# Questioning the efficacy of Kata



## Matthew78

Ok, first off, a qualifier: I know this is an old question/ discussion... and I'm sorry for raising an old hat question, but I'd like to join the discussion and phrase this in my own words....

Question: Does traditional karate utilize effective teaching methods for self-defense in comparison to styles that don't utilize traditional methods?

Context: I have taken Shorin Ryu karate for a little over 6 years now within several different schools. Overall, the learning methods have been:

*One-steps* (two people face each other and one strikes and the other blocks as one step at a time is taken - usually 5 or 10 steps forward and then in reverse. These sequences become progressively more complicated with each new rank, in the form of adding a punch after a block, changing the angle of the defensive movement, or adding a simultaneous kick, etc.

*Kata* - as is typical in karate, a new kata is learned at certain ranks.

*Bag-work*: we line up in rows and practice a specific punch or kick repeatedly.

*Traditional weapons: *bow kata, sai kata, tonfa kata (and one-steps for bow)

*Self-defense* - specific techniques to be used in response to a choke, grab, and sometimes kicks and punches.

This is where it all comes into question for me: the black-belts (and sometimes brown-belts) are allowed to participate in a little more free-style self-defense sequences. The instructor gives us minimal instructions and lets us defend. The problem is that after years of training, I see a lot of black belts standing there with no clue what to do in response to the attack. I've had my moments of confusion too. One-steps seem too rote and impractical and I never see anyone using a one-step as a defense in our randori. I am just not convinced of the street defense effectiveness of the teaching methods. Kata has most always been a frustration to me in that I have always questioned how practical it is. I mean, unless a school is continuously practicing bunkai for each specific kata, then it seems little more than a dance which doesn't translate into anything practical.

I have gone to a jiu jitsu school on occasion for some time now, just to broaden my perspective. The particular school I've gone to doesn't focus on kata or many traditional methods and honestly when we do randori there, I've watched some of their beginning students who have been taught aggressiveness and in a more active and moving style who would likely be able to completely take apart some of the black-belt students I train in karate with. I wonder if a focus on traditional methods SLOWS down the progress of the student. I know that a person after years of practice can learn some good self-defense skill from karate but I just wonder if it takes much longer.

It seems as though there is this underlying thought notion that is held in karate that certain skills are withheld for the more seasoned students and we can have no idea of how much we can learn until we have spent years and years and years in the art. I understand that certain techniques should be withheld for more experienced students but I'd at least like to have some idea of what an instructor can teach me before deciding if I want to spend years and years trying to figure it out. What are your thoughts on traditional martial arts teaching methods: kata, etc?


----------



## Matthew78

I tried to change the title of my post after finishing as I was originally going to ask about kata but decided to broaden the question.... but I couldn't figure out how to change the thread title.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Matthew78 said:


> The instructor gives us minimal instructions and lets us defend. The problem is that after years of training, I see a lot of black belts standing there with no clue what to do in response to the attack. I've had my moments of confusion too.


The reason the instructor gives you minimal instructions is so you can figure it out. The moments of confusion is normal.  Real fights are fluid and punches and kicks don't come at you in a "text book manner."  This type of sparring is so that you can take what you know and try to apply it to a new situation.  Part of this type of training is understanding your opponents attacks and the other part is understanding your opponent's defenses.  This is a necessary learning point for martial arts that use forms.



Matthew78 said:


> I wonder if a focus on traditional methods SLOWS down the progress of the student.


Learning the form doesn't slow down the learning process.  It's actually key to learning how to use the fighting style in a self-defense situation  Katas and forms teach the proper movement that's makes the technique work.  You practice it over and over so that you don't think about it when you do it.  If you are always thinking about what punch to throw or what defense to use, then your reaction time will be horrible.  Learning a form and the ability to use the technique from a form are two different things and requires 2 different approaches.

I study kung fu so for me the realism of a teacher's knowledge is what helps me to determine the quality of a teacher's ability to teach me.  Kung fu isn't about knowing just the forms. It also requires that you understand how other fighting styles operate.  If the instructor is always explaining the application of a form based on the same fighting style then I would leave.  Your kata should be explained in terms applications against basic punches, kicks, uppercuts, hooks, attempted grabs, shooting for the legs and waist like a tackle, and wild punches.  If the instructor doesn't understand how these things work then he or she can't teach you how to use the karate to fight.

Forms teach you proper technique which makes you more efficient.  Even if you are practicing a move on a partner, it is still like a form.  You do it over and over until you get it correct.


----------



## tigercrane

A very relevant post indeed. I'd like to offer my opinion on the significance of Kata (form). Kata is a fundamental block in learning the art the right way.

Back in the early days of Karate (prior to Funakoshi Gichin, Anko Itosu and other masters) when it was known as To-De or "Chinese Hand", there were no ranks and no belts. To-de was largely based on Southern Chinese Fuijan White crane kung fu style. Heck, Matsumura Sokon passed Chinese katas known as Kusanku, Chinto and Seisan to his followers.

It was perfectly normal and accepted for disciple to learn 1-2 Katas (forms) and train in basics for hours every day. Karate (just like kung fu) was hard and never ending work at basics. A master would know on average 3 Katas which lay foundation to many years of continuous training. One Kata contains many basic elements and most essential punches and kicks, which vary from style to style. As you know well, Kata is broken down into segments and parts of it are subject to Bunkai or analysis (not application as stated everywhere). Kata should not be changed, where as Bunkai is fluid and be interpreted differently depending on circumstances.

Fast forward to today, many if not most Karate dojos are businesses and are run as such. Business owners want students to progress through ranks (belts) and in order to do so, more forms (Katas) are learned. The end result is lots of so-called delusional black belts who think they know the art where as they don't. Then, there a term called "sports karate" with endless tournaments, trophies, medals and tons of money to be made along with it. 
This is what is wrong with most dojos and not the Katas. Kata in itself is like a template and it is useless without basics that support it. 

*Watered Down Art of Karate.*
Karate took the worst hit when Funakoshi took it from Okinawa to Japan's mainland. There he had to introduce it to University as method of physical development, which of course it was, however in the process he also wanted Karate to not have the *stigma* of "bloody fighting method" and thus most lethal techniques were dropped thereby watering down Karate in the process. A Shotokan style, suitable for competitions was born. Okinawan karate followed suit, albeit much later.

*Tsuki (straight punch).*
Anko Itosu once said that, quote: "Karate begins and ends with respect". Many masters however believed that true Karate begins with a perfect tsuki - straight punch. A lot of schools nowadays work on forms (Kata) and neglect basic punches, hence their Kata teaching is good for nothing. To have a good punch a development of Ki (Chinese Qi or Chi) energy is necessary. Such techniques apart from obvious Sanchin Kata (Goju-ryu, Isshin-ryu) are simply not taught. Sanchin kata is also of Fujian White Crane origin.

*Advanced and lethal techniques.*

These may be reserved for advanced students but most dojos are not teaching them unless you learn directly from Morio Higaonna (Goju-ryu) himself or someone alike. Then again, you may have the techniques, but not have any skills to apply them. If you take _shuto-uchi_ and practice it 5000 times, what do you think it will become? - A lethal technique.

Kata contains hidden techniques that may be used regardless of situation and out of context. Bruce Lee once said that he was not afraid of someone who knew hundreds of techniques but was afraid of someone who practiced one strike thousands of times. The same principle applies to Kata.

Katas (forms) have been proven and tested over hundreds of years of martial arts development, but a Kata is nothing without basic punches, kicks and take-downs.

It is just that unfortunately, people don't want to train properly and diligently but expect it to work on the street. Some trained for years and still don't get it.

More on Kata here by Jesse Enkamp: Kata KARATE by Jesse - The Blog of Jesse Enkamp - Karate Nerd


----------



## hoshin1600

hey Mat, welcome to MT.
i am in a particular mood today so i am going to come off a bit harsh.   i think you are spot on.  in many instances TMA are a horrible platform to learn self defense and real fighting. your instincts are correct.  you can train for 20 years and you will still suck. there are no secrets to be given out at higher ranks. that thinking is a scam to keep students and keep them paying.
now the flip side...its not the art itself that is lacking, its us.  us being everyone. you, me, your teachers and the entire organization around any particular art.  its the platform, the institution of the art that is lacking and keeping people from becoming effective.  MA 's have ranks, ranks need promotions, promotions need standardization and that leads to dogma and an unchangable structure.  the things you practice like one-steps and kata were developed as tools and they are good tools but should not be dogma and should not be the only tools you use.  you would never find a carpenter who builds a house today only using a hammer, chisel, hand saw and hand auger/drill....*(unless your in Amish country).  of course this will slow you down.  if teachers only stick to the "traditional" format of kata , one steps and occational sparing that is very unrealistic, then yeah you will spend your entire life practicing your heart out and you will still suck.  but add in some other training and the art will flourish and grow and will surprise you on how effective it can be.  so i would advise not to be down on the art but rather the structure in which it is taught. they are not the same thing!!!


----------



## Matthew78

Thank ya'll for the comments. You've given me much to think about. My karate teacher has my respect. He has dedicated years and years to the study of the art and I know he is very skilled. My school is not a strip-mall dojo or anything like that; it's not a business at all. People come and give very minimal dues just to keep expenses paid. It just seems sometimes that the traditional methods don't put all the punches, kicks, and etc. that we are learning into a practical context. We line up to do randori and I've seen black belts who have done kata for years literally stand there and upon being attacked, say "I don't really know what to do." When I'm taught a specific technique or response to an attack, my mind grabs that, I get a mental picture that I can replicate when attacked. I know that in fighting, there is always the unexpected that makes having an arsenal of techniques impractical because everything has to be modified. I can do kata for hours and with exception of what are very obvious blocks, punches, kicks, etc., I can't generally interpret what's going on until someone shows me something practical; at which point, it is forever seared in my brain, but not until then. My thinking is, wouldn't it be much more useful to just break the kata down into much smaller segments and just teach students "This is what this move means, now practice that 50 times." I go to jiu jitsu; however, and almost everything except the initial exercises to warm up, is done in contact with or in opposition to another live person: flow drills based off of the reaction of a partner, techniques that are practiced in response to repeated attacks, drills that are based on manipulating the weight and force of another person, and these students honestly seem much more confident and aggressive when with faced with an opponent than do my karate buddies. If putting money on them in a fight, I'd probably bet on the much less, in fact years less, trained jiu jitsu students who have been taught in live practice. Going back to the other side of the spectrum, though, I like the traditional aspect of karate in that it focuses on clean technique, good form, etc. I've thought about quitting karate for a time and going focusing on the jiu jitsu class for a time, but I don't want to lose anything I've learned in Karate.


----------



## Drose427

Im going to preface this by saying I like forms and One-step, they have value.

But I do have some caveats:

One-step have to be done with huge attention towards doing them properly i.e. realistic distance and punch speed, so I get hurt if I mess up.

And forms are NEVER the only thing you should be practicing.

Forms are great for many things, but you cant do only forms and expect to fight.

I have a theory that theres a formula involved for success in training:

At MDK TSD/TKD our regular class breaks down like this(each section is roughly around 30 minutes long:

Forms: Nice warm up, focus, conditioning, lets us practice technique, get us to using the hips, breathing,etc.

One-Step/SD: Get used to a full speed punch coming at your face and reacting

Sparring: Medium-hard contact, generally kicks above waist punches from neck down but its always been common for them to change the rules for the adults, especially once I started competing in kickboxing. In fact, when many of the instructors were coming up the ranks, they threw backfists, ridge hands, etc. at each others face. Our KJN loooooooves hard fights, so its no surprise he wasnt strict about sparring rules.

We also throw in things like paddle/thai pad work and kicking shield practice

Now, heres the breakdown of boxing/kickboxing at my gym:

Shadow Sparring for warmup/conditioning: nice warm up, focus, conditioning, practice technique, breathing, practice using the hips, etc.

Mits/"One-Step", type drills( coach is working on various things with you in a simulated environment much like onestep or other SD drills you see in TMAs": Get used to punches coming at you, reacting, and adapting to a real opponent

Sparring: a few rounds of medium-hard sparring, just like TKD depending on who you spar and how close an event it.

I dont take the MMA class, but it has a similar structure and BJJ does as well outside of solo work (although on another thread someone posted a video of BJJ solo drills)

All 3 of these happen every night, even at TKD. 


A lot of professional fighters have similar structures of 

Solo work > partner work > full sparring

Forms are meant to be done in conjunction with everything else.

Assuming you're trying to cultivate fighting ability that is


----------



## JowGaWolf

Drose427 said:


> One-step have to be done with huge attention towards doing them properly i.e. realistic distance and punch speed, so I get hurt if I mess up.
> 
> And forms are NEVER the only thing you should be practicing.
> 
> Forms are great for many things, but you cant do only forms and expect to fight.



