put yourself through whether you manage to hit him or not, to getting in the way of the actual law enforcement who are there to take care of it themselves (it's their job, not yours), to it being more of a "hero fantasy" than anything really based in reality, and far, far more. Oh, and any further than 20 feet, assess before you run. It might not be the safest option.  



Kframe said:


> Its nice to know you think im crazy. Sorry to burst your bubble but out side of some confidence issues im just fine.   Unless your a Doctor in Psychology don't pretend to analyze me.. If you truly have some issue with me then PM me with it and lets work it out.



Son, no-one has used the word "crazy" to describe you except you. I don't have an issue with you. But I can see yours. And that's fine, really... but you might not be aware of just how much you're actually saying. I really don't need a doctorate to be able to see this, by the way... but you might be rather surprised at just what I can see.



Kframe said:


> Sometimes Chris talking to you is like handling a  double edged sword. On one hand you can be nice and great to chat with, then on the other you cut and sting.  It makes conversation with you difficult.



What you get from me is honest responses, mate. You ask questions, you get answers. You make statements, you get corrections (if needed). You run rhetoric, you get an argument. There is no difference between what you think is me being "nice" and what you think is me "cutting and stinging" except in the way you read it. But yeah, the double edged sword analogy is fairly apt.



SteveNC said:


> Agree. I was a sniper in various recon units during my 20 year service and when I shoot with LEO's I am often amazed at the less than average ability of many of them to handle their service weapon. I take this sort of thing seriously........Not trying to bash the profession in any way, shape or form so hope nobody takes the comment negatively. I have seen some cops that handed me my **** on the "pistol" range



Again, so? You were trained as a sniper (someone who's job is pretty simply to shoot other people, with specialist tools, in a particular context, with a high emphasis on the marksmanship), which police aren't (other than similar specialist in SWAT and the like), as it's simply not their job. The job of the police is not to shoot people.



Kframe said:


> Not to derail this thread with the 2a talk, ill start another thread on the Firearms section for us to discuss this issue separately.
> 
> I failed to return to MT in time to edit my previous post, so ill say im sorry to JKS and Chris Parker for calling their POV "progressive BS".  I am very passionate about my 2a rights and when it comes to arguing for them I am not doing the cuase any favors. I have yet to learn how to debate and post effectively like the veterans here. I as you may know, tend to free type my thoughts, from my brain to my keyboard with little filter between. I must learn a filter and learn to not post emotionally for emotional posts are not helping my position nor any debate on either side of any issue.  So for my part in overreacting I apologize.



Okay. 



Kframe said:


> I don't know what my issue is.. When I feel like I was insulted(like I felt with JKS and Chris Parkers post) I just let go my feelings from my head. I was angry and I needed to get it out. TBH though it added nothing to thread or the side discussion. So ya I still have much to learn about proper debate and as CP is quick to point out patience.



The only insults were ones you imagined, you realise. JKS didn't insult you, or CCW holders, and I simply gave you some observations about the things you are revealing in your posts. You jumped the gun in both cases, reading attacks and implications where there weren't any. So I'll offer a bit of advice that has served me well... most people just don't listen. Most people, when you're talking to them, aren't listening to what you're saying past the first few words, as they're already deciding what they're going to say in response. In order to do that, they have to decide first what's going to be said by the first person... which could easily be very different to what they're actually saying... and stop listening to what's really being said. So, take a moment when someone is saying something, and try to listen to what's actually being said, rather than what you expect is being said. When it comes to the written word, as tone is so hard to convey, try to read it in as many different tones, with as many shades of meaning as you can... then see if you can figure out which is the most likely to have been meant. That might help in how you respond... and can help by giving the filter time to kick in, so to speak. 



Kframe said:


> Back to the topic at hand.
> 
> So One thing that I hear on sherdog and other mma forums is that those that spar do better in real situations then those that don't.  Now the discussion up to this point is that, that is not true. So does anyone have any numbers or facts to back either side of that argument up? Maybe some anecdotal evidence? Not just the differences between a real attack and sparring but something from people that have had both types of training and been in real situations?



Right, back to the thread...

Okay, some anecdotes... I guess we'll start with me, yeah? I'll give a couple of my experiences, as well as some of the experiences of some of my students, and from there you can make up your own mind as to the usefulness of such stories (to my mind, anecdotal evidence is only evidence that something might have happened once, so it's not a big thing for me... and, as for stats, well, that's simply not realistic in this regard... we'll hopefully see why). Let's start with my two best self defence situations, then go to a few other "successes", and go from there. Thing is, most of my stories don't actually feature violence... which is one reason that stats aren't really something that's possible to get in any meaningful way.

First off, my favourite story... A number of years ago, a friend of mine (who was a singer with a band) invited me to see them play. I didn't know where it the venue was, so asked about dress code, and was told that it was a "nice place, kinda upmarket", so I dressed appropriately (suit, shirt, nice shoes... I looked great). Thing is, the bar was actually in our Western suburbs, which is not a particularly upmarket place... and my suit looked rather out of place with the black jeans, metal band t-shirts, and tattoos on show. Hmm... So, knowing full well that I stood out pretty badly (my house was around an hour away, and I didn't drive, so going home to change wasn't an option), I did what I could to stick to the walls and not get too noticed, which worked until after the gig. As my friends band was finishing, three guys came in, went straight to the bar, ordered beers, and began looking around. The band finished, my friend came over for praise, and the group packed up... which took about 20 minutes or so. While they were loading the van, my friend and I were talking (she was being congratulated on the gig), and over her shoulder, I saw one of the guys split off and circle around in our direction. Past us was the ladies bathroom, a pool table (which had been switched off for the night, as well as the light above it)... the door to the gents was about 30 feet directly in front of me. This guy, watching us from the corner of his eye, circled around, going straight past the entrance to the guys bathroom (without stopping to look), getting closer and closer to us... so I stopped acting like I didn't notice him, and stared directly at him, catching his eye. He stopped dead, stared back, then started to yell abuse ("What the f you lookin' at, huh?") as he backed off. I mentioned to my friend it was time to leave, and, once we were out, I explained why we had to leave so suddenly. "Oh, yeah, those guys... they're here most weekends, they always pick someone and gang up on them to beat the hell out of them". Thanks for the heads up, sweetheart... 

So, no violence, but an attempted ambush averted due to awareness and removing the element of surprise used by a predator. Good result in my book.

Second one... same friend, different bar, watching another friend's band. An hour or so in, a guy comes in and keeps trying to ingratiate himself with all the girls, including my friends... they're all early 20's, he's probably nearing 50 and drunk. I keep my eyes on him, and run interference by joining in the conversations he's trying to start. As he turns around and leans over to get his drink, I notice the handles of a couple of knives in his belt. So, he's drunk, leering all over my friends, and carrying knives... what do I do? I get my friends, and tell them it's time to hit another bar (our friends band has finished playing). On the way out, I grab the security there, and give them a heads up in case anything happens with the guy.

So, no violence, but awareness and calm action removed myself and my friends from a potential situation, and the people who's job it is to deal with it are given a heads up. Good result in my book.

Most of my self defence stories are like that, of course... violence is a minimalist aspect of self defence, and generally means that there's been a major breakdown on a number of levels along the way. Speaking of...

Then there was the night an ex came round with a group of guys, including the hopeful new beau... unable to get me out of my house, they went to my fuse box and switched off the power to draw me out. I went out (first mistake), rather than calling the cops about the trespass. When I went out, I tried to talk to my ex, walking directly towards her (second mistake), which allowed a couple of the guys to get behind me. As I approached her, the hopeful new beau stepped in front of me, and, as I was a little upset at the time, I just pushed him aside and continued towards my ex (third mistake). So, let's look at this... I've gone out into a situation where I'm outnumbered 5 to 1 (not counting my ex) at night, with no power (or light), ignored the threat of the group, allowed them to surround me, and then aggravated the "pack leader" of the group. So, not surprisingly, the next thing that happened was that I was punched in the back of the head. Hmm, it's not going well. I turn around into another punch (I'm really not doing well here...), which sees me starting to cover just to protect myself. The other guys decide to join in, and I start doing the best thing I've done so far... I move to the outside of the group, and get back towards my door. One or two hits to disengage, I get inside, lock the door, and call the police to deal with things. Just for fun, though, while her friends were attacking me, my ex was also calling the police against me... for fighting her friends... who were trespassing on my property... hmm... perhaps it's not a bad thing that relationship ended... All in all, a reasonable result (no real injuries, a fairly quick escape) to a situation I should never have been in.

Physical with a better result? Glad you asked... A friend of mine was going away to Europe for a year and a half, so we were holding a going-away party for her in a hired Scout Hall. It was a fun night, lots of music, pretty girls, you know the drill. I don't drink, so that wasn't really anything that I was interested in, but others certainly seemed to be enjoying that aspect... including the brother of the girl who was going away. We didn't know it at the time, but he was an undiagnosed schizophrenic, suffering from violent outbursts and other less obvious symptoms. Over the course of the night, he perhaps had a bit more to drink than he should have had, and began talking to three girls in the kitchen of the hall we were using... none of the girls were particularly thrilled to be caught there, and kept trying to walk away... which he didn't really like. He began yelling, then picking up anything not stuck down in the kitchen, and smashing it into anything that was... doors, cupboards, kettles, toaster, microwave... so I came to see what was going on. Asking him what he was doing, he just glared, then tried charging past me... as he did, one of my arms slipped under his, bringing it behind his back, and my other arm wrapped around his upper chest in a security hold, and held him as he struggled for a few seconds. Then, I walked him over to a beanbag on the ground nearby, and brought him to the ground, talking him down. Once he calmed down a bit, I released the hold, and stayed with him, chatting, to ensure he wasn't about to have another outburst. Good result again.

A different party, and another guy who might have had a bit too much to drink, and isn't too skilled on picking up on certain signals... namely the ones that say "hey, you know that guy she's been holding the arm of all night? That's her boyfriend..." This is a relatively simple one. My girlfriend at the time was getting a bit too much attention from someone, and when I suggested that perhaps he'd have better luck with some other girls, he told me to, well, find a substitute for my girlfriend in myself, and tried to push me away. Okay, not worth us hanging around here, time to leave, so I started to lead my girl out and away, getting myself between the guy and her, and he reached out, grabbed my shoulder, and pulled me around, screaming abuse, and still offering suggestions for very personal satisfaction... I backed away, he followed, so I struck, and he went down. We left. Good result.

There are other stories like these, but that's a good cross-section of situations I've been in in the last 20 years or so (since switching to non-sparring systems dominantly). I also have a range of stories of my students, including ones where they applied awareness, verbal de-escalation, pre-emptive strikes, a case of a gun disarm from my instructor, a knife defence/disarm from a student of mine, and more. No sparring for any of these guys, by the way. Instead, I think I'll give a story from when I did sparring arts exclusively. 

When I was young, I trained in Tani-ha Shito Ryu Shukokai Karate-do, then in Rhee Tae-Kwon Do. Shukokai was developed in a large part specifically to gain success in tournaments (which is where Tani got his fame), and, although there weren't many tournaments, that's where the crux of the training had it's basis (shorter, higher postures, the use of "sparring combinations" in addition to kata and ippon kumite drills, and so on), and TKD, well, was TKD. So, when one of the other kids at my school decided to not like me, it escalated the way only a school-yard situation can, into a peer-pressured public fight. That's fine, I've trained in martial arts that teach fighting for a couple of years now, I'll be fine. Just one thing... what are the rules of a school-yard fight? As I went to ask that very question (hey, I was young...), I found myself in a headlock, with a fist pummelling my face. I still didn't know what I was allowed to do (my mothers voice was in my ears telling me that I shouldn't ever have to fight, and if I did, I shouldn't ever kick... great advice for a TKD student, huh?), and my training telling me that we should step back and start again clean. That one didn't go well.

I will note here, though, that I was actually pretty good at sparring... I had won a couple of in-house tournaments, and was consistently "successful" in my sparring in class... but it really gave me quite a false image of what to expect, as well as giving me a set of skills that simply weren't applicable for that situation. My non-sparring training, on the other hand, has done quite nicely in that regard.



K-man said:


> I'll throw a couple of things into the mix. The biggest problem I find is the guys who spar tend to engage and disengage. What I teach is to get it, trap and use knees and elbows. In my style of fighting there is not much room for throwing punches or kicking.


 
Engage, disengage, re-engage is one issue... the tactic of moving in to trap is, of course, just one approach. Disengaging to escape is another. The problem with relying on only one (or dominantly one) tactic is that there can be any number of situations that that's just not useful, or optimal for.  



K-man said:


> The next problem is when a punch is thrown or even a kick the guys who spar, in the conventional sense, often move back and out of the way where I teach to deflect and enter. They tell me it is the hardest thing for them to change.
> :asian:



Again, just a tactical difference, and needs to be matched to the situation. I teach both, for instance, moving away (defensively or evasively), and moving in (offensively), as each encounter will require a different response.



Kframe said:


> Ya I noticed that as well. BBT, at least up to what I have seen from the seniors, is kinda the same way. Though from what I have been told we have a distance we prefer. It feels as if we don't want to be in the typical MMA clinch distance but just outside it.  Kukan I think it is called, or as my instructor called it the tactical space between us and them.



Hmm, this can get a little, uh, vague, but yeah, there is a preferred distance (for the record, each Ryu-ha has it's own sense of distance, separate and distinct from each other), and the term for distance is ma-ai (which pretty literally means "meeting interval", or the distance between two meeting/engaging parties). The concept of Kukan is a little more nebulous, and refers to the space surrounding both the opponent and yourself (both separately and together)... it's used in the management of yourself and your opponent, not only physically, but "spiritually" and psychologically as well. Then, there's the Bujinkan distancing, which is a bit different to the ma-ai of the Ryu-ha... hmm...  



Kframe said:


> I think that is partly why BJJ/grapplers do so well against pure strikers in a mma sense.  Were the pure strikers are basically sparring but at full speed, staying to the outside and doing the engage/disengage dance, the grappler is covering and crashing. They don't screw around at that distance they cover their head, eat a few shots on the way in, and engage the deep clinch and take down. The Gracies actually only teach 2 ranges for fighting. One is the "outside" which is so far out your out of kicking range and then there is the "clinch". They don't stand in between. They are either so far out you cant hit them, or so far in that  your strikes have less effectiveness, and they can use there takedowns on you.   I honestly think that GJJ(not the same as BJJ) is a good system for self defense, at least for some situations.



It really comes down to who can control their distancing better. The fact that the BJJ guys don't mind wearing a bit on the way in is a factor, sure, but all it really means is that they are better at choosing and maintaining their distance. For the record, you'll learn a lot more about distance in BBT, as you'll need to deal with (and understand) stand-up striking and kicking range, outside of engagement range, a mid-grappling range (joint locks etc), a close-grappling range (throws, chokes), some ground-range methods (from sitting through to actually on the ground), and a whole host of weaponry ranges, from short weapons such as knife, through to long weapons such as Bo, spear, and naginata, as well as projectile weapons. The idea is to get you comfortable at any of these ranges, and be able to move from one to another as needed (note: you don't want to match the range your opponent chooses, but instead to take them to a range they don't like... such as keeping a BJJ guy in that striking range). 



Kframe said:


> You wont find it on youtube the the GJJ system actually spends a lot of time(for BJJ at least) on stand up street defense. Such as knife defense and stick defense, gun disarms and a smattering of standing arm locks.  Here is a sample of the knife defense they teach.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Er... yeah... I've gone through that knife defence clip before, and I wouldn't personally rely on it at all... there's no control until too late in the action, there's no countering of the counter-pull that would happen (which would result in a tip-rip at the least), the control at the end isn't as tight as it could be, and a few other things. As far as the arm-bar, it's (honestly) rather inferior to the way we do it, so you know... which is seen in the example of it being used in "self defence". It's too lacking in control, not tight enough, too easy to back out of (which is what happens), and so on. There wasn't much that I found too impressive in the stand-up material, honestly, as most of it is done better in Judo or other arts. Of course, I'm a little confused as to why you might think we didn't think BJJ had any stand-up... 



Kframe said:


> I guess what im saying is that, I am starting to see that sparring strategies are not all the suited to the street. Now I think the Cover and crash tactics of GJJ are good, but still it has a heavy sports emphasis. At least they are putting in time on street applicable things.


 
Okay. 



Kframe said:


> K man, it never occurred to me just why sparring was some times deleterious to street defense, until your post. It made me think about things we didn't do. We didn't use elbows or knees in sparring, or any other vicious tech.  Our stand up  was  mostly the in out engage disengage quick bursts of striking bit that you see. Though sometimes we would clinch and instead of striking from clinch, we go for a hip toss and ground fight. So much we could be doing but, we don't. In fact im vary much aware of what im doing in sparring, and the things I cant do I just didn't even think of looking for openings for them. In fact that stuff never really entered my mind.  I always had to be mindfull of my partner even though were trying to nail each other.


 
Yeah... that's not the important aspect, though. As I've said, the techniques really don't mean much, as it's actually all about the application and tactical response. And that's where the real difference is. 



Kframe said:


> So I think im getting closer. To recap, I never really thought about the off limits stuff(for mma) during sparring. Our sparring followed a pattern(as outlined above), unless I was loosing badly to a instructor or competing fighter then it  tended to end quickly. Then we disengage and step back, touch gloves and I try again.  So hmm.   I remember doing better as a pure counter fighter, but getting admonished for not being aggressive enough. So id move in to attack and get creamed. Of course my defense at that time was not fully developed.


 
And that (the idea of "you're not aggressive enough", which is about winning competitions, is what I mean when I talk about the tactical responses being the real difference.  



Kframe said:


> I think its not the free sparring that is the issue, but the way it is utilized. They way we sparred, made us cautious in a aggressive way.   Usually clinching only happened when someone was loosing the standup.



It's the context of the sparring, how it's used, the aims, and so on.



Kframe said:


> I do remember my most epic moment that didn't follow the typical sparring routine. TKD BB had joined us, he had like 4 years in tkd, and me at 6months. We were sparring full rules. I remember he came in with a front kick, and instead of backing up and playing to the outside like always, I side stepped and came in with a strike and forcefully took him down for gnp.. God it was awesome to dismantle him.  Watch the look in his eye as I made it past his kick, with my strikes hitting home. That look of "OH ---".



Yeah... again, that's an emotional "high" that Tony was talking about earlier. I mean, happy for you, but... not really much to do with anything. 



Kframe said:


> So I guess for sparring to be  more productive for self defense, I guess it needs to be changed a bit. So Lets assume a mma place wants to dedicate a few rounds of sparring to a more self defense orientation. What changes should they make first??



Well, firstly I'd ask why they'd want to. It's not part of MMA, and just takes time away from training MMA. Next, I'd advise them to not worry about dedicating "a few rounds of sparring" to self defence... it's really just not the right approach. The first thing they'd need to do is to recognize what the differences are, then develop a completely separate curriculum to deal with it. I'd recommend they use the physical skill sets of MMA as a framework, but the tactical applications would need to be vastly altered. There'd be absolutely no point in looking at doing anything like that in a sparring context until they got that down first, otherwise they'd just be sparring a skill set they didn't have.



K-man said:


> I like the scenario based fighting best. Pick your poison, the guy standing beside you in the pub. The guy on the street asking for something, walking along and someone deliberately walking into you, straight out attack with a weapon etc. then do that against two guys etc. (Just don't forget the mouth guard and groin guard.) Then get a dozen guys together forming a circle. Initially taking turns to attack, then several at a time.
> :asian:



A lot of that (the circle etc) are more acclimation drills than scenario drills, similar to Geoff Thompson's Animal Day training (highly recommended as well, by the way!), I'd also add adrenaline drills, which can take a number of forms.


----------



## MJS (Jan 27, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm. Not much here that I agree with... yes, you can talk your way out of conflict with a predator, but not in the way most think of as "talking your way out of things". A blindside attack is one launched from an unseen position, and negates any pre-emptive striking (you've already been hit, nothing pre-emptive about what you'd do), so it's not the right context for "hit first", or anything else mentioned. As far as the threat being recognised, I also wouldn't say there's no good excuse for a fight to occur... but we're really getting into the broader range of possible situations, and at that point, the only thing you can really say is that there aren't any absolutes.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, none of those are "best" for self defence... you're getting focused on a physical action, which is not the way to approach it (I've mentioned previously that "the technique aren't the important thing"...). Within a self defence scenario, each of those might indeed be your best physical tool to apply... but the tool itself is really nothing. If you really know what you're doing, it won't matter too much what you use, as they can all have relatively equal value. For the record, I teach primarily open hand methods as well... but not for the reasons you've listed.




Of course, talking your way out, if possible, should be done.  But, if talking isn't working or if there's no time, then a pre-emptive strike should happen.  I mean, why wait until the guy's punch is half way to hitting you?  His actions of aggression, moving towards me, drawing his hand back, etc., are enough for me.  

As for the rest...you're right...what works for me, might not work for you, and so forth.  IMHO though, the open handed strikes, as well as a hammerfist, elbow, etc, are most likely going to result in less of a chance for injury to the defender, rather than a closed hand.  Not saying a closed fist won't work or isn't effective.  I'm simply saying if I use an open hand strike to the guys ear, I'm most likely going to run less of a chance of injury than if I punch the guy.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 27, 2014)

Kframe said:


> So I guess for sparring to be  more productive for self defense, I guess it needs to be changed a bit. So Lets assume a mma place wants to dedicate a few rounds of sparring to a more self defense orientation. What changes should they make first??



I would set up different scenarios with asymmetric rules and victory conditions.  Some examples that I've played with or heard of other people trying:

Partner A has friends coming soon, partner B does not.  Start with partner A getting a cooperative takedown.  The match begins as soon as B hits the ground.  Victory conditions for A are to get a submission or hold B down until time expires (when his friends would be arriving to help). Victory conditions for B are to get up and escape off the edge of the mat before A's friends arrive.

Attacker is designated secretly by the instructor beforehand.  The defender is positioned in the middle of a milling crowd with the other students moving around and jostling at close quarters.  The attacker will pick his best moment to grab the defender in a surprise headlock and either drag him to the ground or bend him over and start punching.  (No static headlocks - the attacker should be trying to dominate the whole time.) The defender has to escape and preferably finish his assailant.

Partner A starts out in the cage at the opposite side from the exit.  Partner B starts between A and the exit. Victory conditions for A are to get to the exit.  Victory conditions for B are to keep A in the cage and land as many punches as possible.

Start class sparring as normal, but a randomly selected student may have a hidden training knife which he will pull out and use whenever he feels like he is losing the match.  Alternately, the instructor may toss a training knife onto the ground at some point in the match where either participant might be able to grab it.

Start sparring on the ground with one partner on top.  At some point several "friends" of one participant will run up and start attacking their friend's opponent.  That partner needs to disengage and escape as quickly as possible.

The possibilities are endless.  The goal is that after engaging in enough of these exercises you can lose your attachment to the dueling mentality and adjust to whatever your objective needs to be in a given situation.

(BTW - these are not full blown realistic scenario drills such as Chris and SteveNC were describing.  They're just variations on sparring designed to open your mind to different possibilities.)


----------



## MJS (Jan 27, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Back to the topic at hand.
> 
> So One thing that I hear on sherdog and other mma forums is that those that spar do better in real situations then those that don't.  Now the discussion up to this point is that, that is not true. So does anyone have any numbers or facts to back either side of that argument up? Maybe some anecdotal evidence? Not just the differences between a real attack and sparring but something from people that have had both types of training and been in real situations?



I mentioned, earlier in this thread I believe, of a few different ways that I spar.  As for evidence...I have none.  Personally, I don't run around with a video camera nor do I have a amateur/pro record.  I can only go off personal experience.  As you probably noticed by now, you're going to get a mixed review on this topic.  Some feel it's useful, others feel it isn't.  IMO, something needs to be done in the training, to give a more 'real' feeling, for lack of better words.


----------



## K-man (Jan 27, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Engage, disengage, re-engage is one issue... the tactic of moving in to trap is, of course, just one approach. Disengaging to escape is another. The problem with relying on only one (or dominantly one) tactic is that there can be any number of situations that that's just not useful, or optimal for.
> 
> Engaging and disengaging in a non-sporting environment is really quite different. I teach to engage, do what you need to do, then disengage.  And certainly you can disengage to escape, but neither of those really apply in a competition context, particularly the point sparring type context where if you were to clinch you are separated and warned or penalised. In one way you can really only disengage where you have that option. In a situation where you are not in control your opponent could choose to prevent your disengaging. In the sporting situation where you have no contact to control, your opponent had as many options as you do. In the situations you outlined above you actually disengaged before there was a real involvement, again an impossibility in a sporting context.
> 
> ...


Damn it Chris! If I didn't know you better I'd say you were arguing with me for the sake of arguing!


----------



## Kframe (Jan 27, 2014)

Chris, I think we all agree that the techniques are not as important as the awareness and verbal judo skills that must be apart of self defense. I think most of us are referring to that point when we failed that and its now physical. 

 During your paragraph regarding range, you mentioned keeping a BJJ/grappler in striking range and out of grappling range. I agree with that. The minor issue im having and I have discussed it with my teacher is that bbt, the striking I have mainly seen has always been same foot same side striking. Now I know thanks to your PM'S that the Japanese developed there own striking style due to the nature of they development, but physically and martially.  Now according to my teacher we do rear side striking, with out stepping forward into another stance, its just not as prominent and we approach it differently.    Having to step with each strike(regardless of fist type used) seams and feels a lot slower to execute then a typical 1-2.. 

If we are going to be using movement and distance to keep a grappler in a range he is weakest, I would think being able to throw speedier strikes would behoove us? I just feel slower when trying to string together strikes (in the air) with the constant stepping in to strikes. Now we didn't have a lot of time in class to deal with my question as it was late, but he said ill understand as time goes on.  They did demonstrate how it is done in the kata, and it of course was the step strike/ step strike same side deal. 

Unless having a rapid barrage of strikes isn't what this art is about. Wonder if it is more about fewer but stronger well placed hits. Wouldn't that mean spending more time controlling the spacing of a grappler if im only getting a shot in every now and then?  Still as I type that, it sounds like a sparring problem, but I cant help but wonder how it would play out on the street in self defense. A lot of people Here in the states wrestle in their youth, so basic grappling skill is present in a lot of would be miscreants. 

Honestly im less worried about strikers then I am grapplers.  Grapplers are damned frightening in any setting. Especially for me now that im in a art that operates in the same range they do.


----------



## CNida (Jan 27, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, firstly I'd ask why they'd want to. It's not part of MMA, and just takes time away from training MMA. Next, I'd advise them to not worry about dedicating "a few rounds of sparring" to self defence... it's really just not the right approach. The first thing they'd need to do is to recognize what the differences are, then develop a completely separate curriculum to deal with it. I'd recommend they use the physical skill sets of MMA as a framework, but the tactical applications would need to be vastly altered. There'd be absolutely no point in looking at doing anything like that in a sparring context until they got that down first, otherwise they'd just be sparring a skill set they didn't have.



Chris, I am curious. I have seen you mention the "physical skill sets of MMA" a few times. Which skill sets, specifically, were you referring to, and in what ways do you think they are effective in the "violent" portion of self defense?


____________________________

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens."


----------



## K-man (Jan 27, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Honestly im less worried about strikers then I am grapplers.  Grapplers are damned frightening in any setting. Especially for me now that im in a art that operates in the same range they do.


The fallacy here is that apart from boxers, every style contains grappling range techniques. Wrestlers grab, Jujutsu is grappling, Aikido is utilising the same space, traditional CMA and karate incorporate grappling. It is the untrained who are likely to be raining punches and kicks from outside grappling range. Just another reason why the sparring you normally see is for competition. Best just become comfortable with hands on techniques.
:asian:


----------



## Blindside (Jan 27, 2014)

K-man said:


> The fallacy here is that apart from boxers, every style contains grappling range techniques. Wrestlers grab, Jujutsu is grappling, Aikido is utilising the same space, traditional CMA and karate incorporate grappling. It is the untrained who are likely to be raining punches and kicks from outside grappling range. Just another reason why the sparring you normally see is for competition. Best just become comfortable with hands on techniques.
> :asian:



Boxers grab when they are tired or hurt....


----------



## CNida (Jan 27, 2014)

Blindside said:


> Boxers grab when they are tired or hurt....



I also believe that most boxers DO train some clinchwork... Obviously no throws or takedowns but positioning. I think I heard during one of Money Mayweather's fights that he was training some clinch stuff with Rich Franklin during his preparation for that particular fight. Can't remember the fight though.


____________________________

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens."


----------



## K-man (Jan 28, 2014)

Blindside said:


> Boxers grab when they are tired or hurt....


I agree and I nearly put it in my post. The difference is that they are coming close for protection from punches. Against a trained MA they have now positioned themselves to be caught by knees and elbows. You could probably throw a few karate and TKD guys in with the boxers too as being out of their element but they should at least have some skills to work at close range if required.
:asian:


----------



## SteveNC (Jan 28, 2014)

Clinching is a staple in my instruction. So much control and a plethora of tactics you can utilize


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 28, 2014)

MJS said:


> Of course, talking your way out, if possible, should be done.  But, if talking isn't working or if there's no time, then a pre-emptive strike should happen.  I mean, why wait until the guy's punch is half way to hitting you?  His actions of aggression, moving towards me, drawing his hand back, etc., are enough for me.