I agree 100% with this.  A person that is not doing sparring and actually trying to use the techniques in sparring is only getting half of the training.  Sparring allows you to make mistakes and learn the hard way without being seriously injured. It's better to make learning mistakes during sparring than to make them in an actual fight.



Drose427 said:


> One-Step/SD: Get used to a full speed punch coming at your face and reacting


I agree with this too so long as it's done with control just in case you have to pull a punch to prevent severely injuring your sparring partner.  It's important that you get comfortable with fist flying towards you.



Drose427 said:


> Shadow Sparring for warmup/conditioning: nice warm up, focus, conditioning, practice technique, breathing, practice using the hips, etc.


  We dedicate about 15 minutes once a week just for this.  Shadow Sparring is a good way to visual and to get out of the habit of trying to fight using the forms and it teaches how to use the techniques from any position.  If a person is sitting on the ground, he should be able use a technique from that position while getting up.  On our sparring days, I always remind the students that they should be able to use a technique from any position.  The first 3 weeks of this training students look confused and nothing flows, but each week they begin to figure out how to piece techniques together and by 4 weeks certain techniques flow without thinking.  When a technique gets to this point then we add another technique from the form.  We always start with the techniques that feel most comfortable to use and gradually add the other techniques that don't come so naturally.


----------



## Tez3

The first question is what do *you* think kata is, the second question is what do *you* think it's for?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> The first question is what do *you* think kata is, the second question is what do *you* think it's for?


This is an excellent approach.  First have the original poster define kata as they see and what they think it's for.  I'm finding that in a couple of discussions people aren't on the same page when discussing Kata/Forms, TMA, and self-defense.  Understanding how the OP understands something would help in the discussion.


----------



## DaveB

Matthew78 said:


> This is where it all comes into question for me: the black-belts (and sometimes brown-belts) are allowed to participate in a little more free-style self-defense sequences. The instructor gives us minimal instructions and lets us defend. The problem is that after years of training, I see a lot of black belts standing there with no clue what to do in response to the attack. I've had my moments of confusion too. One-steps seem too rote and impractical and I never see anyone using a one-step as a defense in our randori. I am just not convinced of the street defense effectiveness of the teaching methods. Kata has most always been a frustration to me in that I have always questioned how practical it is. I mean, unless a school is continuously practicing bunkai for each specific kata, then it seems little more than a dance which doesn't translate into anything practical.



Hoshin is 100% correct. The 3 k method of karate was not intended to create fighters, it was for creating good little soldiers and citizens of the Japanese empire.

But the training and the art are distinct from one another. Change the training and you change the outcome.



JowGaWolf said:


> The reason the instructor gives you minimal instructions is so you can figure it out. The moments of confusion is normal.  Real fights are fluid and punches and kicks don't come at you in a "text book manner."  This type of sparring is so that you can take what you know and try to apply it to a new situation.  Part of this type of training is understanding your opponents attacks and the other part is understanding your opponent's defenses.  This is a necessary learning point for martial arts that use forms.



This statement is 100% correct but also completely wrong.

This is the reason those things are done but it is completely the wrong way to teach and not how anything calling it's self a martial art should be explained.

No one goes to a martial arts class to figure it out for themselves. But where the 3 k traditional approach is all technique and very little time for learning fighting (plus a lack of knowledge to pass on in the first place), at each generation there is a loss of info.

Martial arts teacher's should be able to take each technique and teach it's use, it's strengths and weaknesses and most importantly how they all fit together in the context of the fighting style and it's application to self defense. Greater than all that they should be able to teach the guiding strategies and principles that keep a person safe and enable victory.
Following on from this, sparring becomes about practicing the skills taught, not working out what those skills are through trial and error.
One step sparring becomes just a skill building exercise, getting you used to footwork and whatever body skills are presented in the response technique.

In this type of training environment self-defense skills come through familiarity with violence and with the feel and movement of an opponent. Things you can only get



> You practice it over and over so that you don't think about it when you do it.  If you are always thinking about what punch to throw or what defense to use, then your reaction time will be horriblemail.



If you are training only one kata with a defined and finite list of non overlapping applications, and nothing else, then this might be true, but mostly it's a myth.

Think of all the times fighters say that boxing is like chess. They say that because of the thoughtful tactical element of fighting. If they were just reacting this wouldn't be the case.

Just reacting without thought is what happens to beginners. As we advance (in skill not years) we learn to observe and think and plan while under pressure. We react faster not because of changes in reaction time, but because we spot attacks earlier in our opponent's body language. These developments can only happen with enough exposure to people trying to hit you.

Please understand that I'm not suggesting anyone is a beginner. Often it is the most experienced who have the most deeply ingrained misconceptions.


----------



## Tez3

So, we have a thread that that is supposedly about kata but isn't at all. Oh well too much to hope for that we could have an interesting discussion on kata and bunkai. As you were gents, this obviously isn't going to be what it promised.


----------



## DaveB

Tez3 said:


> So, we have a thread that that is supposedly about kata but isn't at all. Oh well too much to hope for that we could have an interesting discussion on kata and bunkai. As you were gents, this obviously isn't going to be what it promised.



I think this is a much better and more honest discussion than another bunkai thread. Too many karateka think that adding a few exotic 1-step drills into a 3k syllabus will make them Bruce Lee. The fact that effective skill comes through hours of live and semi live partner drills is missed completely by many. Bunkai is great but but meaningless if trained poorly.

Although, on the topic of bunkai I will say that I think that karateka have gone a bit loopy trying to use bunkai to fill the grappling gap. There is definitely plenty of grappling in karate kata. However Karate is a striking art, but because we thought we knew how to use strikes to fight when we started looking for applications in kata that were grappling based. Many karateka advocate jujitsu to help understand kata but kata are derived from kung fu, not jujitsu. Striking and grappling are integrated together in Chinese arts. Control methods are used to support striking, giving a balanced understanding of both. IMO Karate is built this way too, with most kata detailing how and when to use strikes, how to create openings, how to attack as well as defend, how to move and strike, use angles, pick targets and throw combinations etc.

When I watch bunkai videos most of what I see is over complicated 1-step with the karateka showing locks that they knew before they spotted them in the kata or turning simple defensive movementso into shoulder locks despite there being no logical entry.in the previous move.

As mentioned above, endless 1-step drills won't prepare students for using martial arts in self defense. Knowing what is coming and having the response in mind is why they seem to work in the dojo. Luxuries not available on the street.

Ingrained adaptability is what is required and that comes from free and semi free partner work that centres around guiding strategies and tactics. Unless you are learning a complete grappling art, over focus on joint locks will just see you rolling around on the floor and probably getting kicked while down there when you should have been hitting and moving.


----------



## Tez3

DaveB said:


> Many karateka advocate jujitsu to help understand kata but kata are derived from kung fu, not jujitsu. Striking and grappling are integrated together in Chinese arts. Control methods are used to support striking, giving a balanced understanding of both. IMO Karate is built this way too, with most kata detailing how and when to use strikes, how to create openings, how to attack as well as defend, how to move and strike, use angles, pick targets and throw combinations etc.



In most karate styles that would be true but my style, Wado Ryu, has a great deal of jujutsu in it because the founder put it there.
The History of Wado Ryu


----------



## drop bear

If you want to do a drill of any sort with enough realism to learn from it then it has to be done at a pace and resistance level where you don't always win.

Which by the way can be really frustrating.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Which by the way can be really frustrating.



No, not really, it's about learning not winning against your partner, only the sort who turn everything into a competition would think it frustrating. You learn, you win anyway.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> No, not really, it's about learning not winning against your partner, only the sort who turn everything into a competition would think it frustrating. You learn, you win anyway.



Drills at a certain point should be competitive. I think that is OPs issue that his drills contain too much fluffing around and not enough trying to win.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Drills at a certain point should be competitive. I think that is OPs issue that his drills contain too much fluffing around and not enough trying to win.




That's not karate's fault that will be the people who are doing the drills. Still don't think winning is the point of doing them, training and learning should be the point. If you wanted to win you'd just pick up a bit of 4X4 and belt them round the head with it.


----------



## D.Cobb

You will also find a different way of training between the traditional Japanese styles and the traditional Okinawan styles. Then to add mud to the mix there are still a few, very few, old school Okinawan styles. My teacher was a direct student of Meitoku Yagi in the Meibukan system of Goju Ryu. We learn certain techniques and we drill them relentlessly, and then we learn the kata. By the time we learn the kata, we have executed the individual techniques against various opponents of different skill levels, at different speeds and levels of intent to the point that we not only know and understand the techniques, but we also understand the underlying principles and concepts that the kata is really about.

There is not meant to be competition in drills. Least ways not in the Okinawan way of training. The drills should be performed as if they are a self defence technique, so there should always be pressure moving in one direction or another. It depends on the type of drill as which member is applying pressure and then also what actions the other member will do in response to that pressure.

One step, two step and three step sparring should always be performed to the best of the lower ranks ability. That is, a black belt should never expect a coloured belt student to know and be skilled enough to keep up. If the coloured belt shows that higher level of skill then it is fine for the black belt to perform at the higher level. They should always be done in such a way, though, that if the defence is not executed correctly that some level of contact is made. It is important to learn the consequences for not learning the basics...


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> That's not karate's fault that will be the people who are doing the drills. Still don't think winning is the point of doing them, training and learning should be the point. If you wanted to win you'd just pick up a bit of 4X4 and belt them round the head with it.



In the context





Tez3 said:


> That's not karate's fault that will be the people who are doing the drills. Still don't think winning is the point of doing them, training and learning should be the point. If you wanted to win you'd just pick up a bit of 4X4 and belt them round the head with it.



If you wanted to learn you have to risk loosing. Otherwise it is boxersise.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> In the context
> 
> If you wanted to learn you have to risk loosing. Otherwise it is boxersise.




One trains so that one doesn't lose *when it matters*, _in training it doesn't matter._ You don't lose when you train in the nets, you lose when your team is run out in under two hours roflmao.


----------



## DaveB

I agree with Tez3.

Winning and loosing are distractionso of emotion. Training is about developing skills. If you are always trying to win then you won't let yourself get hit over and over to practice a technique or tactic.

It also leads to people dismissing things as ineffective because they can't get them to work straight away (e.g. Every mma junkie ever to discuss kata, wing chun or even head kicks back in the sport's early days).


----------



## Tez3

DaveB said:


> I agree with Tez3.
> 
> Winning and loosing are distractionso of emotion. Training is about developing skills. If you are always trying to win then you won't let yourself get hit over and over to practice a technique or tactic.
> 
> It also leads to people dismissing things as ineffective because they can't get them to work straight away (e.g. Every mma junkie ever to discuss kata, wing chun or even head kicks back in the sport's early days).



However, in the early days of MMA the practitioners were TMA people, tends to be only the fanboys who smack talk, the rest of us don't. I know several very good MMA fighters who still stay in touch with their karate roots and indeed still do kata and bunkai. I'm karate and MMA and have been in both more years than I care to say lol!


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> One trains so that one doesn't lose *when it matters*, _in training it doesn't matter._ You don't lose when you train in the nets, you lose when your team is run out in under two hours roflmao.



So you don't train to win or be competitive. Where do people develop a winning mind set?

And cricket is a girls sport.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> I agree with Tez3.
> 
> Winning and loosing are distractionso of emotion. Training is about developing skills. If you are always trying to win then you won't let yourself get hit over and over to practice a technique or tactic.
> 
> It also leads to people dismissing things as ineffective because they can't get them to work straight away (e.g. Every mma junkie ever to discuss kata, wing chun or even head kicks back in the sport's early days).



You won't get hit if the other guy is not trying to hit you. Then you both loose. And you develop poor skills.

You find someone good enough to hit you over and over again so that you can try to stop him. 

At some point you need to train with intent or you do not progress as a fighter.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> So you don't train to win or be competitive. Where do people develop a winning mind set?
> 
> And cricket is a girls sport.




Many people don't train martial arts to compete, they train to survive. Not everyone wants to compete. Trying to hit each other has absolutely nothing to do with being competitive, we train hard, we hit, kick and punch each other, that's how I lost a tooth but it has nothing to do with being competitive.
Of course cricket is a girls sport and we are very good at it, women invented overarm bowling after all but we still have the Ashes lol. Australia totally collapsed, no competitive spirit perhaps?


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> And cricket is a girls sport.


And that is an outdated attitude.


----------



## Tez3

Cricket is a competitive sport, martial arts can be but isn't necessarily. A winning competitive attitude is needed in cricket, it isn't needed in martial arts if you don't intend to compete. I have trained with people who didn't intend to compete but insisted on being competitive when training, it's not a good attitude. It makes them difficult to teach because they want to outdo their partners and makes them very bad ukes. Sometimes that competitive attitudes spills over into them thinking they know better than their instructors, they also rush to learn things, cut corners and don't listen.
Even in MMA there isn't a competitive attitude towards training, there should be an intense attitude, one of striving to be the best and to work hard and smart but not one where you beat up the guy holding pads for you or who is helping you learn and practice techniques. The competitive attitude is kept for the competition ie the fight.
*Work hard and work smart* should be the mantra not 'compete'.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Many people don't train martial arts to compete, they train to survive. Not everyone wants to compete. Trying to hit each other has absolutely nothing to do with being competitive, we train hard, we hit, kick and punch each other, that's how I lost a tooth but it has nothing to do with being competitive.
> Of course cricket is a girls sport and we are very good at it, women invented overarm bowling after all but we still have the Ashes lol. Australia totally collapsed, no competitive spirit perhaps?



So someone tries to hit me vs me trying to stop them is not competitive?

Fighting to win would help people survive.

Live Cricket Scores News International Cricket Council ICC 
.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> And that is an outdated attitude.



Outdated game.


----------



## JowGaWolf

DaveB said:


> Following on from this, sparring becomes about practicing the skills taught, not working out what those skills are through trial and error.


This is why so many people who do kung fu tend fall back on basic kicks and hits in sparring competitions.  They aren't working out skills through trial and error.  Forms will only take you so far.  There is no such thing as error free learning.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> So someone tries to hit me vs me trying to stop them is not competitive?
> 
> Fighting to win would help people survive.
> 
> Live Cricket Scores News International Cricket Council ICC
> .




No, it's not competitive, that can get you killed. Fighting to win doesn't help people to survive, they will be focusing on the wrong thing, it's not a game, being competitive is game playing, nothing more.


----------



## JowGaWolf

DaveB said:


> If you are training only one kata with a defined and finite list of non overlapping applications, and nothing else, then this might be true, but mostly it's a myth.
> 
> Think of all the times fighters say that boxing is like chess. They say that because of the thoughtful tactical element of fighting. If they were just reacting this wouldn't be the case.


I don't do kata I do kung fu Forms.  The beginner form has more than 50 strikes. The bow alone has 12 unique techniques each of those 12 techniques have a minimum of 2 unique applications that can be used as a defense, an offense, or counter.

Boxing has how many unique strikes?  If I have to think about what type of punch I need to throw then I'm not going to be a good fighter.  I don't have time to sit and try to think of what block, punch, kick, or technique I should use when some ones is punching at my face.  This is how I use kung fu.  If I see that you want to guard your stomach then I'm going to attack your head or legs.  The type of attack to your head or legs depends on how you leave those areas open.  I don't sit there thinking about what type of punch or kick I'm going to do.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> You won't get hit if the other guy is not trying to hit you. Then you both loose. And you develop poor skills.
> 
> You find someone good enough to hit you over and over again so that you can try to stop him.
> 
> At some point you need to train with intent or you do not progress as a fighter.



You are confusing intent/intensity with competitiveness. They are not the same thing. 

The person good enough to hit you over and over should be someone you try to learn from not out-do. If they beat you through attributes alone (e.g they are faster) then they have shown you where you need to develop, but the challenge to get faster is a competition against yourself, not the classmate.


----------



## DaveB

JowGaWolf said:


> This is why so many people who do kung fu tend fall back on basic kicks and hits in sparring competitions.  They aren't working out skills through trial and error.  Forms will only take you so far.  There is no such thing as error free learning.



I'm not really sure what you are getting at here or how it relates to my post.



JowGaWolf said:


> I don't do kata I do kung fu Forms.  The beginner form has more than 50 strikes. The bow alone has 12 unique techniques each of those 12 techniques have a minimum of 2 unique applications that can be used as a defense, an offense, or counter.
> 
> Boxing has how many unique strikes?  If I have to think about what type of punch I need to throw then I'm not going to be a good fighter.  I don't have time to sit and try to think of what block, punch, kick, or technique I should use when some ones is punching at my face.  This is how I use kung fu.  If I see that you want to guard your stomach then I'm going to attack your head or legs.  The type of attack to your head or legs depends on how you leave those areas open.  I don't sit there thinking about what type of punch or kick I'm going to do.



Hmm, I think you and I must have rather different definitions of "unique" in regards to striking. Even so what you describe shouldnt to pose a problem because between a defined system strategy and approved supporting tactics you should have enough guidance to know what to use in a given moment. Otherwise such a vast system is pointless. I've found that CMA is generally far better for retaining this systematic approach.

Just being told "here's 50 strikes, try and hit the other guy!" is a hugely inefficient way to learn fighting. Such a wide range of unique strikes must have very well defined tactical uses and conditions for their deployment, reducing considerably the shot selection issue in any given circumstance. However, I think it's more likely that all those techniques fit neatly into 4 or 5 groupings that each have similar rules governing their use. 

Lastly I can only disagree and say that the good fighters are the ones who can think about which punch or kick they will use.


----------



## JowGaWolf

DaveB said:


> The person good enough to hit you over and over should be someone you try to learn from not out-do. If they beat you through attributes alone (e.g they are faster) then they have shown you where you need to develop, but the challenge to get faster is a competition against yourself, not the classmate.


I think this way too.  If I can't be faster than my classmate, then I need to figure out a different strategy to deal with his speed with the understanding that I won't always be the guy with the fastest hands or feet.

I think people can view the same activity with a different focus where one see's training as learning to survive and the other seeing the training as being the best or better than the person they might fight against.  For me kung fu is survival, I don't care about winning for the glory.  I tell younger people (15 - 30) that I don't care about street credit anymore.  I'm at an age where not fighting or finishing a fight quickly is the priority. My definition of a win in a real self-defense situation is different than a sport win.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> No, it's not competitive, that can get you killed. Fighting to win doesn't help people to survive, they will be focusing on the wrong thing, it's not a game, being competitive is game playing, nothing more.



Fighting to win dosent help people survive?

Come on seriously?

They will be focusing on winning. In your example earlier that was hitting someone with a 2by 4 rather than do a drill properly.

The idea of a competitive mindset and a survival mindset being different is a fabrication to make self defence people feel more comfortable with training that is just not as effective.

When you do a resisted drill you need the other person to use every tool in his disposal to win at the task at hand. You use every tool to resist him.

This way you get an idea of what it takes to resist a person who really wants to beat you rather than someone who is just trying to help you look good and feel nice.


----------



## drop bear

Matthew78 said:


> The problem is that after years of training, I see a lot of black belts standing there with no clue what to do in response to the attack. I've had my moments of confusion too. One-steps seem too rote and impractical and I never see anyone using a one-step as a defense in our randori. I am just not convinced of the street defense effectiveness of the teaching methods. Kata has most always been a frustration to me in that I have always questioned how practical it is. I mean, unless a school is continuously practicing bunkai for each specific kata, then it seems little more than a dance which doesn't translate into anything practical.



And that way you avoid this.


----------



## JowGaWolf

DaveB said:


> Hmm, I think you and I must have rather different definitions of "unique" in regards to striking.


.  When I say that the strikes are unique, I mean that each one is different and does not repeat.  Sorry about the confusion with that.



DaveB said:


> ust being told "here's 50 strikes, try and hit the other guy!" is a hugely inefficient way to learn fighting.


 I agree completely with that.  In my school we do like many Kung Fu schools where they teach form and application.  The problem with form training is that it was never designed to teach how to fight.  Learning the application of a technique is always done in a demo like manner that is easy to understand the concept of the technique.  Actual fighting and using a technique is totally different because people rarely throw attacks in a similar manner as shown in the demo.  The instructor may use a 1,2 jab punch combination and then a kick.  Or a person may fake a 1,2 jab combination and then actually hook on the second punch.  This is were sparring comes in so that the person will learn how to deal with the variety of attacks and apply the technique to the attacks.  Some techniques can be applied in whole while some are applied in part.  There's no way for a Sifu to train students for every type of punch combination, but sparring and actually using the technique during sparring helps build up the sensitivity and deeper understanding of the technique in a real-self defense situation.  Some techniques are determined by what that attacker does, while other may be determined on the position and type of stance you are in when you see the opening or on a weakness. This is what I mean by figuring things out in sparring.  How the Martial arts technique fits within the person capability and abilities. 

"As for the 50 punch combo" I've seen plenty of Wing Chun practitioners in competitive sparring try to overwhelm their opponent this by throwing a bunch of punches and many of them pay for doing so because they are over committed to the punch. I don't do Wing Chun, but from what I know about fighting I would think this is a more realistic attack combination where a couple of punches are thrown and then the fighter resets.  




I don't see this guy's combination as being the suggested combo. The longer his combinations get the more I can see counters to, from grabbing to sweeping, to catching that front kick and sweeping the standing leg.  Even the non-grappling karate guy saw the opportunity to grab.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Fighting to win dosent help people survive?
> 
> Come on seriously?
> 
> They will be focusing on winning. In your example earlier that was hitting someone with a 2by 4 rather than do a drill properly.
> 
> The idea of a competitive mindset and a survival mindset being different is a fabrication to make self defence people feel more comfortable with training that is just not as effective.
> 
> When you do a resisted drill you need the other person to use every tool in his disposal to win at the task at hand. You use every tool to resist him.
> 
> This way you get an idea of what it takes to resist a person who really wants to beat you rather than someone who is just trying to help you look good and feel nice.



What you are describing is only one aspect of training. This wasn't a conversations about only free all in sparring, it was about training. Wanting to win in that type of sparring is fine, but it is the culmination of everything else you do in training where wanting to win is just a  distraction.

Tez3 and I have both pointed out numerous problems with a competitive mindset in training and I've not seen one counter to all those downsides.

What I believe Tez3 was trying to get across was that if you are faced with life or death, thinking about winning the fight is not the same as thinking about surviving. Fighting might not even be the best option but the bravado of competition might lead you to feel otherwise. 

Also this juvenile nonsense about how all SD martial artists think just lowers the tone of the whole thread. 
Actually what happened is a number of people with many years of experience with real life or death violence, from bouncers to prison guards, saw how their own experience matched against what they had learned in martial arts and combat sports and were kind enough to share that.knowledge. 

Sport is sport, from boxing to Shobu ippon kumite, you can be competitive in all but if real life throws something unfamiliar, like a knife, or a gang, then the mindset you need to get a trophy might not necessarily be the one you need to walk away. 

But as I said, the discussion was around training so we're going off topic...


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Fighting to win would help people survive.


Unless they miss obvious opportunities to flee because they want to 'win'.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Outdated game.


How so?


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> What you are describing is only one aspect of training. This wasn't a conversations about only free all in sparring, it was about training. Wanting to win in that type of sparring is fine, but it is the culmination of everything else you do in training where wanting to win is just a  distraction.
> 
> Tez3 and I have both pointed out numerous problems with a competitive mindset in training and I've not seen one counter to all those downsides.
> 
> What I believe Tez3 was trying to get across was that if you are faced with life or death, thinking about winning the fight is not the same as thinking about surviving. Fighting might not even be the best option but the bravado of competition might lead you to feel otherwise.
> 
> Also this juvenile nonsense about how all SD martial artists think just lowers the tone of the whole thread.
> Actually what happened is a number of people with many years of experience with real life or death violence, from bouncers to prison guards, saw how their own experience matched against what they had learned in martial arts and combat sports and were kind enough to share that.knowledge.
> 
> Sport is sport, from boxing to Shobu ippon kumite, you can be competitive in all but if real life throws something unfamiliar, like a knife, or a gang, then the mindset you need to get a trophy might not necessarily be the one you need to walk away.
> 
> But as I said, the discussion was around training so we're going off topic...



Yes I am talking about one particular aspect of training which is black belts training self defence and being terrible at it. And the solution to that particular issue.

Trying to fight to survive will get you beaten up faster than fighting to win. Once you are in a fight you have to be mindfull of that fight. Not trying to half fight and half run at the same time.

Sigh. All those people with many years. (Here we go again). OK how many life or death fights have you been in? I have never been killed or killed anybody. So mabye I can learn stuff.

Fighting for a trophy is a terrible argument. It assumes you have superior skill ability or mindset to someone who has a trophy. And that is not able to be proved.

And in regards to being juvenile. All we have been doing this whole thread is beating each other up with unfounded assumptions which would have to be the definition of juvenile.

I just thought I would have a go at it as it looked like fun.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Fighting to win dosent help people survive?
> 
> Come on seriously?
> 
> They will be focusing on winning. In your example earlier that was hitting someone with a 2by 4 rather than do a drill properly.
> 
> The idea of a competitive mindset and a survival mindset being different is a fabrication to make self defence people feel more comfortable with training that is just not as effective.
> 
> When you do a resisted drill you need the other person to use every tool in his disposal to win at the task at hand. You use every tool to resist him.
> 
> This way you get an idea of what it takes to resist a person who really wants to beat you rather than someone who is just trying to help you look good and feel nice.