Well... yes. Kinda what I was saying when I said that the blindside attack negates the pre-emptive strike tactic. Pre-empts are probably the most common thing I teach, when it comes to physical methods... in fact, I'm teaching that tactic right now.



MJS said:


> As for the rest...you're right...what works for me, might not work for you, and so forth.  IMHO though, the open handed strikes, as well as a hammerfist, elbow, etc, are most likely going to result in less of a chance for injury to the defender, rather than a closed hand.  Not saying a closed fist won't work or isn't effective.  I'm simply saying if I use an open hand strike to the guys ear, I'm most likely going to run less of a chance of injury than if I punch the guy.



Yeah, again, we're in agreement (I'd target the jaw rather than the ear, but that's it).



K-man said:


> _Engaging and disengaging in a non-sporting environment is really quite different. I teach to engage, do what you need to do, then disengage. And certainly you can disengage to escape, but neither of those really apply in a competition context, particularly the point sparring type context where if you were to clinch you are separated and warned or penalised. In one way you can really only disengage where you have that option. In a situation where you are not in control your opponent could choose to prevent your disengaging. In the sporting situation where you have no contact to control, your opponent had as many options as you do. In the situations you outlined above you actually disengaged before there was a real involvement, again an impossibility in a sporting context._



Not sure how this was an argument to my comments... I agree that it's all about the context itself, I say that often enough myself, but all I was saying was that relying on a single tactic when you don't know exactly what you'll face, or the restrictions that will exist (in a self defence situation) can lead to trouble.



K-man said:


> _Sure, moving out of range is an option but again it depends on how you read the situation. If a guy has moved yo attack you it is pretty certain that if you move back he is just going to attack again, this time with the knowledge that you have some avoidance training. If I move back out of range, as you might see with an attack with a weapon, I will be looking to move straight back in once the attack has passed by. Again totally different to the conventional point sparring scenario where you jump in, score a point, then get out of range ready to do it again. In a real life situation I am normally going to wait for the attack to come to me. Then, if it doesn't I won't have to do anything. In the sparring situation, I would be penalised for not showing enough aggression._



Hmm... no, don't think I can agree with that. For one thing, we (human beings) are hardwired in certain ways... one of those ways is to move back (straight back, along what is called the Primal Line) when faced with a sudden attack. So, in the majority of cases, the first thing that you'll do in any real attack scenario is to move back... all I was suggesting was a method of using this natural, built-in skill in a tactical fashion by not fighting against it. I do agree with the sparring/competition comments, of course.



K-man said:


> _True, but I'm trying to describe training that is available that works on building skill and confidence without going down the 'sparring' path._



Cool, I was just clarifying that those drills, valuable though they are, aren't actually the scenario drills being discussed.



K-man said:


> Damn it Chris! If I didn't know you better I'd say you were arguing with me for the sake of arguing!



More for clarification, my friend... oh, and remind me to clear some room and send you a PM with an invitation... keep forgetting... unless you still have my email address?



Kframe said:


> Chris, I think we all agree that the techniques are not as important as the awareness and verbal judo skills that must be apart of self defense. I think most of us are referring to that point when we failed that and its now physical.



Yeah, I got that. But that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that tactical application (of the techniques) is far more important than whether you use an open palm, a closed fist, a head butt, or whatever. The actual technique you use (when it becomes a physical altercation) isn't really important... how you use it is.



Kframe said:


> During your paragraph regarding range, you mentioned keeping a BJJ/grappler in striking range and out of grappling range. I agree with that. The minor issue im having and I have discussed it with my teacher is that bbt, the striking I have mainly seen has always been same foot same side striking. Now I know thanks to your PM'S that the Japanese developed there own striking style due to the nature of they development, but physically and martially.  Now according to my teacher we do rear side striking, with out stepping forward into another stance, its just not as prominent and we approach it differently.    Having to step with each strike(regardless of fist type used) seams and feels a lot slower to execute then a typical 1-2..



Hmm. There's a lot here... first, and most importantly, you're still confusing contexts. Modern defence against modern grapplers need a modern response, and traditional Japanese arts simply aren't modern responses... really, stop looking at them expecting them to be. They're not designed against a modern grappler, why would they be optimised for it?

Now, from there, yes, we do use rear-hand striking, but that's a minor usage, really (probably about 90% lead hand/leg, 10% opposite, with Koto Ryu and Togakure Ryu having more than any of the other Ryu). And yes, stepping with each strike can be slower... but, again, you have to recognize what it's designed for (and against), and what it's not. Frankly, the arts of the Bujinkan (or any other similar system) don't care at all about handling a modern grappler... as it's just not in their context.



Kframe said:


> If we are going to be using movement and distance to keep a grappler in a range he is weakest, I would think being able to throw speedier strikes would behoove us? I just feel slower when trying to string together strikes (in the air) with the constant stepping in to strikes. Now we didn't have a lot of time in class to deal with my question as it was late, but he said ill understand as time goes on.  They did demonstrate how it is done in the kata, and it of course was the step strike/ step strike same side deal.



Who says that the techniques of the Bujinkan are even suited to handling a modern grappler?



Kframe said:


> Unless having a rapid barrage of strikes isn't what this art is about. Wonder if it is more about fewer but stronger well placed hits. Wouldn't that mean spending more time controlling the spacing of a grappler if im only getting a shot in every now and then?  Still as I type that, it sounds like a sparring problem, but I cant help but wonder how it would play out on the street in self defense. A lot of people Here in the states wrestle in their youth, so basic grappling skill is present in a lot of would be miscreants.



Yeah, we're far more about a deliberate, powerful hit, more surgical than anything else, not a barrage. As for the rest... really, don't expect to find answers to modern problems in the technical answers of the past.



Kframe said:


> Honestly im less worried about strikers then I am grapplers.  Grapplers are damned frightening in any setting. Especially for me now that im in a art that operates in the same range they do.



Eh, I'm not particularly concerned about grapplers... hell, we are grapplers.... we're just not ground fighters... 



CNida said:


> Chris, I am curious. I have seen you mention the "physical skill sets of MMA" a few times. Which skill sets, specifically, were you referring to, and in what ways do you think they are effective in the "violent" portion of self defense?



Sorry, I thought that was rather self-explanatory.... I'm talking about the physical methods found in MMA, seen in matches and training gyms, striking and kicking drawn from boxing and kickboxing (in different forms), takedowns and takedown defence from wrestling and Judo, ground work from BJJ etc. I was really just talking about the fact that there's nothing wrong or ineffective in the techniques found in MMA.


----------



## MJS (Jan 28, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Well... yes. Kinda what I was saying when I said that the blindside attack negates the pre-emptive strike tactic. Pre-empts are probably the most common thing I teach, when it comes to physical methods... in fact, I'm teaching that tactic right now.



Sounds good.   As for the use of avoidance you mentioned before....as I said, I agree.  If you can avoid the fight altogether, why not do it?  Such tactis have saved my *** many times. LOL.  





> Yeah, again, we're in agreement (I'd target the jaw rather than the ear, but that's it).



Sure, that too!


----------



## MJS (Jan 28, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Well... yes. Kinda what I was saying when I said that the blindside attack negates the pre-emptive strike tactic. Pre-empts are probably the most common thing I teach, when it comes to physical methods... in fact, I'm teaching that tactic right now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Question Chris.  Are the Bujinkan methods capable of dealing with a modern grappler or any modern attack for that matter?  I know you don't follow the Buj per se, so what makes the way you train, different?

Just trying to understand the arts better.


----------



## Kframe (Jan 28, 2014)

Cant type much on my phone. Chris, I get that the movements found in kata are from the past. However, what I was told is that this art dosent add techniques to deal with new threats we adapt what we already have. All of which is moot, as right now its more of a academic discussion with no bearing on my training at all to this point. I can only do what im told to do. 

I look to the past of our art, because we are always told we adapt the techniques to meet the current threats,  thus you have to look to the past to figure out the future. 


I do generally get the feeling that my issue with striking will be resolved with time I just like having information ahead of time. Even thought It wont be of any use lol..    The thing they mention a lot is not breaking structure. I wonder how you would manage to throw a proper taijutsu punch from the rear side with out stepping and breaking  structure.  

I think that mma to be adapted for self defense, needs to look at the technical stuff and see what needs to be changed. I don't think the ear muff boxer cover a lot tend to use as being all that effective with out gloves. You see it in mma all the time. Guys relying on that defense and still getting tagged there.  I think they need to develop something else.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 29, 2014)

MJS said:


> Question Chris.  Are the Bujinkan methods capable of dealing with a modern grappler or any modern attack for that matter?  I know you don't follow the Buj per se, so what makes the way you train, different?
> 
> Just trying to understand the arts better.



Oh boy... Look, when it comes to the Bujinkan in particular, it's quite difficult to answer. To look at the material that comes from the various Ryu within the system, then no, it's simply not geared up for that at all. Where it then gets into some rather grey areas is that, well, the traditional material (the actual methods of the Ryu that are found in the Bujinkans arts) might or might not be actually followed... or they might be done altered... or they might be ignored almost entirely, with instructors basically making up whatever they want. They might try to address modern situations (modern grapplers, modern striking forms etc), but just because one instructor/dojo does doesn't mean that the actual methods are found in the Bujinkan itself, just in that particular expression/approach. 

So, are they capable of handling modern attacks? Well, kinda, sure... there's the potential if an instructor has enough knowledge of what such attacks are actually like, and understands what needs to be altered to deal with it. But the actual, formal material (all of which comes from the Ryu-ha themselves), no, they're just not designed for it. In terms of what I do that's so different, well, for one thing, I don't pretend that the traditional material is anything to do with modern attacks... and I teach modern defensive methodologies completely separately.



Kframe said:


> Cant type much on my phone. Chris, I get that the movements found in kata are from the past. However, what I was told is that this art dosent add techniques to deal with new threats we adapt what we already have.



Yeah... look, not to say your instructor is lying or anything (I'm pretty sure they believe that), but that's garbage. The principles can be adapted (within reason), but the techniques absolutely have to be changed/added to. If you doubt it, try something like Ichimonji no Kata against a boxers attack from a boxing range...



Kframe said:


> All of which is moot, as right now its more of a academic discussion with no bearing on my training at all to this point. I can only do what im told to do.



Sure.



Kframe said:


> I look to the past of our art, because we are always told we adapt the techniques to meet the current threats,  thus you have to look to the past to figure out the future.


 
No. To understand current needs, you need to look to the present. To understand historical usage, you need to look to the past. To understand where the arts methods have come from, you have to look to the past. Big differences there... you might as well say that, in order to understand and use a machine gun, say, an AK-47, you need to study old matchlock rifles... you really don't.



Kframe said:


> I do generally get the feeling that my issue with striking will be resolved with time I just like having information ahead of time. Even thought It wont be of any use lol..    The thing they mention a lot is not breaking structure. I wonder how you would manage to throw a proper taijutsu punch from the rear side with out stepping and breaking  structure.


 
That would be a question for your instructor... I could show you, but words on a forum aren't really conducive to such a question. It's to do with body control and weight management as you transition, though. 



Kframe said:


> I think that mma to be adapted for self defense, needs to look at the technical stuff and see what needs to be changed. I don't think the ear muff boxer cover a lot tend to use as being all that effective with out gloves. You see it in mma all the time. Guys relying on that defense and still getting tagged there.  I think they need to develop something else.



Hmm, no, not really. The "techniques" of MMA are good, solid methods. The "ear muff" cover is very good (I use it myself in our modern methods), but it does need to be done without gloves... and it needs to be very tight against the side of you head... Really, the techniques don't need to be adapted much... it's the tactical application and strategic methodologies that need adaptation there (as you're looking at a modern method being used to deal with a modern method of attack... and, let's not forget, there is a huge influence on modern attack methods directly from the presence and influence of MMA in the current zeitgeist anyway... in other words, attacks have changed in large and small ways to try to imitate/be MMA methods, so of course the technical side of MMA is fine for handling them).


----------



## K-man (Jan 29, 2014)

Kframe said:


> I think that mma to be adapted for self defense, needs to look at the technical stuff and see what needs to be changed. I don't think the ear muff boxer cover a lot tend to use as being all that effective with out gloves. You see it in mma all the time. Guys relying on that defense and still getting tagged there.  I think they need to develop something else.


We call that 'helmet' or 'cerebellum' cover. We train it without gloves but possibly in a slightly different way to MMA. Primarily we are moving forward slightly as the punch is coming in. The hand is actually on the back of the head with the heel of the hand covering the ear rather than cupping it. The elbow is straight in front so as you move inside the strike you are actually attacking your attacker.



Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, no, not really. The "techniques" of MMA are good, solid methods. The "ear muff" cover is very good (I use it myself in our modern methods), but it does need to be done without gloves... *and it needs to be very tight against the side of you head...* Really, the techniques don't need to be adapted much... it's the tactical application and strategic methodologies that need adaptation there (as you're looking at a modern method being used to deal with a modern method of attack... and, let's not forget, there is a huge influence on modern attack methods directly from the presence and influence of MMA in the current zeitgeist anyway... in other words, attacks have changed in large and small ways to try to imitate/be MMA methods, so of course the technical side of MMA is fine for handling them).


The critical thing here is that there is no gap between the forearm and the bicep. With gloves it doesn't matter but a bare fist can go straight through the gap if you don't get the arm right. Tight against the head is of course important too as is tucking the chin in against the shoulder.
:asian:


----------



## MJS (Jan 29, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh boy... Look, when it comes to the Bujinkan in particular, it's quite difficult to answer. To look at the material that comes from the various Ryu within the system, then no, it's simply not geared up for that at all. Where it then gets into some rather grey areas is that, well, the traditional material (the actual methods of the Ryu that are found in the Bujinkans arts) might or might not be actually followed... or they might be done altered... or they might be ignored almost entirely, with instructors basically making up whatever they want. They might try to address modern situations (modern grapplers, modern striking forms etc), but just because one instructor/dojo does doesn't mean that the actual methods are found in the Bujinkan itself, just in that particular expression/approach.
> 
> So, are they capable of handling modern attacks? Well, kinda, sure... there's the potential if an instructor has enough knowledge of what such attacks are actually like, and understands what needs to be altered to deal with it. But the actual, formal material (all of which comes from the Ryu-ha themselves), no, they're just not designed for it. In terms of what I do that's so different, well, for one thing, I don't pretend that the traditional material is anything to do with modern attacks... and I teach modern defensive methodologies completely separately.