This is ego not competitiveness. Ego will get you beaten, it will make you lose both in life and competition, there is a reason people talk about 'no mind' in martial arts, it's because of ego and this false 'competitiveness'.

You don't know that ALL black belt training is as you think it is, you don't know how many of us have actually had to fight to their lives, you just don't know.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> How so?



It takes 3 days to play the thing. Who has time for that.

And silly hats.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> It takes 3 days to play the thing. Who has time for that.
> 
> And silly hats.



Not when the Aussies play, it takes under 2 hours to lose. We will see on Thursday if they make a fight of it when there's nothing at stake but pride, _that's character_, it will get you further than ego.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> It takes 3 days to play the thing. Who has time for that.
> 
> And silly hats.


Unless it is a one dayer or a 20/20.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> OK how many life or death fights have you been in? I have never been killed or killed anybody.


I have never lost a fight to the death.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Yes I am talking about one particular aspect of training which is black belts training self defence and being terrible at it. And the solution to that particular issue.
> 
> Trying to fight to survive will get you beaten up faster than fighting to win. Once you are in a fight you have to be mindfull of that fight. Not trying to half fight and half run at the same time.



We don't really need to explain that defeating an assailant is preferable to getting beaten up, but being aware of other ways to end the confrontation is also important. Fighting a rear gaurd action while retreating may well be preferable if you can get to a place of safety or to a means of escape. If you are faced with more than one opponent you may have no other choice.



> Sigh. All those people with many years. (Here we go again). OK how many life or death fights have you been in? I have never been killed or killed anybody. So mabye I can learn stuff.



From the patronising "sigh" I presume you magic all your knowledge from the air. The rest of us who aren't so lucky do need to find people qualified in or experienced enough to codify knowledge in a given field. The first two in the fields of Self Defense and Martial arts  to pop in my head are linked below.
WELCOME TO GEOFF THOMPSON.COM
Home

Personally I've been lucky enough to have had backup close by so non of my confrontations turned lethal, but in the 10 years I policed the streets of north London I had my share of violent encounters. 



> Fighting for a trophy is a terrible argument. It assumes you have superior skill ability or mindset to someone who has a trophy. And that is not able to be proved.



This makes no sense and I cant see how it relates to my post. No one made any arguments about fighting for trophies. What was said was that the mentality needed for one thing might not be the mentality needed for another.



> And in regards to being juvenile. All we have been doing this whole thread is beating each other up with unfounded assumptions.



The only unfounded assumption I observed was yours about SD karateka. The other posts appeared to be talking from personal experience, which is a bit different. 

To be clear, no one that I can see is decrying sport martial arts or MMA or anything like that. The training given to competition fighters is in many ways what one needs to build competence in dealing with attacks. However the idea that during training you need to be in competition with your training partners and trying to win against them is flawed for a number of reasons already stated and still not refuted.


----------



## Tez3

DaveB said:


> in the 10 years I policed the streets of north London I had my share of violent encounters.



For that, respect sir.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> We don't really need to explain that defeating an assailant is preferable to getting beaten up, but being aware of other ways to end the confrontation is also important. Fighting a rear gaurd action while retreating may well be preferable if you can get to a place of safety or to a means of escape. If you are faced with more than one opponent you may have no other choice.



Are you going to do this on every thread? 

Each thread has a focus which is what we discuss. In this case it is kata and drills and what the op sees as an issue with the practice of.

So does deescalateion work as part of an overall defence plan? Yes.

Is escaping a reasonable tactic? Yes.

Is that something you would routinely practice when doing drills. Probably not as it would get really distracting. And even if you did when you actually do engage the guy you would still want to do it in a competitive nature.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> From the patronising "sigh" I presume you magic all your knowledge from the air. The rest of us who aren't so lucky do need to find people qualified in or experienced enough to codify knowledge in a given field. The first two in the fields of Self Defense and Martial arts to pop in my head are linked below.
> WELCOME TO GEOFF THOMPSON.COM
> Home
> 
> Personally I've been lucky enough to have had backup close by so non of my confrontations turned lethal, but in the 10 years I policed the streets of north London I had my share of violent encounters.



An appeal to authority really should be a last resort as it is too easily used by people who do not have an actual answer they can draw from experience.

My Sigh is that this "I train for the deadly streets and so have the final say on all things violence" is something that gets thrown at me constantly. Methods used by these unnamed bouncers and soldiers so therefore work even if they either don't work or don't make sense.

Geoff Thompson does a drill called animal day.






So back to the idea about competitive drills. That would be an example of what I am trying to put forwards.

Not to that level for this discussion though.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> This makes no sense and I cant see how it relates to my post. No one made any arguments about fighting for trophies. What was said was that the mentality needed for one thing might not be the mentality needed for another.



OK. You assume that there is a difference and there is not. The mentality that would make you win a trophy will also give you a better chance in a self defence. But saying trophy sound like it should be different.

And while we are discussing patronising............

Have you looked into sports psychology?

Five Components of Mental Preparation Sports Psychology Today


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> The only unfounded assumption I observed was yours about SD karateka. The other posts appeared to be talking from personal experience, which is a bit different.
> 
> To be clear, no one that I can see is decrying sport martial arts or MMA or anything like that. The training given to competition fighters is in many ways what one needs to build competence in dealing with attacks. However the idea that during training you need to be in competition with your training partners and trying to win against them is flawed for a number of reasons already stated and still not refuted.



That is because my unfounded assumption is counter to yours. It is a method of discussion I see when people never have to back up what they say. I think I will coin the term "sensei speak."

This is where you get to a point that because nobody ever pulls you up on your inconsistencies you assume you are constantly dropping pearls of wisdom every time you open your mouth.

Watch almost any Steven segal interview.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> For that, respect sir.



And ditto.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Unless it is a one dayer or a 20/20.



Or indoor cricket. Or as tez said the Australian team. 

But yeah dumb sport. Boring to watch,boring to play and it takes too long.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Boring to watch,boring to play and it takes too long.


At least it is more interesting than soccer.


----------



## Tez3

RTKDCMB said:


> At least it is more interesting than soccer.



Soccer can be very interesting the problem is the attitude of players these days. Their _competitive_ attitude has lead to faking injuries to get penalties, breaking other players legs etc. All they see is winning and the money that means to them. It's a lesson in how not to be negatively competitive. Too much ego, self pride and over confidence, never a good thing in martial arts either.
I think the problem is that a competitive attitude is fine at the right time and place, in competitions. For self defence a sense of self preservation is better, the two may not be far from each other but when people say 'competiveness' it brings to mind ego and wanting to win by fighting and proving one is the better fighter whereas for self defence an attitude of 'I'm going to be the one walking away from this relatively unharmed by any means even leaving without fighting' is a better one, competitiveness conjures up heat whereas self preservation is cool and clear headed.
When you say competitiveness when sparring, it brings to mind this winning at all costs and not learning attitude. When we spar and we do spar hard it's not competitiveness that drives us, we don't have to 'prove' anything ( another thing 'competitiveness brings to mind) we are trying to become better, to achieve more than we did last time, to expand out knowledge of what we can do, 'winning' against out opponent isn't the first thing we think of. We can stop during sparring and my 'opponent' will show me something I could have done better or how to do something different, it will still be hard sparring but not with the aim to win against each other, the idea is that we both improve. Many of ours do compete and then the competitiveness does come in to it, many of ours also play rugby, it's a big army sport but again in their training it's all about gaining skills, fitness and team playing.
I can see why you are saying 'competitiveness' but I just think it's giving the wrong impression. Perhaps we need to find another word we can agree on.


----------



## Tez3

'Robustly'? One should spar robustly.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> The idea of a competitive mindset and a survival mindset being different is a fabrication to make self defence people feel more comfortable with training that is just not as effective.



Not only would I disagree but I would go so far as to say that a competitive mind-set will foster thinking that is the exact opposite of what is needed for SD.

How will a competitive “I must beat this guy “ I must win” mind-set foster the attitude of “If I apologise, this conformation will end” or “If I walk away this wont; end in violmce”?  It doesn’t, instead it makes the classic mistake that lot of male marital artists make of thinking that SD and fighting are the same thing, and that all SD scenarios must end in violence which you need to “win”.

The idea of the competitive mind-set and the survival mind-set being the same is a is not only a mistake to make people, who confusing fighting and SD as the same thing, believe their fight training is preparing them for SD, but it also demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the realities of civilian violence.

Fighting and SD are not, and have never been, the same thing, and the skills, the mind-set required for success in one will not only not guarantee success in the other, but can often develop skills and thinking that are the exact opposite of what is required for success in the other.

If I run away from a SD scenario I have won, because I got home safely.  If I run away from an opponent in the ring, I lose because I am disqualified.  Same action, different outcome, why, because the criteria used to decide success changes dependant on circumstance.  The competitive mind-set fosters the attitude that the other person must be defeated.  Survival mind-set fosters the thinking that I need to try avoid confrontation.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Is escaping a reasonable tactic? Yes.
> 
> Is that something you would routinely practice when doing drills. Probably not as it would get really distracting. And even if you did when you actually do engage the guy you would still want to do it in a competitive nature.



There is a school of thought that says this is exactly what you should be training if your martial arts school has a self-defense focus.



drop bear said:


> An appeal to authority really should be a last resort as it is too easily used by people who do not have an actual answer they can draw from experience.



You raised the issue of the approach of self defense karateka. I countered your assumption. Then you ridiculed the reference to experienced instructors, so I showed that they were real people with verifiable history. No appeals to anything. If you want to stick to the thread topic then do so.



> My Sigh is that this "I train for the deadly streets and so have the final say on all things violence" is something that gets thrown at me constantly. Methods used by these unnamed bouncers and soldiers so therefore work even if they either don't work or don't make sense.



Hence they are no longer unnamed and it seems you support at least one method they teach. I don't know everything about violence, I am just disagreeing with you on one issue. 



> Geoff Thompson does a drill called animal day.
> ...
> 
> So back to the idea about competitive drills. That would be an example of what I am trying to put forwards.
> 
> Not to that level for this discussion though.



And in that regard we're on the same page. I was arguing against the mentality of competition, not the training methods. I believe that one can train like that dispassionately, without needing to win and all.the counter productive attitudes associated with that.




drop bear said:


> OK. You assume that there is a difference and there is not. The mentality that would make you win a trophy will also give you a better chance in a self defence. But saying trophy sound like it should be different.
> 
> And while we are discussing patronising............
> 
> Have you looked into sports psychology?
> 
> Five Components of Mental Preparation Sports Psychology Today



That's a.fair point to disagree on, but.there have been many arguments explaining problems with your view that you're not answering which makes it hard to agree with your position.



drop bear said:


> That is because my unfounded assumption is counter to yours. It is a method of discussion I see when people never have to back up what they say. I think I will coin the term "sensei speak."
> 
> This is where you get to a point that because nobody ever pulls you up on your inconsistencies you assume you are constantly dropping pearls of wisdom every time you open your mouth.
> 
> Watch almost any Steven segal interview.



On a Web forum all any of us have is what we write. The same is as true for you as me or anyone. If you see an assumption that is unjustified please do be specific and say what is wrong with ithe, but general accusations are unhelpful. I welcome the challenge of disagreement, so long as it's constructive.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tez3 said:


> Soccer can be very interesting the problem is the attitude of players these days.


The problem is that they can basically kick a ball back and forth for 90 minutes and not score.


----------



## Tez3

RTKDCMB said:


> The problem is that they can basically kick a ball back and forth for 90 minutes and not score.



They still get paid enormous sums of money though so I guess they aren't bothered. The women's world cup was on recently, totally different game, not much money at stake and all the teams played their hearts out, no rolling on the floor pretending to be hurt etc. A professional attitude.... perhaps that's another word to go with robust, training professionally lol as in properly, not slapdash or playing pat-a-cake!


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> There is a school of thought that says this is exactly what you should be training if your martial arts school has a self-defense focus.




If you were to practice escaping in a drill you would still need some to try and stop you.

So it would still be competitive and someone would win and someone would loose.

If I am doing a drill and someone punches me. I run out the door and never come back. Technically I have achieved self defence but it is not all that helpful in a class environment.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> nd in that regard we're on the same page. I was arguing against the mentality of competition, not the training methods. I believe that one can train like that dispassionately, without needing to win and all.the counter productive attitudes associated with that.




So say you turn up to animal day. What sort of mindset would you be trying to create?

My coach suggests "fight with bad intentions" which is his way of preparing for competition.

I actually wrote fight to win on my arm before each sparring session to remind myself that there is no hole to crawl into when you work with in a cage. You either dominate the situation or get outrageously beat up trying to dominate the situation.

A friend of mine in his last fight go hurt bad in the first round discussing the fight afterwards he said that at the time. "I was going to die before I quit"

All elements of a competitive mind set With all the counter productive attitudes associated with it.

Now what do you think Geoff Thompson's stance is on SD mindset?


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> If you were to practice escaping in a drill you would still need some to try and stop you.
> 
> So it would still be competitive and someone would win and someone would loose.
> 
> If I am doing a drill and someone punches me. I run out the door and never come back. Technically I have achieved self defence but it is not all that helpful in a class environment.




I have a good friend who lived in Australia for some time, she married an Australian and has two children, she's divorced and back in the UK, the thing she said the only thing that annoyed her about Australians was the fact they are so very competitive, they see everything as a competition so I guess you are no different. It's all a 'competition' with you, you only see it as 'winners and losers' and heaven forfend that you should be a loser. You cannot see it as both participants being winners in that they learn and grow, yes you need someone to 'stop' you but that isn't being competitive, *that's being a bloody good training partner.* There is no losing, there is only learning when you are training. Ego says it's a competition because the ego cannot stand what it sees as 'losing'. This is why the much used cliché 'empty your cup' actually has value, lose the competitive part, it's not you v your training partner, it's you and your training partner working together to get the best possible training for both of you. It is perfectly possible to train hard, to go full contact and not see it as a competition.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> They still get paid enormous sums of money though so I guess they aren't bothered. The women's world cup was on recently, totally different game, not much money at stake and all the teams played their hearts out, no rolling on the floor pretending to be hurt etc. A professional attitude.... perhaps that's another word to go with robust, training professionally lol as in properly, not slapdash or playing pat-a-cake!



Professionalism is a good term to use when discussing martial arts.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> So say you turn up to animal day. What sort of mindset would you be trying to create?
> 
> My coach suggests "fight with bad intentions" which is his way of preparing for competition.
> 
> I actually wrote fight to win on my arm before each sparring session to remind myself that there is no hole to crawl into when you work with in a cage. You either dominate the situation or get outrageously beat up trying to dominate the situation.
> 
> A friend of mine in his last fight go hurt bad in the first round discussing the fight afterwards he said that at the time. "I was going to die before I quit"
> 
> All elements of a competitive mind set With all the counter productive attitudes associated with it.
> 
> Now what do you think Geoff Thompson's stance is on SD mindset?




I don' think you understand Geoff's approach to SD at all. Have you read any of his stuff or been on any of his seminars?


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> I have a good friend who lived in Australia for some time, she married an Australian and has two children, she's divorced and back in the UK, the thing she said the only thing that annoyed her about Australians was the fact they are so very competitive, they see everything as a competition so I guess you are no different. It's all a 'competition' with you, you only see it as 'winners and losers' and heaven forfend that you should be a loser. You cannot see it as both participants being winners in that they learn and grow, yes you need someone to 'stop' you but that isn't being competitive, *that's being a bloody good training partner.* There is no losing, there is only learning when you are training. Ego says it's a competition because the ego cannot stand what it sees as 'losing'. This is why the much used cliché 'empty your cup' actually has value, lose the competitive part, it's not you v your training partner, it's you and your training partner working together to get the best possible training for both of you. It is perfectly possible to train hard, to go full contact and not see it as a competition.



You can't cheat yourself out of loosing though. I think avoiding loss is a training mistake.

We also accept as a culture when we are fairly beaten.
Except in cricket of course.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> I don' think you understand Geoff's approach to SD at all. Have you read any of his stuff or been on any of his seminars?



No seen a few videos and interviews and that is about it. He makes a distinction between martial arts training and street fighting where I don't think there is one. I think that is where his fear of conflict comes from is fear of loss.

So where his stance may appear different. I don't believe it is so much.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> You can't cheat yourself out of loosing though. I think avoiding loss is a training mistake.
> 
> We also accept as a culture when we are fairly beaten.
> Except in cricket of course.




You don't understand do you? Your training partner can stop you, break your nose even but that isn't a 'loss', that's learning because next time you won't make the same mistakes. that's why you train. This win or lose thing is pure ego talking.

Geoff Thompson doesn't talk about winning or losing, he has no time for that attitude in SD. Read all the article though.
http://www.geoffthompsoninspired.com/does-self-defence-work/


_"One of the many things I have learned in my forty years of martial arts training, from working with masters and from following the deity of my own experience hard won is that self defence and martial arts are not the same thing. Sport MA and self defence are not the same thing either. And recreational training – twice a week at the local sports hall – certainly does not constitute a serious investment in real self protection.
When people talk martial art they think that they are automatically talking self defence but they are not. And when they talk self defence they believe that it is synonymous with martial art. Again, it is not. The two are very different, and they should be separated and taught as such.
There is nothing wrong with sport martial art, I love it, I am a big fan. And recreational training is better than no training at all. But if people are ever to survive a violent encounter on the pavement arena, it is imperative that they learn to distinguish between the two.
If you train twice a week in martial arts and think you are a serious player in self defence you’ll be in for a big shock when it kicks off outside the chippy on a Friday night. If your penchant is for sport martial arts (and all that it entails) and you think it automatically translates to the street you too will be in big trouble when the pub-warrior breaks your rules and twats you while your un-zipped at the communal troth, or turns up for round two at your work or your home with a hammer and a bad intent.
I must stipulate that I am not having a go at traditional arts, at sport or at the recreational player. I have a deep love for MA and for its practitioners but mine is the reality game so I have to honour the truth above all else. And my truth is not based on theory of folk law or how well I can make it happen in the dojo, it is based on vast experience in all things real. I have hurt many people to acquire this information over a long period of time. I am not proud of that. But I do hope that the reader might learn from my knowledge, so that they do not become a victim of violent crime, or the next digit on a home office statistic about unsolicited assault. Because it is not bad technique or even bad teaching that gets people killed in street encounters, it is denial.
People are in denial. With their art, with their ability and with reality its self.
You may well ask, what is the truth?
*The truth is that real self defence in its concentrate is not and should not be about a physical response, as I will explain further into the article. When I teach self defence I may flirt around martial technique, and encourage people to invest in a core system, but the bulk of my teaching is in the art of avoidance. And if an encounter does by necessity become physical I teach and I preach the pre-emptive strike (attacking first). It is the only thing that works consistently. All the other stuff that you see, that you are taught or that you imagine might work ‘out there’ probably will not."*_


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> I think that is where his fear of conflict comes from is fear of loss.



Sorry? You are joking right? that man does not have a fear of conflict, trust me. You are kidding yourself if you think he is afraid of fighting or hurting people because he certainly has hurt a lot of people in his time. He is old school bouncer from a very tough area of the UK and had a rep as a very violent man long before he became known for his SD. I think you need to do a bit more research about him.


----------



## Tez3

http://www.theshotokanway.com/geoffthompsoninterview1.html


----------



## Tez3

Marc McYoung on pride, ego and self defence. http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/pride.html


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> No seen a few videos and interviews and that is about it. He makes a distinction between martial arts training and street fighting where I don't think there is one. I think that is where his fear of conflict comes from is fear of loss.
> 
> So where his stance may appear different. I don't believe it is so much.



What was that about sensei speak?

You're clearly not speaking from experience of Thompson and apparently you've never had a serious fight, so on what are you basing this nonsensical idea?


----------



## Tez3

From Geoff Thompson interview I gave the link to in post 73. Incidentally he does go on to praise kata. Note too that the men he cites as heroes really are the 'hard men' of karate. The atmosphere he trained in wasn't a 'competitive' one but one where one trained hard. He talks about the 'desensitisation of fear' as well.

*"(ER)  You did all of your Dan gradings with Enoeda Sensei, and trained with many of the KUGB greats. Would you be kind enough to share some memories and stories that you have of your training with these karateka?*
_

(GT)  Well, now we are talking. Man, I trained with some wonderful people. I can still remember the awe of Kawasoe as he (seemingly) glided through the dojo in his crisp white gi, and how karateka would travel from across the country to grade under him. I was probably about 12 years old (I still have my original licence) and training at the Longford Shotokan Club under the auspices of Mick and Rick Jackson. These two men were amazing athletes, and certainly pioneered karate in the Midlands. I actually used to walk a six mile round trip (chips on the way home) to train in what was probably the toughest karate club I have ever trained in. It was full of very large men and one or two equally scary women. To my youthful (fearful) eyes it felt a bit like walking onto the set of Monsters Inc. I loved the club, but it did terrify me. The training was relentless, the standards very high and if you didn’t block, something got broke; that was a given. It terrified me at the time. But retrospect has shown me that the grounding was perfect. I can remember that long walk as though it was yesterday, and how every step tempted me to stop and go back home. How, when I did arrive, I would peep through the high dojo doors before every session to see who was in attendance. And there were always several people who scared the breakfast out of me.  Of course I realise now how important fear is in training, and that if there is no fear, if there is not difficulty and if there is not doubt and uncertainty you are sure to be at the wrong club. Those early ‘inferno sessions’ in Shotokan absolutely and unequivocally made me; they gave me a foundation that, later standing on violent Coventry nightclub doors, literally saved my life._


_Mr Kawasoe was the epitome of power, but I always remember him as a very gentle and shy man. Of course when he moved it was like someone had thrown a live match into a box of fireworks. He was very dynamic. A very explosive Martial Artist. All of my early kyu grades were taken under Mr. Kawasoe. Then later, my first and second dans were taken under Enoeda Sensei. My best memories from that period are of Mick and Rick Jackson, they were so talented. I mean everyone looked up to Rick, he was just such an incredible man, but I was particularly taken by Mick, who was an amazing kicker. All I wanted to do back then was kick and Mick was (for me) the best technical kicker I have seen. I used to watch him warm up before sessions, lifting his knee almost to his head height then very slowly pushing out the most perfect kekomi. I dreamed of being able to do that. Then later of course I trained under, and was very influenced by, legends like Terry O’Neill, who became a hero of mine. He was actually responsible for publishing my first ever piece of writing, an article I penned for Fighting Arts International called Confrontation, Desensitisation (about gaining desensitisation to fear by confronting it). He actually rang me up to congratulate me on the piece and gave me great inspiration. I was just a club second dan in those days, whilst Terry et al were in the very highest echelons of Martial Arts, so I was really delighted and flattered that he rang. His phone call and subsequent support of my writing and training was what enabled me to add some heady ascent to my writing and my Martial game. And many, many years later when I was promoting my book Watch My Back I actually got a telephone call from Dennis Martin (another hero of mine) saying “Terry said, do you fancy a brew when you’re next in Liverpool?”_  "


----------



## Tez3

Geoff Thompson on the 'animal day' drills. It's testing not competition.
*"(ER)  You refer to “a character X-Ray” and you also mention this phrase in the Animal Day Sessions. What do you mean by this? How important is character in dealing with a violent encounter?*
_

(GT)  Character is everything in a real situation, because without it you will never be able control the often overwhelming amounts of fear that swamps your system. Training is all about developing character, like tempering a blade in a hot forge. A character X-ray is placing yourself (or your art or both) under extreme pressure to see how hardy your character really is. You might think it is titan, but until you bang the pressure on you will never really know (a sure sign of an undeveloped or weak character is someone that claims they would never lose their bottle in a real fight. It generally means that they have not felt real pressure yet). I have met many, many seasoned people who have fallen to pieces under pressure because they did not take their character into the forge. So to me, character x-ray means stepping into an animal day (or any high pressure situation) to allow you (and everyone else) to see what is inside. What weaknesses are lurking? How will you react if someone takes you to the floor? How will you cope if someone postures and swears? What if they threaten to burn your house down? The part of you that is going to have to handle a real situation is not the part of you that is sitting here reading this interview now. That is fact. The part of you that is reading these words is your conscious self, it is front of shop, the part that runs the show during homeostasis, when the body is working in the parasympathetic nervous system and doing normal things. In a fight situation the body goes out of homeostasis and into sympathetic nervous system, what we know as fight or flight. The front-of-shop self that you know and love is relegated to a back seat and another part of you, the primal self, will rush forward and take over. You’ll be on autopilot and you will go into any one of three phases; fight, flight or freeze. In this mad age of crazy neurological stressors, anyone of those three responses could be the wrong response for the situation that you are facing, a response that could get you killed because you froze when you should have attacked or attacked when you should have ran, or ran when you should have stayed and fought. Or any wrong combination of the three. In days of old when man hunted for food and dragged ladies around by the hair in the courting ritual, fight, flight or freeze was simple enough and it more often than not saved your life. These days the sound of a car backfiring is enough to trigger your adrenals. The response is out date and often dangerous. So it needs retraining, or re-educating. What I learned to do was trigger the adrenals with simulation training in order to get acquainted with the primal self and monitor its response to stressful situations and - where necessary - take back manual control and re-train it. The self that is reading this article does not concern me because he/she is not going to be there when **** and fan meet, it is the primal self that I am interested in, because that is the fellow (or girl) that needs the training. You don’t want to leave it until you face a real situation to find out, because by then it might be too late. Now is the time to do it, while you still can."_


----------



## Tez3

http://www.theshotokanway.com/geoffthompsoninterview2.html


----------



## Tez3

*"(ER)  Do you think that tradition has a place in the modern dojo? Bowing, kneeling to open and close a class, Japanese terminology?*
_

(GT)  I’d say that we would be pretty lost without it. I love the etiquette, it is a big part of the discipline, but I do believe it should have congruence, it is not good kneeling and bowing and showing respect in the dojo if you do not carry it over into the outside world. I’ve lost count of the amount of Martial Artists I see who do the traditional thing in the dojo, but outside they have no morals, no ethics, no respect and for themselves or for others. It has got to mean something or why bother.