So, that being said, this is why a) people tend to drift, cross train, etc, to other things.  I mean, if something is teaching antiquated things, and passing them off as things that'll actually work in todays world, well, IMO, they're doing a dis-service to their student.  B) The subject of whether or not real world experience is necessary, is also something that's come up on here, many times.  Is RW experience necessary?  I mean, we have people teaching that have never been in a fight, we have people teaching that have been in them. Or at the least, been in a position in which they had to defend themselves.  Of course, the counter to that, is when people say, "Well, what if the instructor hasn't been attacked with a knife in the RW?  Should they still teach knife defense?"  I personally know people that have successfully defended themselves empty handed, yet have never had a gun pulled on them, but still teach gun defense.  OTOH, those people usually tend to research things a bit more, and train a bit more realistic, ie: scenario training.  These are the guys that'll use airsoft training guns, no lie blades, etc, and scenario train.  I've found that those folks tend to teach things that have a higher percentage of working, compared to other things that are taught in most places.


----------



## Kframe (Jan 29, 2014)

Just using my previous experience the only real place is see trouble is trying to strike with rapidity when the situation calls for it. Of course maybe im putting to much into rear side hand striking. Maybe with good power generation I can get good power and speed of striking from just the one lead hand that we do strike with.  I still wonder if it has something to do with the fact that the movements tend to be similar to weapons movements. I kind of see Ichimonji as a spear, with the lead hand being the tip of the spear. 

 I don't know about you but, I still feel it is the person using the techniques that matters more.   Of course, I think that our dojo may be different because I have heard repeatedly that the way they were taught to do things was different because Nagase Shihan teaches in a more "combative" method. Which is kinda vague.   

When it comes to striking defense, I don't see a issue. The plethora of very usable parries and the quality movement strategies are more then adequate for dealing with strikers.   Its just they may not put out as much DPS as modern strikers. However, in the context of street defense, its moot, as most don't have striking training..    

I wonder if I and many like me keep looking at every possible thug and miscreant as former UFC champs out looking for a butt to stomp. That's not the case, not in the least.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 1, 2014)

MJS said:


> So, that being said, this is why a) people tend to drift, cross train, etc, to other things.  I mean, if something is teaching antiquated things, and passing them off as things that'll actually work in todays world, well, IMO, they're doing a dis-service to their student.


 
Well, yes and no... yes, they're doing a potential dis-service to their students, but at the same time, they might not be. After all, confidence is one of the biggest skills and attributes that can be bestowed by martial training, and that can be done in most systems, regardless of the actual practical applicability of the school and teaching in question. People tend to drift and cross-train, not because they are getting sub-standard information, but more often due to unresolved personal images or doubts, commonly placed there from external fears (stemming from a lack of knowledge, when it comes down to it), such as the fear of "but if they know this (say, ground fighting), I need to know it as well!" When all's said and done, that's actually a fairly unrealistic mentality... but it's also a very common one.

On the other hand, if someone is teaching an antiquated methodology, or a methodology that is exclusively dealing with an alien (different and removed) cultural or societal reality, and the instructor approaches them as being the same thing (sadly, not uncommon), then there's been a disconnect in the reality at some point. Unfortunately (and I'm going to head over to the "Modern versus Antiquated" thread with this soon...) many seem to make the mistake of thinking that violence has always been the same, which is simply far from the reality. But I'll leave that for the other thread.



MJS said:


> B) The subject of whether or not real world experience is necessary, is also something that's come up on here, many times.  Is RW experience necessary?  I mean, we have people teaching that have never been in a fight, we have people teaching that have been in them. Or at the least, been in a position in which they had to defend themselves.  Of course, the counter to that, is when people say, "Well, what if the instructor hasn't been attacked with a knife in the RW?  Should they still teach knife defense?"  I personally know people that have successfully defended themselves empty handed, yet have never had a gun pulled on them, but still teach gun defense.  OTOH, those people usually tend to research things a bit more, and train a bit more realistic, ie: scenario training.  These are the guys that'll use airsoft training guns, no lie blades, etc, and scenario train.  I've found that those folks tend to teach things that have a higher percentage of working, compared to other things that are taught in most places.



Honestly? They don't need to have any actual first-hand experience themselves. Sure, it can help, and it can solidify or validate some or many aspects, but it's not a necessary thing for a variety of reasons. What is needed is a proper education, and an ability to both test and realistically rate methodologies. There needs to be something (based in reality, commonly experience of some kind, although not necessarily first-hand) for the methods and training to be compared to and contrasted with. After a while (when approached properly), you should be able to simply take a new concept, and have enough understanding to ascertain it's usability and realism without having to go out and get in a fight just to prove it works.



Kframe said:


> Just using my previous experience the only real place is see trouble is trying to strike with rapidity when the situation calls for it. Of course maybe im putting to much into rear side hand striking. Maybe with good power generation I can get good power and speed of striking from just the one lead hand that we do strike with.


 
We're not Wing Chun. Striking with rapidity just isn't what we do... we're not chain punchers, we're not in a multiple-round match where we're trying to wear down an opponent... it's just not the right context for us. But, on the other hand, you're still getting contexts confused. The stepping punch is very much the traditional methodology, and is commonly out of place in a modern situation... looking at the traditional methods and saying "hey, but a street fight is different, why do we do it this way" without taking into account that the "street" situation just isn't even on the radar of the traditional approach is to miss the point entirely. You really do have to learn to recognize what a traditional context is versus a modern one... and what applies where (and why).



Kframe said:


> I still wonder if it has something to do with the fact that the movements tend to be similar to weapons movements.



Yep.



Kframe said:


> I kind of see Ichimonji as a spear, with the lead hand being the tip of the spear.



Nope.



Kframe said:


> I don't know about you but, I still feel it is the person using the techniques that matters more.


 
The individual comes later. Unless a particular individual is just naturally gifted and incredibly talented (think Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee, Musashi...), then it's more down to training methods. After all, if it was just the individual, why would they need to attend a school? The old line about "well, it's up to the individual to use the techniques" is true, but flawed... they can't use the techniques without being trained in how to first, in the tactical application and so forth.



Kframe said:


> Of course, I think that our dojo may be different because I have heard repeatedly that the way they were taught to do things was different because Nagase Shihan teaches in a more "combative" method. Which is kinda vague.



Yeah... I've heard such things before, and, when it comes down to it, there's little more "combative" in most of the approaches claimed to be... what they might be is a bit harder in application, or it could be more a case of delusions of superiority, or something similar... my first question would be "okay, how is what he does more 'combative' than, say, Hatsumi? Or anyone else, really?", and see what the answer is.... but, again, I tend to take words for their meaning rather than hoped-for implications....



Kframe said:


> When it comes to striking defense, I don't see a issue. The plethora of very usable parries and the quality movement strategies are more then adequate for dealing with strikers.


 
With the traditional Ude Uke/Jodan Uke/Uke Nagashi movements? There's some very good principles, certainly... but the actual mechanics need to be altered quite a bit if you expect to handle Western Hands (the most dominant striking methodology around).



Kframe said:


> Its just they may not put out as much DPS as modern strikers.



Hmm..."DPS".... "Damage Per Second"... I had to look that up. Video game terminology isn't really that usable here... for a range of reasons. For the record, you'd need to clarify a lot here... what "modern strikers" are you talking about? Sporting systems (such as boxing, kickboxing, MMA) will teach you to stagger the power/impact of your strikes so you're still able to continue fighting for multiple rounds... the idea is that you gradually wear the opponent down, test their defences, look for openings, and so on. Some non-sporting systems seek to overwhelm (such as a number of Chinese systems, Wing Chun, Choy Lay Fut etc), so might focus on a large number of strikes applied in rapid-fire bursts. We don't do that. We hit to defined targets with a hell of a lot behind them, with the idea of doing as much with one strike as another might with multiples. I had a Wing Chun student once throw a series of chain punches into a pad I was holding, after which he turned to me and asked if I could tell how many strikes he'd thrown. When I couldn't, he looked satisfied, smiled, and said "Exactly! If you can't keep up, how can you block them all?". I told him to hold the pad, and hit it once. That one hit was significantly more than anything he'd thrown, as our mechanics put our entire bodyweight behind everything... he winced, turned away, and shook some feeling back into his hand. "How many was that?"

I don't need to overwhelm with multiple strikes, I'm just going to hit once or twice... any more than that, and I've missed quite badly what I'm aiming for. In other words, we give more "damage per strike", as we're not concerned about 15 rounds, or them necessarily blocking or evading anything (there are reasons for that, of course)... which can very easily be more damage per second as well. To end this little diatribe, Charles Daniel (early generation American instructor, Bujinkan) was once teaching a class for his black belts, which was being watched by one of the students girlfriends. During a break in the class, Charles was talking to her about what she was seeing, and she told him "You're so deliberate in everything you do". "Of course I'm deliberate, I'm lazy!" replied Charles... "I'm not going to throw anything that's not going to land."



Kframe said:


> However, in the context of street defense, its moot, as most don't have striking training..



Nor do they have grappling training, BJJ training, weapon training, MMA training, or anything else. However, what they need the least of is striking training... and, in a sense, they'll have a lifetimes worth of "striking training" anyway, even if they've never set foot in a gym/dojo/kwoon/dojang in their lives...



Kframe said:


> I wonder if I and many like me keep looking at every possible thug and miscreant as former UFC champs out looking for a butt to stomp. That's not the case, not in the least.



And, honestly, it's not only a false concern, it's a dangerous one, as you'll spend your time worrying about (and mentally, if not physically preparing you for) something that you won't face... and take time away from preparing for a potential reality.


----------



## Kframe (Feb 1, 2014)

Chris Parker. You said "Hmm..."DPS".... "Damage Per Second"... I had to look that up. Video game terminology isn't really that usable here... for a range of reasons. For the record, you'd need to clarify a lot here... what "modern strikers" are you talking about? Sporting systems (such as boxing, kickboxing, MMA) will teach you to stagger the power/impact of your strikes so you're still able to continue fighting for multiple rounds... the idea is that you gradually wear the opponent down, test their defences, look for openings, and so on. Some non-sporting systems seek to overwhelm (such as a number of Chinese systems, Wing Chun, Choy Lay Fut etc), so might focus on a large number of strikes applied in rapid-fire bursts. We don't do that. We hit to defined targets with a hell of a lot behind them, with the idea of doing as much with one strike as another might with multiples. I had a Wing Chun student once throw a series of chain punches into a pad I was holding, after which he turned to me and asked if I could tell how many strikes he'd thrown. When I couldn't, he looked satisfied, smiled, and said "Exactly! If you can't keep up, how can you block them all?". I told him to hold the pad, and hit it once. That one hit was significantly more than anything he'd thrown, as our mechanics put our entire bodyweight behind everything... he winced, turned away, and shook some feeling back into his hand. "How many was that?""

Chris parker, you also said "Nope" to my description of Ichimonji.  I was just describing how it felt, if im wrong can you please point me in the right direction? It just feels like a spear.. Maybe not the best description but that is how it feels. 


Im very short on time, I need to come back tonight with a longer more detailed response  but I want to focus on this for now.  They way you are describing mma/boxing/kickboxing training is not how I experienced it.  I was never once, either in my boxing training by my 7 time champion coach or both sets of my mma instructors to gradually wear him down and make the fight last. In fact we were instructed in the opposite, always looking for the finish.  We conditioned on the premise we may need to fight for 25 minutes, so we conditioned as hard as we could so would could last as long as we could. How ever, as I stated, I was never at any point instructed to do anything to drag on the duration of the fight. 

This was not something any of my coach's wanted.  We were always looking to end it right now right there as fast as we could.  We trained for the worst case scenario which is 5rounds  with 25 minutes of total fighting but our training focused on ending it asap.

With regards to how Nagase Shihan is different, well I have seen some things. For starters, ya they go hard here. Not at first, but I was told there is a point that intensity picks up a lot.  Secondly Some of the stances have a few different variants that I have not seen on any videos or pictures.  Like our Ichimonji, we have the various classical variants, then there is a variant that was described to me as more combative. It has the elbow bent a little bit, bringing the hand closer to the center line to defend the center.  In mma, I have a vaguely similar stance oddly enough, and It does infact work to better protect the center. 

I get the impression that there is a lot more differences, and ill discover them with time. This place has a different feel about it.  My gut tells me, its going to get a lot harder and I don't mean difficulty harder.(even though that is what is going to increase as well)

Edit to add I used DPS because its old habit. I did indeed mean to use it as "damage per strike" but I typed DPS as in "damage per second". I used to play EVE Online and was a min/maxer.(someone who tries to get the max of a specific thing. my case was DPS.) 
Ill have some more detailed thoughts later. Im also going to update my personal training thread, with some other insights.


----------



## SteveNC (Feb 1, 2014)

A violent person doesn't spar. They don't bow before you or touch gloves with you or smile at you when you get a good shot in during a Thursday night workout at the gym. They don't practice kata (no offense) or techniques in front of a mirror.

I wonder how many people here actually simulate what a real attack from a dangerous person or persons would be like other than the obvious.

1 move to end an attack is perfect. 3 moves isn't ideal but should be the maximum at which you strive in your training. You get beyond that and the likelihood of you getting hurt goes through the roof.


----------



## SteveNC (Feb 1, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Chris Parker. You said "Hmm..."DPS".... "Damage Per Second"... I had to look that up. Video game terminology isn't really that usable here... for a range of reasons. For the record, you'd need to clarify a lot here... what "modern strikers" are you talking about? Sporting systems (such as boxing, kickboxing, MMA) will teach you to stagger the power/impact of your strikes so you're still able to continue fighting for multiple rounds... the idea is that you gradually wear the opponent down, test their defences, look for openings, and so on. Some non-sporting systems seek to overwhelm (such as a number of Chinese systems, Wing Chun, Choy Lay Fut etc), so might focus on a large number of strikes applied in rapid-fire bursts. We don't do that. We hit to defined targets with a hell of a lot behind them, with the idea of doing as much with one strike as another might with multiples. I had a Wing Chun student once throw a series of chain punches into a pad I was holding, after which he turned to me and asked if I could tell how many strikes he'd thrown. When I couldn't, he looked satisfied, smiled, and said "Exactly! If you can't keep up, how can you block them all?". I told him to hold the pad, and hit it once. That one hit was significantly more than anything he'd thrown, as our mechanics put our entire bodyweight behind everything... he winced, turned away, and shook some feeling back into his hand. "How many was that?""
> 
> Chris parker, you also said "Nope" to my description of Ichimonji.  I was just describing how it felt, if im wrong can you please point me in the right direction? It just feels like a spear.. Maybe not the best description but that is how it feels.
> 
> ...