_
*(ER)  For those karate-ka who want to retain the traditional element of their karate study, how would you suggest they introduce a more-reality based approach?*
_

(GT)  Set a day a week or month for those that seriously want to develop, to place themselves and their art under pressure. Free spar and allow every range, so if a player throws a sloppy kick and it gets caught the fight will go to the floor. Put gloves on and make the fight knockout or submission. Once a month invite a coach from a different art (judo, boxing, wrestling, Thai etc) to come and train your senior guys and girls. Encourage your dan grades to leave the trunk of the tree to explore the branches. I would tell senior players to get a dan grade in judo, or to qualify as a boxing coach. My senior players were qualified and expert in Greco, freestyle wrestling, Sombo, Thai boxing, western boxing, Ju-Jitsu. Every week I would have someone visiting to teach a private course for them and me. You can’t be a jealous husband about your students; you need to encourage growth by inspiring exploration. And if your club does not allow you to do this, or actively encourages you against it you have to ask yourself, is this a Martial Art or is this a cult? 



And listen, regarding this advice, don’t take my word for any of it. Try the ideas out for yourself. Place your art under great scrutiny, place massive pressure on it. It’s like taking a vessel out to sea, you must make sure that it is sea worthy first, that it is water tight. Don’t take my word, or your trainers word or the word of your master in Japan, the bottom line is you need to know for yourself, because if you are in a real situation and it doesn’t work, you might die, a family member might die. In Milton’s Paradise Lost he uses the word sapience, meaning in context to taste. It is not enough to be told, or to read or to watch, you must know, and the only way to know is to taste. 



In the dojo an error might mean a split lip. In the street it could mean a toe tag and a slot at the local cemetery. And the great thing about pressure training is that it will develop a sinewy mentality that will enhance every aspect of your life. What I love about his kind of illuminatingly honest training is that once you have undergone it, once you have negotiated your way through that forging process you will neither want to get involved in a real fight in the street or need to get involved in a real fight in the street. Once you master the physical you will spill over into a much deeper level of knowing. As Don Draeger said, you will be so good at your art that if you stand in a room full of people those people will be better protected just because you are there. "
_
And this is how many of us train, not competitively but *testingly.*


----------



## EddieCyrax

Tez3 said:


> Marc McYoung on pride, ego and self defence. http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/pride.html



I have read his books.....lots of food for thought....


----------



## Tez3

More food for thought, Bunkai exponent Iain Abernethy talking to Geoff Thompson (they are both part of British Combat Assoc)
http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/interview-iain-abernethy-geoff-thompson-october-2000


----------



## Hanzou

Matthew78 said:


> Ok, first off, a qualifier: I know this is an old question/ discussion... and I'm sorry for raising an old hat question, but I'd like to join the discussion and phrase this in my own words....
> 
> Question: Does traditional karate utilize effective teaching methods for self-defense in comparison to styles that don't utilize traditional methods?



If you're talking about kata and that one step nonsense, then no.

There's plenty of effective striking arts that don't use kata at all, and frankly I would say that they're more effective than traditional karate styles. Kata is like board breaking; It's a device put in place to reinforce the belt factory.


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> Kata is like board breaking; It's a device put in place to reinforce the belt factory.



Is this the "invent your own karate facts" thread?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Hanzou said:


> If you're talking about kata and that one step nonsense, then no.



As usual, you make the mistake of assuming that just because YOU don't understand something, or that YOU don't learn a certain way, nobody does. 



Hanzou said:


> There's plenty of effective striking arts that don't use kata at all, and frankly I would say that they're more effective than traditional karate styles. Kata is like board breaking; It's a device put in place to reinforce the belt factory.



And yet, I teach forms, and board breaking, and one steps, and we're absolutely not a "belt factory". And most students learn just fine.

Don't project your own deficiencies onto others.


----------



## JowGaWolf

DaveB said:


> Is this the "invent your own karate facts" thread?


I do kung fu, but from your question I guess things have really gotten crazy in reference to karate


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> I teach forms, and board breaking, and one steps, and we're absolutely not a "belt factory"


  I'm sooooo glad to hear someone say that they are not a "belt factory."  I really hate when some martial arts places give belts out like candy and mislead students by making it seem that having the black belt means that you can fight and do self-defense.   Very few focus on making sure that students learn the martial art, the applications, and have the conditioning that is actually required to successfully apply a technique in a real self-defense situation.

It's nice to meet someone that puts the focus on the martial art and not the belt.

I remember as a kid when I took karate, the karate that they were teaching in the school was useless for real fighting. I remember how disappointed I was when I got into a real fight and discovered that even though the instructor said that my kicks were powerful they still weren't powerful enough to keep my attacker off me.   I also remember when I stopped going to karate classes when I was a yellow belt, then a year later the karate school called up and wanted me to test for my green belt.  I was fortunate to understand as a kid that the karate school I was taking was a belt factory.

Dirty Dog thanks for not being a belt factory.


----------



## Tez3

A good many places aren't belt factories, sadly though there are some and if you are unfortunate to be in one it's not good BUT that doesn't mean all places are like that, that 'karate' is useless and pointless. Karate itself is only a generic term, there are many types of karate. The karateka Geoff Thompson talks about are giants of karate, they would no more give you a belt for attendance than they would ski down a mountain naked with a rose between their teeth.
It seems sad enough that one has a bad experience in karate but to compound that by then judging all karate and karateka as useless is a real shame. To constantly bash karate speaks of a lacking on the part of the poster not the lack of skills in karate.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> It seems sad enough that one has a bad experience


It's not just my experience, I just didn't want to bore anyone with the experiences of others who have said similar things based off their experience. I've heard it from parents, students, and instructors.  I noticed that you are in England so it may be different there, but in the U.S.  that is the sad state of things.   Here we have kids at the age 9 and 10 with black belts.


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> It's not just my experience, I just didn't want to bore anyone with the experiences of others who have said similar things based off their experience. I've heard it from parents, students, and instructors.  I noticed that you are in England so it may be different there, but in the U.S.  that is the sad state of things.   Here we have kids at the age 9 and 10 with black belts.




The problem is though that people are equating the deficiencies of schools and instructors with karate itself. It's not karate that is at fault it's the people. It's like being a bad driver, crashing and blaming the make of car instead of looking to where the fault lies. "Don't drive Fords because they drive into trees!"
Karate, kata, sparring like most things is best in the hands of competent, knowledgeable people.


----------



## Dirty Dog

JowGaWolf said:


> It's not just my experience, I just didn't want to bore anyone with the experiences of others who have said similar things based off their experience. I've heard it from parents, students, and instructors.  I noticed that you are in England so it may be different there, but in the U.S.  that is the sad state of things.   Here we have kids at the age 9 and 10 with black belts.



The issue of the baby black belt is a whole 'nother can of worms, and discussed in a number of other threads.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3
Don't get me wrong. I'm not judging all karate and karateka.  I'm specifically talking about the schools that just hand out belts so long as  you pay for the testing.  TKD schools have a similar problem as well. This problem is common with martial arts that use belts.  I know it's a problem because customers will go to a kung fu school that they are interested in, but won't join because the kung fu school doesn't have a belt.  Kung Fu schools often get these two questions.
1. Do you have /use a belt system?
2. How do you know who is better if you don't use belts?
I've met a lot of people who think Karate, Karateka, and kung fu are the same thing. Because of things like this
Korean Kung Fu Cumming Ga - Choe's Hapkido
And this
Kung Fu Cumming

If you don't have any of these problems in your country or in the area that you live in, then consider yourself very fortunate.


----------



## Tez3

I don't really want to wander off into a discussion about belts, I get my wrist slapped by mods enough as it is lol! There is a place for them though in martial arts I believe.
People with no knowledge of martial arts and without anyone to guide them in finding a place to train want the assurance of a belt system because they feel it shows advancement and experience, they have nothing to judge it by otherwise. The 'mystique' of having a black belt is strong even among quite experienced martial artists. The general public judge by results and those results are belts.

My comments about judging karate by a bad experience wasn't aimed at you but to a poster who manifests his disdain for karate at every opportunity.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> The problem is though that people are equating the deficiencies of schools and instructors with karate itself. It's not karate that is at fault it's the people. It's like being a bad driver, crashing and blaming the make of car instead of looking to where the fault lies. "Don't drive Fords because they drive into trees!"
> Karate, kata, sparring like most things is best in the hands of competent, knowledgeable people.


Sometimes it is the car, though.  We've seen massive recalls due to fundamental defects in the sidewalls of tires causing them to rupture at freeway speeds.  We've seen recalls related to fundamental flaws related to loss of brakes, steering columns locking up and all manner of other issues. 

Sometimes, it's the driver.  Sometimes, it's the car.  Sometimes, it's the martial artist.  But sometimes, it's the martial art. I think your metaphor is more spot on than you might have thought.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I would say that they're more effective than traditional karate styles. .


Whats your method of evaluation?


----------



## DaveB

Never the art, always the person or the training . 

The art doesn't exist without a person to do it.
The art is distinct from the training methods one uses to ingrain it.


----------



## Drose427

JowGaWolf said:


> I do kung fu, but from your question I guess things have really gotten crazy in reference to karate



Hanzou believes his experience with Karate at his school is representative of all TMA's,

he's fairly stubborn, and its caused some consternation in the past on the forums


----------



## Drose427

Steve said:


> Sometimes it is the car, though.  We've seen massive recalls due to fundamental defects in the sidewalls of tires causing them to rupture at freeway speeds.  We've seen recalls related to fundamental flaws related to loss of brakes, steering columns locking up and all manner of other issues.
> 
> Sometimes, it's the driver.  Sometimes, it's the car.  Sometimes, it's the martial artist.  But sometimes, it's the martial art. I think your metaphor is more spot on than you might have thought.



While I agree to an extent (Im not gonna recommend Kendo or a Bujinkan for folks trying to get into MMA, although I love both styles) we've seen this particular car (karate) and various models of it used in a myriad of Full contact arenas successfully

Which shows it can be successful. As long as you're not doing kata all class, which most classes wont anyways

PS, you went and changed your picture on me and I assumed you were a new Steve......You sly dog, you


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve
That goes back to the quality of the kata.  I can only assume that it's the same with karate, but if a Kung Fu instructor teaches the form incorrectly then the student won't learn the form or the technique. Then when it comes to an actual fight then none of what was learn will work as it should.  As far as kata goes, I know I've seen plenty of unqualified instructors do a kata so poorly that even I can tell that it's done wrong.  For example these guys are doing a form called Si Ping Kuen.  I know for a fact that Sei Ping Kyuen is kung fu. More specifically it's the beginner form in Jow Ga Kung Fu which normally wouldn't be a problem with the exception that these guys aren't kung fu and what they are doing isn't kung fu nor is it karate.  Learning any of the kata from these two videos will guarantee that you won't have the correct application.




and This Guy


----------



## JowGaWolf

You can't learn good karate from bad kata.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Sorry? You are joking right? that man does not have a fear of conflict, trust me. You are kidding yourself if you think he is afraid of fighting or hurting people because he certainly has hurt a lot of people in his time. He is old school bouncer from a very tough area of the UK and had a rep as a very violent man long before he became known for his SD. I think you need to do a bit more research about him.








And fear of loosing is different.

Regardless I trained with rob gruifida and Derek hekel who in their increadably short bouncing careers bashed guys in their fives and tens.

So I am not sure where this difference really is created if sport people can do it as well.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> You don't understand do you? Your training partner can stop you, break your nose even but that isn't a 'loss', that's learning because next time you won't make the same mistakes. that's why you train. This win or lose thing is pure ego talking.