In an MMA environment I'm sure you are taught to end a "fight" quickly (who wouldn't) but the guy standing in front of you was probably a friend or training partner right? Your attitude and demeanor are far different when sparring in that environment. If you were to REALLY SPAR like you would defend yourself in a street attack what would happen to that friend and training partner?


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 1, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Im very short on time, I need to come back tonight with a longer more detailed response  but I want to focus on this for now.  They way you are describing mma/boxing/kickboxing training is not how I experienced it.  I was never once, either in my boxing training by my 7 time champion coach or both sets of my mma instructors to gradually wear him down and make the fight last. In fact we were instructed in the opposite, always looking for the finish.


There's a difference between focusing on finishing a fight quickly, and taking it if comes along.  Sports encourage a kind of "siege" mindset.  In the real deal, I don't want a fight to go 25 minutes under any circumstances.  


> With regards to how Nagase Shihan is different, well I have seen some things. For starters, ya they go hard here. Not at first, but I was told there is a point that intensity picks up a lot.  Secondly Some of the stances have a few different variants that I have not seen on any videos or pictures.


That just may not be accidental...


----------



## K-man (Feb 1, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Im very short on time, I need to come back tonight with a longer more detailed response  but I want to focus on this for now.  They way you are describing mma/boxing/kickboxing training is not how I experienced it.  I was never once, either in my boxing training by my 7 time champion coach or both sets of my mma instructors to gradually wear him down and make the fight last. In fact we were instructed in the opposite, always looking for the finish.  We conditioned on the premise we may need to fight for 25 minutes, so we conditioned as hard as we could so would could last as long as we could. How ever, as I stated, I was never at any point instructed to do anything to drag on the duration of the fight.
> 
> This was not something any of my coach's wanted.  We were always looking to end it right now right there as fast as we could.  We trained for the worst case scenario which is 5rounds  with 25 minutes of total fighting but our training focused on ending it asap.


Certainly you are trying to finish a fight as quickly as possible but in reality staged fights are normally between fighters of similar weight and similar skill. I'm sure Chris wasn't meaning that the fight was being prolonged for the spectacle. To finish a fight quickly is more good luck than good management so you do learn to pace yourself and look for openings and opportunities. Conditioning to last the full distance is fine but there is no way anyone can hit as hard as they can, as fast as they can and not be totally exhausted in about a minute. If you did that to an opponent in the ring while he was just covering, once you are spent you are also defenceless. 
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Feb 1, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> A violent person doesn't spar. They don't bow before you or touch gloves with you or smile at you when you get a good shot in during a Thursday night workout at the gym. *They don't practice kata* (no offense) or techniques in front of a mirror.
> 
> I wonder how many people here actually simulate what a real attack from a dangerous person or persons would be like other than the obvious.
> 
> 1 move to end an attack is perfect. 3 moves isn't ideal but should be the maximum at which you strive in your training. You get beyond that and the likelihood of you getting hurt goes through the roof.


Can't help yourself can you? 
I actually agree with what you are saying but by throwing your little bit about Kata into your post is demonstrating your ignorance of kata, and it is offensive.

Kata is designed to use *one* move to finish a fight because potentially every technique is a finishing technique. If that technique fails, the following technique becomes the finishing move. Kata taught properly and used as it is designed is doing exactly what you are describing. It is just a different road to the same destination.
:asian:


----------



## SteveNC (Feb 1, 2014)

I mentioned the fact that a violent person doesnt stand in front of a mirror either. I hope that doesnt offend people who stand in front of mirrors. You take this stuff way to personal man.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 1, 2014)

Chris Parker said:
			
		

> Sporting systems (such as boxing, kickboxing, MMA) will teach you to stagger the power/impact of your strikes so you're still able to continue fighting for multiple rounds... the idea is that you gradually wear the opponent down, test their defences, look for openings, and so on.





			
				Kframe said:
			
		

> They way you are describing mma/boxing/kickboxing training is not how I experienced it. I was never once, either in my boxing training by my 7 time champion coach or both sets of my mma instructors to gradually wear him down and make the fight last. In fact we were instructed in the opposite, always looking for the finish. We conditioned on the premise we may need to fight for 25 minutes, so we conditioned as hard as we could so would could last as long as we could. How ever, as I stated, I was never at any point instructed to do anything to drag on the duration of the fight.
> 
> This was not something any of my coach's wanted. We were always looking to end it right now right there as fast as we could. We trained for the worst case scenario which is 5rounds with 25 minutes of total fighting but our training focused on ending it asap.



A competent boxer/kickboxer/MMA fighter will absolutely train to develop one-shot knockout power and will do their best to finish a fight as quickly as possible.  However the reality is that if you are up against a skilled, well-conditioned fighter who is expecting a fight and matches your size and experience, then you are highly unlikely to be able to land that knockout shot right away.  Professional fighters are just too tough and have too good a defense.  Thus the need for all the additional skills -jabs, feints, combinations, strategic attrition, etc. in order to break down those defenses and eventually land the knockout shot.  (You do occasionally see quick knockouts in MMA, just because there are so many more kinds of attacks to defend from that sometimes a fighter will leave a gap in their defense and get punished.)

A typical street fighter will not have the defensive skills of a professional boxer and will be much more concerned with attacking than defending.  Therefore in a violent self-defense confrontation skills like jabs and feints are likely to be unnecessary.  You're much more likely to have the chance to land a knockout shot without the extra preparation you would need against a trained fighter in the ring.  (Note that all of this is generalization and not necessarily true in every situation.) 



			
				SteveNC said:
			
		

> 1 move to end an attack is perfect. 3 moves isn't ideal but should be the maximum at which you strive in your training. You get beyond that and the likelihood of you getting hurt goes through the roof.



Yeah, ideally you would never need more than one move to finish an opponent.  Also ideally you would never allow your opponent to hit you even once or get hold of you or take you to the ground or draw a weapon or take you by surprise.  Any of those will also greatly increase the chance of you getting hurt.

Unfortunately we don't always have the scriptwriter and the fight choreographer on our side to make sure that we have complete dominant superiority over the bad guys.  Therefore it's a good idea to make sure that we're prepared for the eventuality that we're not able to instantly dispatch our opponent without being touched.


----------



## K-man (Feb 1, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> I mentioned the fact that a violent person doesnt stand in front of a mirror either. I hope that doesnt offend people who stand in front of mirrors. You take this stuff way to personal man.


You didn't mention those who hit heavy bags, you didn't mention pad work, you didn't mention training on the ground ... all tools to help develop your skill. But you did take the opportunity to bag the main training tool of Okinawan Karate. You mentioned 'standing in front of a mirror' not shadow boxing or other relevant training tools. I don't take it personally. I refute your words on behalf of those here who use kata the way it was designed to be used.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 2, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Im very short on time, I need to come back tonight with a longer more detailed response  but I want to focus on this for now.  They way you are describing mma/boxing/kickboxing training is not how I experienced it.  I was never once, either in my boxing training by my 7 time champion coach or both sets of my mma instructors to gradually wear him down and make the fight last. In fact we were instructed in the opposite, always looking for the finish.  We conditioned on the premise we may need to fight for 25 minutes, so we conditioned as hard as we could so would could last as long as we could. How ever, as I stated, I was never at any point instructed to do anything to drag on the duration of the fight.



There wasn't any implication of trying to "drag on the duration of the fight" in my comments... and I don't know of any system (sporting or otherwise) that doesn't train for the most efficient application of it's methods it can come up with. Tony actually does a really good job of explaining it, so I'll add to his comments in a bit. 



Kframe said:


> This was not something any of my coach's wanted.  We were always looking to end it right now right there as fast as we could.  We trained for the worst case scenario which is 5rounds  with 25 minutes of total fighting but our training focused on ending it asap.



Sure, but (for a range of reasons, some of which Tony mentions, some you've actually brought up yourself, and some I'll add in a moment) you wouldn't just go all out from the get-go... if an opportunity comes up (created or seen) to end it fast (an opening for a choke, armbar, knockout strike...), you take it. But you'll need to get there first.



Kframe said:


> With regards to how Nagase Shihan is different, well I have seen some things. For starters, ya they go hard here. Not at first, but I was told there is a point that intensity picks up a lot.  Secondly Some of the stances have a few different variants that I have not seen on any videos or pictures.  Like our Ichimonji, we have the various classical variants, then there is a variant that was described to me as more combative. It has the elbow bent a little bit, bringing the hand closer to the center line to defend the center.  In mma, I have a vaguely similar stance oddly enough, and It does infact work to better protect the center.



Cool... but I'd be asking what makes the variation of Ichimonji more "combative"... which is the real crux of the question. More offensive, more aggressive, does not necessarily equal more "combative"... 



Kframe said:


> I get the impression that there is a lot more differences, and ill discover them with time. This place has a different feel about it.  My gut tells me, its going to get a lot harder and I don't mean difficulty harder.(even though that is what is going to increase as well)



Sure, and honestly, at this point whether it's more combative or not really is neither here nor there... the important thing is that you're getting value out of the classes. I just personally don't take things on face value, and comments that can be more marketing rhetoric tend to catch my curiosity (wondering if there's much behind them).



Kframe said:


> Edit to add I used DPS because its old habit. I did indeed mean to use it as "damage per strike" but I typed DPS as in "damage per second". I used to play EVE Online and was a min/maxer.(someone who tries to get the max of a specific thing. my case was DPS.)
> Ill have some more detailed thoughts later. Im also going to update my personal training thread, with some other insights.



Okay.



SteveNC said:


> A violent person doesn't spar. They don't bow before you or touch gloves with you or smile at you when you get a good shot in during a Thursday night workout at the gym. They don't practice kata (no offense) or techniques in front of a mirror.



Firstly, there's a difference between a "violent person" and a "street predator" (social or asocial)... many "violent people" do spar, they do practice kata, they do practice in front of a mirror, they do smile when you get a good shot in, and so on. For that matter, while not necessarily at a school/gym etc, yes, street predators (particularly the social form) do spar in some forms, while they don't bow or touch gloves, they do follow particular rituals, and practicing in front of a mirror? You have seen Taxi Driver, yeah?

There's a reason seasoned predators are good at what they do, and it's not them sitting around saying "gee, I'm really glad we don't do any of that formal training stuff..."



SteveNC said:


> I wonder how many people here actually simulate what a real attack from a dangerous person or persons would be like other than the obvious.



I'm not sure what you mean by "the obvious" here... do you mean obvious physical attacks, such as punches and kicks? If so, it's not that obvious, as many tend to simulate attacks that broadly fit the description, but don't actually match reality.... as for "how many", can't say... but, well, here's at least one. And I'm not convinced that I'm that alone... although I do feel I'm in the minority, bluntly.



SteveNC said:


> 1 move to end an attack is perfect. 3 moves isn't ideal but should be the maximum at which you strive in your training. You get beyond that and the likelihood of you getting hurt goes through the roof.



It depends. I agree with the idea of seeking to end a confrontation quickly (and as safely as possible), but exactly how that is achieved can be fairly different depending on the system in question... as mentioned, Wing Chun will teach to overwhelm, with the idea that, so long as you're striking, they'll be trying to block/defend, which means that they aren't attacking... so you're only going to get hurt if you stop. Moving in to restrain (BJJ, arresting techniques etc) can leave you in a position/range to incur further injury, but if the system teaches you (or you're required to) move in and control, that could very easily be your safer option, rather than trying to use a different (less developed) skill set. Tactics need to fit the situation... and one particular tactic is not necessarily going to be the answer in all situations.



SteveNC said:


> In an MMA environment I'm sure you are taught to end a "fight" quickly (who wouldn't) but the guy standing in front of you was probably a friend or training partner right? Your attitude and demeanor are far different when sparring in that environment. If you were to REALLY SPAR like you would defend yourself in a street attack what would happen to that friend and training partner?



Not really the reasons there.... at all.



jks9199 said:


> There's a difference between focusing on finishing a fight quickly, and taking it if comes along.  Sports encourage a kind of "siege" mindset.  In the real deal, I don't want a fight to go 25 minutes under any circumstances.


 
Yep, completely. 



jks9199 said:


> That just may not be accidental...



Which is something I hinted at in another thread.... 



K-man said:


> Certainly you are trying to finish a fight as quickly as possible but in reality staged fights are normally between fighters of similar weight and similar skill. I'm sure Chris wasn't meaning that the fight was being prolonged for the spectacle. To finish a fight quickly is more good luck than good management so you do learn to pace yourself and look for openings and opportunities. Conditioning to last the full distance is fine but there is no way anyone can hit as hard as they can, as fast as they can and not be totally exhausted in about a minute. If you did that to an opponent in the ring while he was just covering, once you are spent you are also defenceless.
> :asian:



There's an argument that can be made that rules are (in part) designed to increase the spectacle of a match fight, but yeah, that's really nothing to do with what I was talking about.



Tony Dismukes said:


> A competent boxer/kickboxer/MMA fighter will absolutely train to develop one-shot knockout power and will do their best to finish a fight as quickly as possible.  However the reality is that if you are up against a skilled, well-conditioned fighter who is expecting a fight and matches your size and experience, then you are highly unlikely to be able to land that knockout shot right away.  Professional fighters are just too tough and have too good a defense.  Thus the need for all the additional skills -jabs, feints, combinations, strategic attrition, etc. in order to break down those defenses and eventually land the knockout shot.  (You do occasionally see quick knockouts in MMA, just because there are so many more kinds of attacks to defend from that sometimes a fighter will leave a gap in their defense and get punished.)



Exactly what I was meaning... thanks, Tony!



Tony Dismukes said:


> A typical street fighter will not have the defensive skills of a professional boxer and will be much more concerned with attacking than defending.  Therefore in a violent self-defense confrontation skills like jabs and feints are likely to be unnecessary.  You're much more likely to have the chance to land a knockout shot without the extra preparation you would need against a trained fighter in the ring.  (Note that all of this is generalization and not necessarily true in every situation.)



There's also quite a difference in the starting range, the set-up, and so on. 



Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, ideally you would never need more than one move to finish an opponent.  Also ideally you would never allow your opponent to hit you even once or get hold of you or take you to the ground or draw a weapon or take you by surprise.  Any of those will also greatly increase the chance of you getting hurt.
> 
> Unfortunately we don't always have the scriptwriter and the fight choreographer on our side to make sure that we have complete dominant superiority over the bad guys.  Therefore it's a good idea to make sure that we're prepared for the eventuality that we're not able to instantly dispatch our opponent without being touched.



And, once more, completely agreed!



K-man said:


> You didn't mention those who hit heavy bags, you didn't mention pad work, you didn't mention training on the ground ... all tools to help develop your skill. But you did take the opportunity to bag the main training tool of Okinawan Karate. You mentioned 'standing in front of a mirror' not shadow boxing or other relevant training tools. I don't take it personally. I refute your words on behalf of those here who use kata the way it was designed to be used.



Not just Okinawan karate, my friend....


----------



## SteveNC (Feb 2, 2014)

Tony I agree. There very well could be a situation where you cant end a conflict quickly and you end up "fighting" instead. But how does traditional sparring help that person now involved in an all out street brawl? What does it teach the individual? How to take a punch? How to deal with getting stomped into the ground? If you are attacked and you can't end the conflict quickly what would make a person believe that they could take care of business in 30 seconds or a minute long fight?

If you are teaching people "self defense" you aren't doing your job by teaching them to fight (for prolonged periods) which is what sparring prepares people for.


----------



## Kframe (Feb 2, 2014)

I used the word combative because that is what my instructor called it. Its not a variant ill be using at my level of training for a while. Firstly ya it is more aggressive. Its more of a attacking stance with the weight a little forward.  There are likely more details but I was only given a short demo of it. 

I understand what your saying now about mma training. Most of the time we were matched well. Which became a issue for me as time went on at my first place. They didn't retain hobbyist's very well. In fact out of all the hobbyists started I was the only one that remained.  It got to the point that I was out of level appropriate partners. After the dismantling of the TKD guy they started having me train with the competitors. Which I feel was a mistake, because it was like putting a 1 week newb up against Iron Mike.  I was so literally outclassed by them that I fell apart technique wise in sparring for a long time. I was so humiliated I quit. Which I regret as well because that coach was 100% invested in my personal transformation. Both physical and emotional.(punishments for self disparaging comments, constant reminders of the things I am doing good, ect)


Ok on sparring.  It has been established that sparring is in no way congruent with real self defense. Even guys on sherdog agree with that, and they are militant in there mentality with regards to sparring. How ever what if despite it not being similar to SD, the supposition that those who do participate in sparring tend to do better in real situations then those who don't.  That is the  feeling that abounds in mma circles that I am apart of.   They agree that sparring is not self defense, but they also believe that those who do good in sparring are more likely to perform better in a SD situation. 

I don't think anyone has done any studies on this so we have no way of knowing.   The only thing I can add is my near fight a while ago. I remember the adrenalin dump and how it made my muscles literally twitch. How all I could think of at that time was "slip, weave, left hook". How it took every ounce of my energy to now attack him when he touched my shoulder.  I had been doing lots of mma sparring by then and I'm truly not sure how much that helped. I'm sure it helped a little bit, but probably not much.  The energy just felt so different, it  was like all at once. Was up all night because I couldn't sleep...

SteveNC, how do you feel about Krav maga? Check me if im wrong K man but don't they use a lot of paired partner drills?  Steve if your ok with krav, why disparage Okinawan karate or other kata systems? Wouldn't karate bunkai of a kata be like Krav's pair'd drills? So if your going to hate on one, why not the others that use a similar setup for some training methodologies? 

Like B.O im evolving on this issue. Looking back at my karate/mma/possibly JKD influenced mma instructor  we did a hell of a lot more partner work then sparring. I found that I was picking up the new things quite quickly, especially as he added resistance to the partner work.  I keep coming back to the karate deflections I was taught.  For me they were dang near miraculous. Learn the movement, then he attacks you, slowly at first, and you use it to defend.  I found that after a bit of time I was able to use them effectively in sparring.  I loved it, as I never used many deflections before, didn't know any. 

Im starting to think that sparring if done, should be used sparingly and not as the primary training vehicle. 

This has been a fascinating discussion so far, thank you guys for having it and helping me with some personal issues all at the same time.


----------



## SteveNC (Feb 2, 2014)

Kframe said:


> I used the word combative because that is what my instructor called it. Its not a variant ill be using at my level of training for a while. Firstly ya it is more aggressive. Its more of a attacking stance with the weight a little forward.  There are likely more details but I was only given a short demo of it.
> 
> I understand what your saying now about mma training. Most of the time we were matched well. Which became a issue for me as time went on at my first place. They didn't retain hobbyist's very well. In fact out of all the hobbyists started I was the only one that remained.  It got to the point that I was out of level appropriate partners. After the dismantling of the TKD guy they started having me train with the competitors. Which I feel was a mistake, because it was like putting a 1 week newb up against Iron Mike.  I was so literally outclassed by them that I fell apart technique wise in sparring for a long time. I was so humiliated I quit. Which I regret as well because that coach was 100% invested in my personal transformation. Both physical and emotional.(punishments for self disparaging comments, constant reminders of the things I am doing good, ect)
> 
> ...



There is no kata in Krav Maga. In krav you have "retzev" which is practicing continuous movement. As far as my views on kata and okinawin karate (among others) I am not disparaging it so much as pointing out that it isn't needed in my opinion for self defense. Perhaps I just don't understand any of it as has been pointed out but I haven't run across one single person who came from a TMA who thought that kata was beneficial to them. Now I know what the follow up to that comment will be. It's the student and/or their past teachers fault. I look at it this way. If you were a karate instructor touting your art as great for self defense and 6 months in you teach me kata #1 can I fall back on that kata to defend myself against a street attack? The answer is a big fat NO and anybody who says otherwise is kidding themselves. Now on the flipside of that I'm sure a 10 year practitioner of karate and kata could adequately defend themselves with or without ever having learned a kata. The people I teach self defense to don't have 10 years to become adequate.


----------



## Kframe (Feb 2, 2014)

Steve, I didn't say there was kata. I asked specifically about the pair'd partner drills. Why are you ignoring the fact that karate's bunkai and kravs partner drills are infact similar?  Doing kata is more then just moving through the steps, many have pointed out that the correct method involves partnering up and applying it.  The applied kata, also called bunkai operates similarly to kravs partner drills. Why do you keep ignoring that simple fact?  Why do you keep ignoring the fact that kata is not a playbook from start to finish to be used in a fight? That's not the purpose of it.   Kata with out bunkai is worthless.  Why would any karate instructor in 6months tell you which kata to use in a fight? That's not what they are for. They are a vehicle for learning techniques and application of techniques(bunkai).  

You keep ignoring these facts and touting your own opinion which is not backed up by any evidence. Plenty of people here train kata with application as it was intended.  Don't believe us, go look up Ian Abernathy. http://shop.iainabernethy.com/acatalog/DVDs_UK.html?gclid=CIXPv7KBrrwCFZBj7Aod43MA3Q


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 2, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> I look at it this way. If you were a karate instructor touting your art as great for self defense and 6 months in you teach me kata #1 can I fall back on that kata to defend myself against a street attack?


Yep you most certainly can


> anybody who says otherwise is kidding themselves.


well one of us is but its not me


----------



## SteveNC (Feb 2, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Yep you most certainly canwell one of us is but its not me


Sorry but I don't think so. Doesn't even make sense to believe such a thing. Not the way its taught in the large majority of establishments


----------



## SteveNC (Feb 2, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Steve, I didn't say there was kata. I asked specifically about the pair'd partner drills. Why are you ignoring the fact that karate's bunkai and kravs partner drills are infact similar?  Doing kata is more then just moving through the steps, many have pointed out that the correct method involves partnering up and applying it.  The applied kata, also called bunkai operates similarly to kravs partner drills. Why do you keep ignoring that simple fact?  Why do you keep ignoring the fact that kata is not a playbook from start to finish to be used in a fight? That's not the purpose of it.   Kata with out bunkai is worthless.  Why would any karate instructor in 6months tell you which kata to use in a fight? That's not what they are for. They are a vehicle for learning techniques and application of techniques(bunkai).  You keep ignoring these facts and touting your own opinion which is not backed up by any evidence. Plenty of people here train kata with application as it was intended.  Don't believe us, go look up Ian Abernathy. http://shop.iainabernethy.com/acatalog/DVDs_UK.html?gclid=CIXPv7KBrrwCFZBj7Aod43MA3Q


Ian Abernathy? How many people are on that level? I go by what I see in front of me. By the people I deal with ever single day and what I have seen from former karate practitioners that seek better,  more realistic training.don't shoot the messenger


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 2, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> Sorry but I don't think so. Doesn't even make sense to believe such a thing. Not the way its taught in the large majority of establishments







very basic Goju Kata we teach to kids what part couldn't be used?


----------



## SteveNC (Feb 2, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> very basic Goju Kata we teach to kids what part couldn't be used?



WOW that looks really cool. I give it an A++ for style and not much more than that.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 2, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> WOW that looks really cool. I give it an A++ for style and not much more than that.



So your not going to answer the question huh?  what part of that isn't useful in self defense?


----------



## K-man (Feb 2, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Ok on sparring.  It has been established that sparring is in no way congruent with real self defense. Even guys on sherdog agree with that, and they are militant in there mentality with regards to sparring. How ever what if despite it not being similar to SD, t*he supposition that those who do participate in sparring tend to do better in real situations then those who don't*.  That is the  feeling that abounds in mma circles that I am apart of.   They agree that sparring is not self defense, but they also believe that those who do good in sparring are more likely to perform better in a SD situation.
> 
> SteveNC, how do you feel about Krav maga? *Check me if im wrong K man but don't they use a lot of paired partner drills?*  Steve if your ok with krav, why disparage Okinawan karate or other kata systems? Wouldn't karate bunkai of a kata be like Krav's pair'd drills? So if your going to hate on one, why not the others that use a similar setup for some training methodologies?
> 
> Like B.O im evolving on this issue. Looking back at my karate/mma/possibly JKD influenced mma instructor  we did a hell of a lot more partner work then sparring. I found that I was picking up the new things quite quickly, especially as he added resistance to the partner work.*  I keep coming back to the karate deflections I was taught.  For me they were dang near miraculous. *Learn the movement, then he attacks you, slowly at first, and you use it to defend.  I found that after a bit of time I was able to use them effectively in sparring.  I loved it, as I never used many deflections before, didn't know any.


People sparring will always do better than non-martial artists who have never sparred. Sparring with contact, limited or full, will get you used to being hit (big plus), help with fitness, teach you to look for gaps in a defence etc. If you are training a martial art with no other form of contact training, then sure, sparring will help. But other training methods can be better depending on what you are wanting from your training. The supposition that those who spar do better in a fight is just that, supposition. It may well be that they are more confident in a fight which in turn is not such a good thing for self defence. Which is better SD, the guy who prefers to avoid a fight or the one who wants to test his MA skills?

The use of kata is pretty much the same as Krav, in fact some are identical. The principle is identical ... engage, destroy, disengage. In Krav it is almost all partner drill and our karate is the same.

As to the deflections ... Grasshopper, you have learnt well. Karate is all about deflection. It is inherent in every 'block' you learned. It is your means of entry to strike.



SteveNC said:


> There is no kata in Krav Maga. In krav you have "retzev" which is practicing continuous movement. As far as my views on kata and okinawin karate (among others) I am not disparaging it so much as pointing out that it isn't needed in my opinion for self defense. Perhaps I just don't understand any of it as has been pointed out but I haven't run across one single person who came from a TMA who thought that kata was beneficial to them. Now I know what the follow up to that comment will be. It's the student and/or their past teachers fault. I look at it this way. If you were a karate instructor touting your art as great for self defense and 6 months in you teach me kata #1 can I fall back on that kata to defend myself against a street attack? The answer is a big fat NO and anybody who says otherwise is kidding themselves. Now on the flipside of that I'm sure a 10 year practitioner of karate and kata could adequately defend themselves with or without ever having learned a kata. The people I teach self defense to don't have 10 years to become adequate.


There is no kata in Krav, true. No one is saying kata is essential for SD. You don't need a car to get from point A to point B. You can ride a motorbike or a bicycle or you could walk or run. In karate, you don't *need* kata to be effective in self defence. There are numerous training tools in martial arts, kata is just one of those. Learning kata without knowing how to use it is like having a flashy car without an engine. Looks good, but not much use as a means of transport. 

As to your statement, _"If you were a karate instructor touting your art as great for self defense and 6 months in you teach me kata #1 can I fall back on that kata to defend myself against a street attack? The answer is a big fat NO and anybody who says otherwise is kidding themselves."_

You must be a very slow learner. My beginner students learn how to use kata for self defence from day one. If you couldn't use the basic elements of kata to defend yourself in a few sessions I would suggest martial arts aren't your thing, you'd be better off knitting or quilting. There are things we know, there are things we know we don't know and there are things we don't know. You don't know how kata is used. That in itself is ok. To keep saying that kata is useless is to refuse to acknowledge that there are things you don't know. That is short sighted at the very least. You are the one kidding yourself.

Oh, and the people I teach don't need 10 years either. 



Kframe said:


> Steve, I didn't say there was kata. I asked specifically about the pair'd partner drills. Why are you ignoring the fact that karate's bunkai and kravs partner drills are infact similar?  Doing kata is more then just moving through the steps, many have pointed out that the correct method involves partnering up and applying it.  The applied kata, also called bunkai operates similarly to kravs partner drills. Why do you keep ignoring that simple fact?  Why do you keep ignoring the fact that kata is not a playbook from start to finish to be used in a fight? That's not the purpose of it.   Kata with out bunkai is worthless.  Why would any karate instructor in 6months tell you which kata to use in a fight? That's not what they are for. They are a vehicle for learning techniques and application of techniques(bunkai).
> 
> You keep ignoring these facts and touting your own opinion which is not backed up by any evidence. Plenty of people here train kata with application as it was intended.  Don't believe us, go look up Ian Abernathy. http://shop.iainabernethy.com/acatalog/DVDs_UK.html?gclid=CIXPv7KBrrwCFZBj7Aod43MA3Q


Don't forget it is mainly karate kata that are single person. A lot of other kata are two man drills as they are intended to be used. Karate kata is different as it needs a knowledgable instructor to show you how the kata can be applied. 



SteveNC said:


> Sorry but I don't think so. Doesn't even make sense to believe such a thing. Not the way its taught in the large majority of establishments


And here is the most sensible thing you have written on the topic. "I don't think so." You may be correct in what you say about the majority of establishments, I have no way of knowing. I only know what I teach and what my friends teach in their schools and we teach how to use the kata as a fighting system.



SteveNC said:


> Ian Abernathy? How many people are on that level? I go by what I see in front of me. By the people I deal with ever single day and what I have seen from former karate practitioners that seek better,  more realistic training.don't shoot the messenger


*Iain* Abernethy, (note the spelling  ) was one of the first guys to start teaching kata that way. George Dillman was another. Masaji Taira is teaching the same. The information is there for all to see. I can't make excuses for those who want to be spoon fed. If anyone wants to learn how to use kata in the way it was intended, there are places they can go. If you want to be a Michelin chef you aren't going to learn much of use at Mcdonalds.
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Feb 2, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> WOW that looks really cool. I give it an A++ for style and not much more than that.