No ego is not technically loosing because reasons.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> You don't understand do you? Your training partner can stop you, break your nose even but that isn't a 'loss', that's learning because next time you won't make the same mistakes. that's why you train. This win or lose thing is pure ego talking.
> 
> Geoff Thompson doesn't talk about winning or losing, he has no time for that attitude in SD. Read all the article though.
> Does Self-defence work? | Geoff Thompson Inspired
> 
> 
> _"One of the many things I have learned in my forty years of martial arts training, from working with masters and from following the deity of my own experience hard won is that self defence and martial arts are not the same thing. Sport MA and self defence are not the same thing either. And recreational training – twice a week at the local sports hall – certainly does not constitute a serious investment in real self protection.
> When people talk martial art they think that they are automatically talking self defence but they are not. And when they talk self defence they believe that it is synonymous with martial art. Again, it is not. The two are very different, and they should be separated and taught as such.
> There is nothing wrong with sport martial art, I love it, I am a big fan. And recreational training is better than no training at all. But if people are ever to survive a violent encounter on the pavement arena, it is imperative that they learn to distinguish between the two.
> If you train twice a week in martial arts and think you are a serious player in self defence you’ll be in for a big shock when it kicks off outside the chippy on a Friday night. If your penchant is for sport martial arts (and all that it entails) and you think it automatically translates to the street you too will be in big trouble when the pub-warrior breaks your rules and twats you while your un-zipped at the communal troth, or turns up for round two at your work or your home with a hammer and a bad intent.
> I must stipulate that I am not having a go at traditional arts, at sport or at the recreational player. I have a deep love for MA and for its practitioners but mine is the reality game so I have to honour the truth above all else. And my truth is not based on theory of folk law or how well I can make it happen in the dojo, it is based on vast experience in all things real. I have hurt many people to acquire this information over a long period of time. I am not proud of that. But I do hope that the reader might learn from my knowledge, so that they do not become a victim of violent crime, or the next digit on a home office statistic about unsolicited assault. Because it is not bad technique or even bad teaching that gets people killed in street encounters, it is denial.
> People are in denial. With their art, with their ability and with reality its self.
> You may well ask, what is the truth?
> *The truth is that real self defence in its concentrate is not and should not be about a physical response, as I will explain further into the article. When I teach self defence I may flirt around martial technique, and encourage people to invest in a core system, but the bulk of my teaching is in the art of avoidance. And if an encounter does by necessity become physical I teach and I preach the pre-emptive strike (attacking first). It is the only thing that works consistently. All the other stuff that you see, that you are taught or that you imagine might work ‘out there’ probably will not."*_



There is a whole bunch of Geoff Thompson stuff I disagree with or would slant differently though.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> What was that about sensei speak?
> 
> You're clearly not speaking from experience of Thompson and apparently you've never had a serious fight, so on what are you basing this nonsensical idea?



Oh.... like above. Just that basless throw out any sort of comment into the air and assume it is wisdom.

I was yelled at once. Does that count?


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> Is this the "invent your own karate facts" thread?



So are you saying that learning new kata, and breaking boards aren't standard requirements for belt testing in the vast majority of karate schools?


----------



## Hanzou

Dirty Dog said:


> As usual, you make the mistake of assuming that just because YOU don't understand something, or that YOU don't learn a certain way, nobody does.



Kata was created to transfer techniques in the absence of written material or an instructor. For all intents and purposes it's an obsolete practice, made all the more obvious by the difference between kata karate and fighting karate.



> And yet, I teach forms, and board breaking, and one steps, and we're absolutely not a "belt factory". And most students learn just fine.
> 
> Don't project your own deficiencies onto others.



I would say that the deficiency is wasting time on outmoded methods. The only true purpose of those methods is to line pockets at testing time.

Unless you really believe that breaking a bunch of boards makes you a better striker.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Oh.... like above. Just that basless throw out any sort of comment into the air and assume it is wisdom.
> 
> I was yelled at once. Does that count?



The question was, on what are you basing the statement that Thompson is afraid of conflict?

The reference to sensei speak was to point out that this statement fits your own description of a baseless assumption. The reference to your lack of experience with both Thompson and fighting was based on your own posts.


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> So are you saying that learning new kata, and breaking boards aren't standard requirements for belt testing in the vast majority of karate schools?



From what I've seen board breaking is pretty rare in karate and not normally a testing requirement. Things might be different in the US.
Kata is a common testing requirement, but your statement was that these things were introduced into the art for spurious reasons and that is false. You've already given a more correct reason for kata in a post above, so why waste time defending your nonsense.

So you don't think kata is an efficient way to train. Fine, but you only hurt your argument by filling it with bile and misinformation.

And while you don't like it, I personally think  that kata is an excellent training tool when utilised properly. They combine a useful adaptable coordination exercise that supports and helps develop a range of fighting techniques, with a mental tool to help students expand on lessons taught, as well as a reference guide for combat strategies and tactics. 

The differences between different types of karate are nothing to do with the kata.

Just because you disagree with a particular method is no reason to assume negative motives for those who disagree with you. You don't and can't know what is in the minds of others, you are talking out of your bottom.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> So I am not sure where this difference really is created if sport people can do it as well.



Really not sure what you are trying to say here, why shouldn't sports people be able to do what?


----------



## Tez3

DaveB said:


> From what I've seen board breaking is pretty rare in karate and not normally a testing requirement.



I've not seen it done it karate and never at a testing. I believe the TKD people do it and from what I've read have good reasons for doing so but I've never broken boards.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> For all intents and purposes it's an obsolete practice,



Maybe you think that If you keep saying that it may become true eventually.



Hanzou said:


> The only true purpose of those methods is to line pockets at testing time.



Only if the school is a McDojo.



Hanzou said:


> Unless you really believe that breaking a bunch of boards makes you a better striker.



Your inability to understand something is not an argument against it.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tez3 said:


> I believe the TKD people do it and from what I've read have good reasons for doing so but I've never broken boards.


I can't speak for other TKD styles but in mine board breaking is only a part of the testing requirements for black belt gradings.


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> No ego is not technically loosing because reasons.



If you are in a scenario where you win during training you lose since you have not much to learn from that opponent. Unless you help your opponent improve there is not much more he can do for you and you need to switch partner. You are both losing in that case.

In training scenario both you and your partner should instead be focused on doing everything you can to help the other person win his fight fairly.

When the boat has too many holes to bring you across the river without sinking you first fix the holes in the boat before trying to reach the other side.

(Not meant to argue with anyone in this debate, simply wanting to add another view to the whole win/lose type discussion. Many times people mean the same thing but word them differently.)


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Really not sure what you are trying to say here, why shouldn't sports people be able to do what?



They are not street fighters or experienced bouncers. Just technically proficient martial artists. Who when engaged in real world violence do OK.

It shouldn't work because the gym dosent translate to the street or something.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> The question was, on what are you basing the statement that Thompson is afraid of conflict?
> 
> The reference to sensei speak was to point out that this statement fits your own description of a baseless assumption. The reference to your lack of experience with both Thompson and fighting was based on your own posts.



He has said it.

Based on my posts is a terrible answer. It is too vague. Based on my posts could be anything.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> They are not street fighters or experienced bouncers. Just technically proficient martial artists. Who when engaged in real world violence do OK.
> 
> It shouldn't work because the gym dosent translate to the street or something.




Sorry still doesn't make sense. A lot of people do fine translating what they learn in martial arts into how to defend themselves especially those taught by instructors who know what they are doing, a surprising amount of instructors are doormen or who have done door work.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> If you are in a scenario where you win during training you lose since you have not much to learn from that opponent. Unless you help your opponent improve there is not much more he can do for you and you need to switch partner. You are both losing in that case.
> 
> In training scenario both you and your partner should instead be focused on doing everything you can to help the other person win his fight fairly.
> 
> When the boat has too many holes to bring you across the river without sinking you first fix the holes in the boat before trying to reach the other side.
> 
> (Not meant to argue with anyone in this debate, simply wanting to add another view to the whole win/lose type discussion. Many times people mean the same thing but word them differently.)



Competition is a pretty integral part of a lot of training. And has been used since martial arts were invented.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Sorry still doesn't make sense. A lot of people do fine translating what they learn in martial arts into how to defend themselves especially those taught by instructors who know what they are doing, a surprising amount of instructors are doormen or who have done door work.



You don't need ten years of bouncing to be a good fighter.or teach self defence.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> You don't need ten years of bouncing to be a good fighter.or teach self defence.



Not saying you do, from what you were saying though you seem to think that martial arts instructors can only do sport not self defence. It's a muddled argument.

I'm beginning to think you aren't sure about what you are saying. When you say competition is an integral part of martial arts training that's making a big generalisation.  Some take part in competitions so train for that, some have nothing whatsoever to do with any type of competition other may compete in sparring comps but your idea of competing while training is off, there's no reason to compete, it's not beneficial to training if that's all you are focusing on, it makes you a bad training partner.

As for being 'afraid' of conflict, no sane person would think conflict is something to be welcomed, something to enjoy. There are those who do enjoy physical altercations ( not competitions) and they really aren't the sort of human beings one wants to meet or have anything to do with...ever.


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> Competition is a pretty integral part of a lot of training. And has been used since martial arts were invented.



I dont really want to object but do you know this for certain? If you do, can you share the origin of such facts? While it may sound as if I doubt your facts the truth is that if this can be verified as truth it would be very interesting.

It is still my belief that if you wish to compete with fellow students then you will not give them the help they need to improve their methods, as such they will not be able to help you improve either. Two people can do sparring, but neither will improve much unless both do.

All training needs to be done with intent, but the intent should not be to win in my opinion but to make their opponent better than themselves. When your opponent starts sharing same goal that is when you will both progress faster.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> I dont really want to object but do you know this for certain? If you do, can you share the origin of such facts? While it may sound as if I doubt your facts the truth is that if this can be verified as truth it would be very interesting.
> 
> It is still my belief that if you wish to compete with fellow students then you will not give them the help they need to improve their methods, as such they will not be able to help you improve either. Two people can do sparring, but neither will improve much unless both do.
> 
> All training needs to be done with intent, but the intent should not be to win in my opinion but to make their opponent better than themselves. When your opponent starts sharing same goal that is when you will both progress faster.



Drop Bear is correct. Competition has been in MA for a long time.

Here's just one form of it;
Lei tai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JowGaWolf

Lei tai is the best.


----------



## Hanzou

DaveB said:


> From what I've seen board breaking is pretty rare in karate and not normally a testing requirement. Things might be different in the US.



Would that include Korean karate like TKD and TSD? Board breaking is pretty rampant in those styles.

As for Japanese karate, I practiced Shotokan, and board broke in that. A childhood friend of mine did Isshin-Ryu (which is Okinawan) and they did board breaking in that too.



> Kata is a common testing requirement, but your statement was that these things were introduced into the art for spurious reasons and that is false. You've already given a more correct reason for kata in a post above, so why waste time defending your nonsense.



No, I said that they're now used as a method to reinforce the belt system. Obviously when they were first introduced it wasn't solely for commercial purposes. Nowadays its a different ball-game. Which is why there are so many belts in Karate these days, and plenty of kata to go along with them. Nothing wrong with that really, it is a business after all.



> So you don't think kata is an efficient way to train. Fine, but you only hurt your argument by filling it with bile and misinformation.



Where's the misinformation?



> And while you don't like it, I personally think  that kata is an excellent training tool when utilised properly. They combine a useful adaptable coordination exercise that supports and helps develop a range of fighting techniques, with a mental tool to help students expand on lessons taught, as well as a reference guide for combat strategies and tactics.



They develop a range of fighting techniques that never emerges when a karateka is actually fighting? 

Interesting.....

Also there's a better mental tool to help students expand on the lesson taught, and develop coordination when applying techniques; It's called sparring.



> The differences between different types of karate are nothing to do with the kata.



Actually it does. If we have examples of highly effective styles of karate that don't use kata at all, that makes the practice of kata in other karate styles optional to pointless. 



> Just because you disagree with a particular method is no reason to assume negative motives for those who disagree with you. You don't and can't know what is in the minds of others, you are talking out of your bottom.



Why do you think a martial arts instructor trying to eek out a living is a negative motive? You got to keep the lights on right? If that means you add a few more belts, stretch out a few more katas, or add some more boards to break, than so be it.

None of that makes you a better fighter, but it does allow your teacher to keep doing what he/she loves to do.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Competition has been in MA for a long time.



The oldest picture can be traced back more than 2000 years ago.


----------



## Phobius

They seem rather fatal to be training exercies though. But cool, thanks for those images. Seems I need to read up a bit on Lei Tai.