So the first move, deflecting the punch while simultaneously trapping the arm and striking to the back of the head wasn't useful? And that was just the first part.

i agree! That is cool!
:asian:


----------



## SteveNC (Feb 2, 2014)

K-manYou can teach somebody kata all day long. Because you teach it from Day 1 doesn't make it effective for the majority. I would feel confident in saying that a very high percentage of people who are taught kata as a means of SD training gain little to nothing from it whether they admit it or not.


----------



## Kframe (Feb 2, 2014)

Sorry about the misspelling K Man. With regards to deflections ya, I never understood the notion that the "blocking" was intended to be used in isolation. I was always taught it as a defense that I could use to as you say create a entry for a counter attack.   Now I do think some of the confusion regarding karate blocking may be due to its heritage. The blocking sequence I see in karate blocks look kind of similar to some Kung-fu defensive counters i have seen on YouTube. I wonder how much of the confusion on this part is due to the watering of karate down for school implementation. 

Some karate teachers, teach the literal interpretation of the blocks. Chambering hand is a parry, the main movement is something else like a attack.. Basically each so called block that a newb is learning is actually a defensive "combination" of movements.  

The other is how one of my favorite karate blogger Dan Djurdevic, is that there are two movements, primary and secondary and both are correct and both can be used either singularly or in concert.   I personally subscribe to Dans view point, as that is how I was taught them.. Of course the exact method was different as we didn't train in typical karate fashion.  I loved them. Used them extensively. Now I wasn't taught all of the some what 20+ Separate blocks but I have the core set and ill never forget them.  

Looking back on it, I think I may have gotten more benefit from partner work with gradual pressure than I did with straight sparring.  After a while it stopped feeling like a predermined operation and more like  a repetition of "Oh Crap!!"

K man I think you and I will agree that, if someone finds a teacher that is not teaching the bunkai with the kata, then that teacher is doing them a disservice. I think part of Steve's problem is his area, like mine is repleat with karate. Most of it junk. I have around 20 karate dojo in a 1 hour drive of me. After my mma place closed I went looking for a tma and most were Bullshido started under masters with  dubious histories.  None of them did Bunkai.   In fact the only place in my search that did bunkai was of all things a KKW TKD Dojang. I was utterly shocked by that, and he even used the word bunkai. Not surprised by it as he turned out to have a karate back ground as well as kung fu and a Black belt in Judo.  I am not built for TKD so I decided not to go there, which is when I found Taijutsu. 

This thread has given me much to think about. Maybe sparring isnt as necessary to self defense as I think it is, but maybe a nice occasional snack.  I must think more on my past experience, as our conversation is causing me to recall things from my past that may help me evolve my understanding. Such as the relationship to the building of my skills and partner drills with relation to my sparring... I have much to think on there. 

You know I asked my father this. He has training in both tkd and HKD(not sure were he found that in the 70's)  He has used his art for self defense and self offence(some fights and what not) more then 30 times and I asked him about this. I told him I was in a art that doesn't really spar all that much, if at all in fact and I was concerned. He told me you cant have self defense with out the art part of the Martial art. He really Didn't seam all that concerned.  He has a unique way of speaking and I hope to understand what he is telling me. We really didn't continue on after that as dinner was done and I was eating with my parents.


----------



## K-man (Feb 2, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> K-manYou can teach somebody kata all day long. Because you teach it from Day 1 doesn't make it effective for the majority. I would feel confident in saying that a very high percentage of people who are taught kata as a means of SD training gain little to nothing from it whether they admit it or not.


That is absurd! If kata is taught properly it is effective for everybody. It is identical in principle to Krav. Obviously you have not seen anyone who has been taught kata as a means of self defence. Learning to perform the moves of kata has absolutely nothing to do with self defence. Those are the people you are seeing.


----------



## Kframe (Feb 2, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> K-manYou can teach somebody kata all day long. Because you teach it from Day 1 doesn't make it effective for the majority. I would feel confident in saying that a very high percentage of people who are taught kata as a means of SD training gain little to nothing from it whether they admit it or not.



Are you referring to just the kata, or the Kata with bunkai? I ask because there is a difference. Do you truly understand what the word application means, because that is what bunkai is.  Whats messed up is kata with bunkai, as K man is teaching his day 1 newbs,  is no different then any krav partner drill.

Here is something cool I learned, that comes from kata. In my taijutsu class we were working Ura Gyaku and he got out the Jutte and we did it with a jutte.  One of the variations we did had the same basic motion for the basic movements of Karate's Gedan Barai.  It was during the part were you have the wrist and they are on the ground and your moving your feet in a circular motion to bring their chest to the ground. Well with the jutte, instead of going for the knee on the arm and wrist lock, we did the turn and with the opposite hand pulled them into a jutte strike. In operation it looked a lot like the Karate basic low block line drill. A line drill I had done before. I know I didn't describe that correctly, im hoping Chris parker  can clear up my jumble but I think I got the jist of it through.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 2, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> K-manYou can teach somebody kata all day long. Because you teach it from Day 1 doesn't make it effective for the majority. I would feel confident in saying that a very high percentage of people who are taught kata as a means of SD training gain little to nothing from it whether they admit it or not.



Hmm 100s of years of history disagree with you


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Feb 2, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> Tony I agree. There very well could be a situation where you cant end a conflict quickly and you end up "fighting" instead. But how does traditional sparring help that person now involved in an all out street brawl? What does it teach the individual? How to take a punch? How to deal with getting stomped into the ground? If you are attacked and you can't end the conflict quickly what would make a person believe that they could take care of business in 30 seconds or a minute long fight?
> 
> If you are teaching people "self defense" you aren't doing your job by teaching them to fight (for prolonged periods) which is what sparring prepares people for.



I would say it would depend on how or what sparring they are traing for.  There are many different sparring types. Some one step sparring are quick and to the point which will end a fight before it is really a fight.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 3, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> I haven't run across one single person who came from a TMA who thought that kata was beneficial to them.



You have now.


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Feb 3, 2014)

rtkdcmb said:


> you have now.



me too!!


----------



## MJS (Feb 3, 2014)

SteveNC said:


> There is no kata in Krav Maga. In krav you have "retzev" which is practicing continuous movement. As far as my views on kata and okinawin karate (among others) I am not disparaging it so much as pointing out that it isn't needed in my opinion for self defense. Perhaps I just don't understand any of it as has been pointed out but I haven't run across one single person who came from a TMA who thought that kata was beneficial to them. Now I know what the follow up to that comment will be. It's the student and/or their past teachers fault. I look at it this way. If you were a karate instructor touting your art as great for self defense and 6 months in you teach me kata #1 can I fall back on that kata to defend myself against a street attack? The answer is a big fat NO and anybody who says otherwise is kidding themselves. Now on the flipside of that I'm sure a 10 year practitioner of karate and kata could adequately defend themselves with or without ever having learned a kata. The people I teach self defense to don't have 10 years to become adequate.



Good points!  Every art I've trained in, has contained kata, so like it or not, I had to learn it and teach it.  Personally, I'm not as huge a fan of it as others, but that's just me.  I spent way too many years doing kata, and not having a clue as to the meaning behind the moves.  Are they necessary to fight?  IMO, no, although we all know that moves can be applied to SD.  

But no, for pure SD purposes, if you teach the bare bones of an art, yes, you can certainly prepare someone quicker, and probably more effectively, with a smaller set of moves, that you can drill.


----------



## MJS (Feb 3, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Steve, I didn't say there was kata. I asked specifically about the pair'd partner drills. Why are you ignoring the fact that karate's bunkai and kravs partner drills are infact similar?  Doing kata is more then just moving through the steps, many have pointed out that the correct method involves partnering up and applying it.  The applied kata, also called bunkai operates similarly to kravs partner drills. Why do you keep ignoring that simple fact?  Why do you keep ignoring the fact that kata is not a playbook from start to finish to be used in a fight? That's not the purpose of it.   Kata with out bunkai is worthless.  Why would any karate instructor in 6months tell you which kata to use in a fight? That's not what they are for. They are a vehicle for learning techniques and application of techniques(bunkai).
> 
> You keep ignoring these facts and touting your own opinion which is not backed up by any evidence. Plenty of people here train kata with application as it was intended.  Don't believe us, go look up Ian Abernathy. http://shop.iainabernethy.com/acatalog/DVDs_UK.html?gclid=CIXPv7KBrrwCFZBj7Aod43MA3Q



You bring up some valid points.  Thing is, not everyone out there, does what guys like Ian do.  I've seen teachers who had zero clue as to what the moves were.  If they don't know the meaning behind the moves, they're either a) not going to have any idea how to make them more street applicable, or b) they're going to have to make up some half assed meaning, which is just as counter productive.  For some of my Arnis belt exams, I had to give 1-2 different applications for the moves in the empty hand katas.  Of course, my teachers made sure that the applications they were teaching, were sound.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 3, 2014)

MJS said:


> You bring up some valid points.  Thing is, not everyone out there, does what guys like Ian do.  I've seen teachers who had zero clue as to what the moves were.  If they don't know the meaning behind the moves, they're either a) not going to have any idea how to make them more street applicable, or b) they're going to have to make up some half assed meaning, which is just as counter productive.  For some of my Arnis belt exams, I had to give 1-2 different applications for the moves in the empty hand katas.  Of course, my teachers made sure that the applications they were teaching, were sound.



That's less a knock in Kata and more a knock on the teacher. There are crappy teachers everywhere and all arts.  If I don't know why I'm doing something I shouldn't be teaching it.  If I don't know what is going on in the kata I shouldn't be teaching it.  That's true for most things if I don't know fundamentals of shooting I shouldn't be teaching people to shoot.  If I don't know the fundamentals of banking I shouldn't be teaching economics etc etc etc


----------



## MJS (Feb 4, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> That's less a knock in Kata and more a knock on the teacher. There are crappy teachers everywhere and all arts.  If I don't know why I'm doing something I shouldn't be teaching it.  If I don't know what is going on in the kata I shouldn't be teaching it.  That's true for most things if I don't know fundamentals of shooting I shouldn't be teaching people to shoot.  If I don't know the fundamentals of banking I shouldn't be teaching economics etc etc etc



I agree.  Like I said, I do kata, and I do enjoy it.  *I* personally don't devote as much times as others, when it comes to breaking down the moves, but I do think about those things when I'm doing my kata...now that I've trained myself to understand things better, as well as having teachers now, who understand kata.  Interestingly enough, a lot of the empty hand Arnis is very similar to the katas or anyos, as they're called.


----------



## Kframe (Feb 4, 2014)

Edit. I seam to be trying to ask the same question in different ways. So I deleted this. 

I feel there is value in sparring, because you get used to dealing with unannounced and unexpected attacks. Yes you can have resistance in your paired practice, I aknowldge that. I just feel that some unexpected and unannounced practice will be of help as well.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 4, 2014)

Kframe said:


> It was said, by CP I think that he didn't think he could win a sparring match with a mma practitioner but would take his(CP's) training on the street.  Not to pick on CP at all, that is not my intent. I must ask, if you cant beat him in sparring, how on earth would you deal with him on the street if he has a mental snap and decides to wear your skin as a coat? If your training wont work in a friendly spar, how will it work when he is being less then social?
> 
> I hear this argument from self defense only practitioners all the time, that their art dosent work in sparring only real self defense. I do not agree that the attacks found in sparring are not unexpected. Its that aspect of sparring I cant shake, the you have no idea what attack is coming in what order and you have to contend with all 4 ranges of unarmed. If you cant make your arts techniques or strategies work on a resisting opponent throwing unexpected and unannounced attacks and resistance at you, how  will you ever do it on the street or bar fight? It seams like a logical fallacy.
> 
> Now to be honest, that is just me free thinking my thoughts on this. I am mearly trying to stimulate more discussion in that direction. Devil advocate to say. There was a interesting thread on Sherdog regarding this very subject and I am finding their take on it pretty interesting.  Strangely some of them are moving in a similar direction as others here.



There's a bad answer to this and a good answer.

The bad (and unfortunately common) answer is something like this: "In the street there are no rules.  I'd use <insert list of techniques that are currently illegal in MMA competition and that the speaker thinks a professional MMA fighter wouldn't have an answer for> in a real fight, but these moves are too deadly for sparring."  I could write an essay on why this is not the most realistic viewpoint.

The _good _answer is something like this: "In a real self-defense encounter I am highly unlikely to be fighting a trained martial artist.  I don't need the specialized techniques for countering things like a BJJ players guard or a boxers evasive head movement.  Instead I need a different set of skills - things like recognizing a potential confrontation ahead of time, defusing or avoiding it before it starts, pre-emptively attacking if the fight can't be avoided, maintaining the tactical awareness of factors like weapons/multiple opponents/potential exits under stress, and safely disengaging and escaping when the opportunity presents itself. None of those skills are useful in MMA competition and so they aren't part of regular MMA training."


----------



## Kframe (Feb 4, 2014)

That's a good answere, but what if your assailant also has MMA training then what?  While I agree most in mma are not that kind of person, it is popular as is boxing with the underclass in deep urban areas. (at least around here) So what then?


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Feb 5, 2014)

Kframe said:


> That's a good answere, but what if your assailant also has MMA training then what?  While I agree most in mma are not that kind of person, it is popular as is boxing with the underclass in deep urban areas. (at least around here) So what then?



Then you should go with the things you can't use in sparring. Head butting, eye gouging,  fish hooking, groin strikes, and what ever else not permitted.  They won't stop a fight but from understanding these tecs are meant to slow or interrupt a person rhythm or even balance.  Didn't even say anything about slapping the ear canal. I wont do it in sparring but if I had too I would.  .


----------



## Kframe (Feb 5, 2014)

Me personally im not to worried about fighting in bars and such as I don't go to bars and rarely if ever drink.  It is almost as if the dynamics of a fight and the dynamics of a real predatory self defense situation are different.  

Watched a video on random knife attacks and they were not like fights. Those attacks were 100% committed. 

Now the question becomes, how do you prepare for one and not affect the other?   Is it possible to be good at fighting and self defense or are the two mutually exclusive?  

So far, what im distilling from this is that someone who does a competitive art that does lots of sparring, should be ok when it comes to more ego fueled situations such as pissing contests at a bar over spilt milk or girls.  It seams that when it comes to predatory or asocial violence that things shake apart. HMM much to think of.  Off to youtube to watch more fight vids!!


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 5, 2014)

Kframe said:


> It is almost as if the dynamics of a fight and the dynamics of a real predatory self defense situation are different.



Yep.



Kframe said:


> Is it possible to be good at fighting and self defense or are the two mutually exclusive?



It's absolutely possible to be good at both.  In fact, there are attributes and techniques which overlap between the two domains.  However, being good at one doesn't necessarily mean you are good at the other.  You have to train for both and understand the difference.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 5, 2014)

Kframe said:


> It is almost as if the dynamics of a fight and the dynamics of a real predatory self defense situation are different.


Exactly.  A sparring match is dynamically different from a Monkey Dance fight (though, depending on egos, there might be aspects present), and a Monkey Dance is very different in dynamics from a predatory attack.


> Watched a video on random knife attacks and they were not like fights. Those attacks were 100% committed.
> 
> Now the question becomes, how do you prepare for one and not affect the other?   Is it possible to be good at fighting and self defense or are the two mutually exclusive?
> 
> So far, what im distilling from this is that someone who does a competitive art that does lots of sparring, should be ok when it comes to more ego fueled situations such as pissing contests at a bar over spilt milk or girls.  It seams that when it comes to predatory or asocial violence that things shake apart. HMM much to think of.  Off to youtube to watch more fight vids!!



You're starting to figure something out.  But, remember, most "attacks" that end up on video are either caught by accident, or not true attacks.  You might look into Rory Miller's books Meditations on Violence and Facing Violence, along with Bruce Siddle's Sharpening the Warrior's Edge, Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear, some of Loren Christensen's stuff, Mark MacYoung's stuff, and more...


----------



## MJS (Feb 5, 2014)

Kframe said:


> That's a good answere, but what if your assailant also has MMA training then what?  While I agree most in mma are not that kind of person, it is popular as is boxing with the underclass in deep urban areas. (at least around here) So what then?



This is the reason why I don't want to assume that we'll never have to defend ourselves physically or that the person we face, will be an unskilled, fat blob.  Sure, we can avoid certain areas, places, etc. But that may not always be possible.  I've had some jobs in some big cities here, but sometimes, when you need a job, you can't control those things.  Furthermore, living in a nice area, doesn't mean that we're free and safe from violence.  I live in a small town with a fairly low crime rate, yet we've had bank robberies, purse snatchings, etc.  FWIW though, I've avoided and/or talked my way out of far more situations, than I've physically been in, and that goes for when I worked in the prison as well.  

MMA isn't going anywhere.  Like I've said, you have guys who train in MMA gyms, and you have the wanna-be yahoos, who mimic what they see on tv.  A guy like Tank, AFAIK, doesn't have any formal MA training, but was more of a street fighter, is someone you possibly could face.  

I do agree with Tony D. though.  So many times, we hear the 'bad' answer, as an excuse.  Hell, as a Kenpo guy, I've heard it countless times.  Of course, my counter to the 'deadly' stuff, is...we, as martial artists, should be able to tailor our response accordingly.  While I see nothing wrong with the 'deadly' or dirty tricks, if that's ALL you have in your toolbox, well, IMO, that means that you missed a lesson somewhere.  His 'good' answer he gave...well, sadly, many teachers don't preach that like they should.  All of that stuff is just as important, as the kata, the SD, the punches, kicks, etc.


----------



## MJS (Feb 5, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Me personally im not to worried about fighting in bars and such as I don't go to bars and rarely if ever drink.  It is almost as if the dynamics of a fight and the dynamics of a real predatory self defense situation are different.
> 
> Watched a video on random knife attacks and they were not like fights. Those attacks were 100% committed.
> 
> ...



As you know, there are differences between the 2...sparring and SD and what we can do in each.  Oddly enough, a few weeks ago when I was in class, the guy I was sparring started doing what I took as a few 'dick moves' which sort of pissed me off...lol.  Anyways, during this exchange, he was close enough, and I grabbed him in a headlock.  Of course, I got the lecture from my teacher, etc, and we continued on with the match.  Sure, in that short moment, SD snuck into my sparring.  

Like I said...it has it's pros and cons.  If you feel that your training is going to benefit from it, then do it.  That might not be the popular answer, but in the end, you're the one that's training it.  If someone else doesn't wish to do it, that's fine.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 5, 2014)

TKDTony2179 said:


> Then you should go with the things you can't use in sparring. Head butting, eye gouging,  fish hooking, groin strikes, and what ever else not permitted.  They won't stop a fight but from understanding these tecs are meant to slow or interrupt a person rhythm or even balance.  Didn't even say anything about slapping the ear canal. I wont do it in sparring but if I had too I would.  .



We had an opposite situation yesterday.  Im a police officer and we had inservice training yesterday.  Our Chief is big into BJJ so for part of the training he had some BJJ guy come into to teach some BJJ.  He does this every year and I keep telling him its pointless you cant learn anything useful in a two hour class once a year. The only upside I see is its an exposure to get people to think about seeking more training on their own. Anyway we are going through the class and this teacher is showing an escape from a standing guillotine choke. So he says with one arm reach over the shoulder of the attacker, place your other hand on his opposite hip  push your body to the side then grab his closest leg at the knee lift him up and fall into side control then pop your head out.  Well Im watching this and watching officers fall and bash there heads into the mat or just cant figure it out.  So as a Defensive tactics instructor I stop the class and offer an alternative.  I say if you end up in a standing choke like this reach up between the attackers legs and destroy his groin.  Much easier to do, more instinctual and everyone understood it.  Im sure his method works well in MMA or NAGA which is where he competes but for cops on the street its just not practical.  I spoke with the instructor after class and he said he doesnt fight in the street or really train for that so it never even dawned on him to go for the groin.  He also was teaching a few chokes in class that are totally against our General orders that I had to tell everyone after class not to use unless they have no other choice and they are in serious danger.


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Feb 5, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> We had an opposite situation yesterday.  Im a police officer and we had inservice training yesterday.  Our Chief is big into BJJ so for part of the training he had some BJJ guy come into to teach some BJJ.  He does this every year and I keep telling him its pointless you cant learn anything useful in a two hour class once a year. The only upside I see is its an exposure to get people to think about seeking more training on their own. Anyway we are going through the class and this teacher is showing an escape from a standing guillotine choke. So he says with one arm reach over the shoulder of the attacker, place your other hand on his opposite hip  push your body to the side then grab his closest leg at the knee lift him up and fall into side control then pop your head out.  Well Im watching this and watching officers fall and bash there heads into the mat or just cant figure it out.  So as a Defensive tactics instructor I stop the class and offer an alternative.  I say if you end up in a standing choke like this reach up between the attackers legs and destroy his groin.  Much easier to do, more instinctual and everyone understood it.  Im sure his method works well in MMA or NAGA which is where he competes but for cops on the street its just not practical.  I spoke with the instructor after class and he said he doesnt fight in the street or really train for that so it never even dawned on him to go for the groin.  He also was teaching a few chokes in class that are totally against our General orders that I had to tell everyone after class not to use unless they have no other choice and they are in serious danger.



As I was reading this I was just thinking teaching cops to fall on their head would be a no no. Glad you said something about groin strikes. Also if you are a cop and you end up in a gullitine choke it something you did wrong to end there.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 5, 2014)

TKDTony2179 said:


> . Also if you are a cop and you end up in a gullitine choke it something you did wrong to end there.



The only way I could see it happen is if your bent down cuffing someone and his buddy comes over and grabs you in the guillitine.  Kinda rare I would think.  I have ended up with a guy on my back trying to rear naked choke me. Same situation I was cuffing his cousin and he came up behind me.


----------



## MJS (Feb 6, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> We had an opposite situation yesterday.  Im a police officer and we had inservice training yesterday.  Our Chief is big into BJJ so for part of the training he had some BJJ guy come into to teach some BJJ.  He does this every year and I keep telling him its pointless you cant learn anything useful in a two hour class once a year. The only upside I see is its an exposure to get people to think about seeking more training on their own. Anyway we are going through the class and this teacher is showing an escape from a standing guillotine choke. So he says with one arm reach over the shoulder of the attacker, place your other hand on his opposite hip  push your body to the side then grab his closest leg at the knee lift him up and fall into side control then pop your head out.  Well Im watching this and watching officers fall and bash there heads into the mat or just cant figure it out.  So as a Defensive tactics instructor I stop the class and offer an alternative.  I say if you end up in a standing choke like this reach up between the attackers legs and destroy his groin.  Much easier to do, more instinctual and everyone understood it.  Im sure his method works well in MMA or NAGA which is where he competes but for cops on the street its just not practical.  I spoke with the instructor after class and he said he doesnt fight in the street or really train for that so it never even dawned on him to go for the groin.  He also was teaching a few chokes in class that are totally against our General orders that I had to tell everyone after class not to use unless they have no other choice and they are in serious danger.



Sounds like you gave a much more practical, simple, and effective method!   OTOH, this is why I tend to say that people will fall back on what they know.


----------



## CNida (Feb 8, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> We had an opposite situation yesterday.  Im a police officer and we had inservice training yesterday.  Our Chief is big into BJJ so for part of the training he had some BJJ guy come into to teach some BJJ.  He does this every year and I keep telling him its pointless you cant learn anything useful in a two hour class once a year. The only upside I see is its an exposure to get people to think about seeking more training on their own. Anyway we are going through the class and this teacher is showing an escape from a standing guillotine choke. So he says with one arm reach over the shoulder of the attacker, place your other hand on his opposite hip  push your body to the side then grab his closest leg at the knee lift him up and fall into side control then pop your head out.  Well Im watching this and watching officers fall and bash there heads into the mat or just cant figure it out.  So as a Defensive tactics instructor I stop the class and offer an alternative.  I say if you end up in a standing choke like this reach up between the attackers legs and destroy his groin.  Much easier to do, more instinctual and everyone understood it.  Im sure his method works well in MMA or NAGA which is where he competes but for cops on the street its just not practical.  I spoke with the instructor after class and he said he doesnt fight in the street or really train for that so it never even dawned on him to go for the groin.  He also was teaching a few chokes in class that are totally against our General orders that I had to tell everyone after class not to use unless they have no other choice and they are in serious danger.



Good example, there. I like it.


____________________________

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens."


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Feb 11, 2014)

Kframe said:


> Ok here comes the can of worms.  Having switched from mma to Bujinkan taijutsu one of the hardest things im having to accept is there is no sparring. They have randori but it isn't like sparring its a whole different animal.
> 
> I know that Chris parker and others will chime in and say that Sparring is not like self defense. I get that, but the thing is, especially with BBT were else are you going to get randomness.  I have seen that, ya  you can have pressure in the preset paired forms.  In fact I have watched the black belts and out side of a few things they were throwing with speed and power and intent.  The problem is,  arts like mine and aikido and apparently most of the legit koryu don't spar.
> 
> ...




Since all the heavy hitters have left this thread I am going to put my little thoughts in the whole debate.
I had to let it sit on my mind for a couple of weeks before I got my thoughts together. 
The whole thing about sparring and self-defense part is that they really go hand and hand. The problem occurs when people think that all sparring is the same. It just isn&#8217;t. Let me dig deeper.
How many kind of sparring do we have?


1-step sparring (popular amongst all styles), 2-step, and 3-step
1 point sparring
Continuous point sparring
Free-style sparring.
Non-contact sparring or sparring combinations
 Each one has its place. None of them are equal. But all can add value to a person training. When you miss one of these sparring types then you create a hole in competition fighting or self-defense.
All sparring have rules because all sparring are nothing more than a drill/game that we play with a live partner so the two of them can learn the drills they been learning solo.  All those punches, kicks, grabs, throws, and etc. don&#8217;t meant nothing unless you do it against someone that don&#8217;t want you too. Here is a little in depth look into these sparring drills.
1-Step sparring
Usually used for low ranks for teaching distance, timing, accuracy, stances, blocks, kicks, and strikes. At times grabs can be used from the attacker to help teach defense for wrist locks, collar grabs, chokes, bear hugs, and etc. This is low level training. It can be added for higher level training when learning difficult moves.
Non-contact sparring or sparring combinations
Similar to 1-step sparring, only difference is the other person is moving and being active. Usually one person is moving and blocking while the other is attack.  Turns are taken while learning movement, blocks, and strikes.
1-point sparring
Usually used in tournament based arts. Ideally the whole objective is to play tag. Roughly that is what fighting is; tagging a person with your fist or open hand while controlling distance and having excellent accuracy, speed, timing, and focus.   Problem is the rules. Usually no grabbing, throws, groin strikes, eye gouges, hair pulling, and whatever else not being used in a street fight. If you develop these skills, it would be hard for someone to grab you anyway. 
Continuous point sparring & free style sparring
These two help bring aliveness in sparring alive. Closes to a fight or self-defense training can get. All the elements in the previous two are now put more to the test. Same attributes are tested and learn and while you can go light to medium on the contact, the only general rule is no illegal street techniques. Why? So you can protect your training partner. Break them, and no one will spar you.  Depending on the instructions, you may have one person be over aggressive while the other one is trying to work on defensive moves. 
Now that being said, I do believe like 1-point sparring has its place in training, I think it is less effective to learn self-defense because you are trying to move in and out a lot and sometimes you need to press forward to end a fight as quickly as possible.  Things like bear hugs and wrist grabs are usually not seen in continuous sparring and 1-step sparring is good learning those defenses. 
Since fighting or self-defense happen in so many different kinds of ways, I believe that free style and 1-step sparring should blend together when a real altercation occurs.  Whether you are attacked by a grab or with strikes, hopefully you can deal with ever comes your way as long as you have been train to do so. 
Even most gun or knife defense is done with 1-steps. Knife fighting is usually done is continuous sparring. They are not the same because in knife fighting both have knife and usually you don&#8217;t start off with a knife against the throat. 
The martial art systems that spar that I know of.
AIKIDO (1-STEP)
BUNJINKAN (1-STEP AND CONTINUOUS)
BJJ (ROLLING)
BOXING (LIGHT TO HEAVY SPARRING)
CAPOREIA  (RODA)
JUDO (ROLLING AND THROWING DRILLS)
KALI/ESCRIMA (1-STEP AND CONTINUOUS) 
KARATE (1-STEP AND CONTINUOUS)
MUAY THAI (SPARRING)
TAI CHI- (PUSH HANDS)
TAEKWONDO (1-STEP AND CONTINUOUS)
SAVATE (1-STEP AND CONTINUOUS)
SILAT (1-STEP AND CONTINUOUS)
SANDA/SANSHOU (1-STEP AND CONTINUOUS)
SAMBO (1-STEP AND CONTINUOUS)
AND MANY MORE.

Some bujinkan sparring I found. 




1-step sparring 




Even groundwork sparring. A little 




Ummm..Kframe you should be sparring.


----------



## KydeX (Feb 11, 2014)

TKDTony2179 said:


> Since all the heavy hitters have left this thread I am going to put my little thoughts in the whole debate.


I'm pretty sure you will bring the heavy hitters back in with this post


----------