----------



## DaveB

Hanzou said:


> Would that include Korean karate like TKD and TSD? Board breaking is pretty rampant in those styles.
> 
> As for Japanese karate, I practiced Shotokan, and board broke in that. A childhood friend of mine did Isshin-Ryu (which is Okinawan) and they did board breaking in that too.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said that they're now used as a method to reinforce the belt system. Obviously when they were first introduced it wasn't solely for commercial purposes. Nowadays its a different ball-game. Which is why there are so many belts in Karate these days, and plenty of kata to go along with them. Nothing wrong with that really, it is a business after all.
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the misinformation?
> 
> 
> 
> They develop a range of fighting techniques that never emerges when a karateka is actually fighting?
> 
> Interesting.....
> 
> Also there's a better mental tool to help students expand on the lesson taught, and develop coordination when applying techniques; It's called sparring.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does. If we have examples of highly effective styles of karate that don't use kata at all, that makes the practice of kata in other karate styles optional to pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think a martial arts instructor trying to eek out a living is a negative motive? You got to keep the lights on right? If that means you add a few more belts, stretch out a few more katas, or add some more boards to break, than so be it.
> 
> None of that makes you a better fighter, but it does allow your teacher to keep doing what he/she loves to do.



Your original statement was that these things were introduced for reasons of financial gain. That is false. You stated that board breaking was a requirement to grade in karate (I don't count Korean arts when I discuss karate), in many large karate organisations it is not. Being required in some places is not a requirement across the art. Thus you were inventing your own facts to prop up an argument that is unnecessary because everyone who supports kata practice for effective use of karate also supports robust sparring.

Your assumptions about style effectiveness and kata are wrong. Correlation is not causation and I would question your whole idea of effectiveness anyway.

That you don't like kata doesn't qualify you to speak on the motives of people you don't know.

The one thing that I do sort of agree with is that even many application.focused karateka don't join up their kata and sparring in a manner that suits me. But it suits them and that's okay. 

Personally I feel you should be able to apply all of your applications in free sparring. I achieve this by avoiding over-complicated grappling applications and working on the reasons behind given sequences which can be applied universally. These translate far more easily into free sparring than much of the self-defense set pieces I see others do.

However, while I like my way, its not the only way. Nor is yours


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> No, I said that they're now used as a method to reinforce the belt system.Obviously when they were first introduced it wasn't solely for commercial purposes. Nowadays its a different ball-game. Which is why there are so many belts in Karate these days, and plenty of kata to go along with them. Nothing wrong with that really, it is a business after all.



Painting everything with the same brush again.



Hanzou said:


> Also there's a better mental tool to help students expand on the lesson taught, and develop coordination when applying techniques; It's called sparring.



Two mental tools are better than one.



Hanzou said:


> Actually it does. If we have examples of highly effective styles of karate that don't use kata at all, that makes the practice of kata in other karate styles optional to pointless.



By this piece of faulty logic kicking and arm bars are optional to pointless in other martial art styles because the highly effective boxing styles don't use them at all.



Hanzou said:


> Why do you think a martial arts instructor trying to eek out a living is a negative motive?



As with many things it is all a matter of degrees. When the instructor cares more about getting as many students as they can  through the door than they do about the quality of their instruction it becomes a more negative motive.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Not saying you do, from what you were saying though you seem to think that martial arts instructors can only do sport not self defence. It's a muddled argument.
> 
> I'm beginning to think you aren't sure about what you are saying. When you say competition is an integral part of martial arts training that's making a big generalisation.  Some take part in competitions so train for that, some have nothing whatsoever to do with any type of competition other may compete in sparring comps but your idea of competing while training is off, there's no reason to compete, it's not beneficial to training if that's all you are focusing on, it makes you a bad training partner.
> 
> As for being 'afraid' of conflict, no sane person would think conflict is something to be welcomed, something to enjoy. There are those who do enjoy physical altercations ( not competitions) and they really aren't the sort of human beings one wants to meet or have anything to do with...ever.



Competitive nature in training and doing competitions are two different things. Compliance makes you a bad training partner. If we read right back to the original point in a drill you have to have a point where you are both competing to win the scenario that you are given.

This is so you learn to deal with an oponant who is not trying to help you but is actively trying to shut you down.

Being a bad partner teaches you lessons you will not otherwise learn. And is far less egocentric training than a drill designed bto make both parties look good.

As for being afraid. It gets complicated.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> I dont really want to object but do you know this for certain? If you do, can you share the origin of such facts? While it may sound as if I doubt your facts the truth is that if this can be verified as truth it would be very interesting.
> 
> It is still my belief that if you wish to compete with fellow students then you will not give them the help they need to improve their methods, as such they will not be able to help you improve either. Two people can do sparring, but neither will improve much unless both do.
> 
> All training needs to be done with intent, but the intent should not be to win in my opinion but to make their opponent better than themselves. When your opponent starts sharing same goal that is when you will both progress faster.



Plato was a mad keen wrestler.
Plato - Philosophy In An Hour - History in an Hour


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> Competitive nature in training and doing competitions are two different things.



Well if you are competitive in training that would mean you look at training as a competition.

Are you sure what you try to say is not that all training needs to have intent? If that is what you are trying to say then I do agree with you completely. Intent may exist however in training, when you are mad at someone, in competition, barfights and so on. Intent to really go at someone in honesty.

The difference is what you have as a goal with your intent, either to show the other person what needs to improve in their techniques, win some points in a fight, win a fight or just knock someone out. Competition means that you allow yourself to do anything to win within any given rules. What if your training partner has not yet fully learned a technique well enough, would you knock him /her out because you can or halt yourself to allow him/her to understand what goes wrong with your assistance?


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Well if you are competitive in training that would mean you look at training as a competition.
> 
> Are you sure what you try to say is not that all training needs to have intent? If that is what you are trying to say then I do agree with you completely. Intent may exist however in training, when you are mad at someone, in competition, barfights and so on. Intent to really go at someone in honesty.
> 
> The difference is what you have as a goal with your intent, either to show the other person what needs to improve in their techniques, win some points in a fight, win a fight or just knock someone out. Competition means that you allow yourself to do anything to win within any given rules. What if your training partner has not yet fully learned a technique well enough, would you knock him /her out because you can or halt yourself to allow him/her to understand what goes wrong with your assistance?



Depends on the drill and how far along you both are. In the op,s example it is two black belts doing self defence. That might mean if I grab I don't let go until he makes me.it might mean I time a strike to nail him rather than feed a defendable strike and if it were animal day I am knocking guys out.

We do this drill. And it is competitive without being ego driven.
the mother of all drills. | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


----------



## DaveB

So basically you are saying the same thing as everyone else you just really really like the word competitive, despite the negative connotations that you apparently agree should be avoided.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Phobius said:


> They seem rather fatal to be training exercies though. But cool, thanks for those images. Seems I need to read up a bit on Lei Tai.


From what I've seen of Lei Tai.  It is the best competition art for those who really want to test their martial against other martial art styles.  It's definitely good for anyone looking to get away from the point sparring competitions.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> So basically you are saying the same thing as everyone else you just really really like the word competitive, despite the negative connotations that you apparently agree should be avoided.


This is a big semantic game. It gets played a lot here.

I have already refuted the negative connotations. (He says in his vague sensai speak)

Look. You can use the concept of intent but it removes the idea of winning and loosing which in a fight is going to be very real and very present.

Using concepts like the intent removes part of the training that is necessary to have a strong mental game. The guy you are trying to fight won't be fighting you with the desire to help you. And you are better off getting a taste of that in training before you take it out and use it for real.

This means part of your training needs to be competitive. Win or loose so you can access that part of you will should the pace suddenly ramp up.

Training should be hard and come with a cost because fighting is hard and comes with a cost.

Now I don't hate my training partners or fight for my ego. But I will fight to win. Just as they fight to win. Nobody gives an inch. So that is n a real fight I don't give an inch. It is already there all trained up.


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> Using concepts like the intent removes part of the training that is necessary to have a strong mental game. The guy you are trying to fight won't be fighting you with the desire to help you. And you are better off getting a taste of that in training before you take it out and use it for real.



Win or lose has nothing to do with training hard. Lets say I fight with full intent of hitting my opponent with force, all of a sudden I notice a scenario where my move does not feel 100% in control although it does seem to work. In training you would attempt to correct that move/technique the next time same situation appears and doing so you might get punched and lose and learn a lot more about yourself.

In competitive state of mind in any scenario as long as it works no matter how you feel around it. It is all good since you win. The focus is no more on the actual techniques you apply and how confident you feel about their performance but the actual outcome. Competitive behavior removes, in my interpretation of the word, the possibility of losing just to improve. Lets face it, we all have moves that needs to be improved but we still apply every now and then. Some of which can not be tested without being in a live scenario.

Also an angry mob or drunk person will not care about win or lose. They might overcommit and in worst cases be resistant to techniques that would normally work on an opponent that rather play it safe in order to win. And not to mention that the aspect of suprise is gone in any competition.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> In competitive state of mind in any scenario as long as it works no matter how you feel around it. It is all good since you win.









Exactly. And my point is made.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Exactly. And my point is made.



Well, no.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> This is a big semantic game. It gets played a lot here.
> 
> I have already refuted the negative connotations. (He says in his vague sensai speak)
> 
> Look. You can use the concept of intent but it removes the idea of winning and loosing which in a fight is going to be very real and very present.
> 
> Using concepts like the intent removes part of the training that is necessary to have a strong mental game. The guy you are trying to fight won't be fighting you with the desire to help you. And you are better off getting a taste of that in training before you take it out and use it for real.
> 
> This means part of your training needs to be competitive. Win or loose so you can access that part of you will should the pace suddenly ramp up.
> 
> Training should be hard and come with a cost because fighting is hard and comes with a cost.
> 
> Now I don't hate my training partners or fight for my ego. But I will fight to win. Just as they fight to win. Nobody gives an inch. So that is n a real fight I don't give an inch. It is already there all trained up.



There are other ways to train the mentality needed that don't compromise decision making by causing us to treat self defense as a game. 

As I mentioned before, the kind of training where a competitive mindset may be useful is really just the testing phase, where.your aim is to successfully make use of what you have learned in a simulated conflict. At all points before that, when you are learning and developing, not testing, the competitive mindset is not useful.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> Fighting to win dosent help people survive?
> 
> The idea of a competitive mindset and a survival mindset being different is a fabrication to make self defence people feel more comfortable with training that is just not as effective.


I think I understand where you are coming from but I feel that there is actually a difference to a "competitive" and a "survival" mind set. There are tragic examples of where great competitive sports fighters have made grave errors of judgement and ended up dead when faced with what is essentially an SD situation.  A competition mind set has the focus on "winning" and winning in that context means defeating/physically succeeding over another.  If that is your mind set and focus for an SD situation, that can get you killed.

Survival is completely different.  A "survival" mind set equates to doing what is needed to survive at all costs. That could even mean, in certain circumstances, taking a beating - or what appears to be a beating - in order to live...

It could mean flat footing it out of there.  It could mean turning off the ego and letting the monkey dance and insults wash over you.

Competition training and a competitive mind set in itself does not readily equip you to deal with the above situations.

Look, I am primarily a competition fighter, long time ago judo and now karate, kickboxing and to a lesser degree mma.  I love to compete but thankfully I have trained in a karate club where due to the sensei's and seniors' personal back grounds (LEO, bouncer, SD instructor), there was also a big focus on SD.  And I can tell you, while the right mind set  is crucial, there is a world of difference between being in the ring and an SD scenario.  For example, many sports focused or originated martial arts do go on about SD techniques - but they are always starting at the physical fight stage and from the perspective of submitting an opponent - that is very late in the SD game (and often the wrong (=  least safest) path to have gone down or to have found yourself on).  By example, you see this on "self defence bjj" or "combative bjj" websites and sales materials all the time.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> I think I understand where you are coming from but I feel that there is actually a difference to a "competitive" and a "survival" mind set. There are tragic examples of where great competitive sports fighters have made grave errors of judgement and ended up dead when faced with what is essentially an SD situation. A competition mind set has the focus on "winning" and winning in that context means defeating/physically succeeding over another. If that is your mind set and focus for an SD situation, that can get you killed



That is pretty second guessy though. If he hadn't gone in as aggressively or if he wasn't aggressive enough or mindset herp derp guessed wrong and got him killed.

I mean you can find a lot of real life situations where someone flipped a coin and went the wrong way.

I know I have done it before. 

It is not something that is easily predicted before hand.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Survival is completely different. A "survival" mind set equates to doing what is needed to survive at all costs. That could even mean, in certain circumstances, taking a beating - or what appears to be a beating - in order to live...
> 
> It could mean flat footing it out of there. It could mean turning off the ego and letting the monkey dance and insults wash over you.



Puts you half in half out of a fight. Where I believe you have to be all the way in or all the way out.

But the other way could say a competitive mindset might be you will not take me to the deck or into that alley or the boot of that car.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Look, I am primarily a competition fighter, long time ago judo and now karate, kickboxing and to a lesser degree mma. I love to compete but thankfully I have trained in a karate club where due to the sensei's and seniors' personal back grounds (LEO, bouncer, SD instructor), there was also a big focus on SD. And I can tell you, while the right mind set is crucial, there is a world of difference between being in the ring and an SD scenario. For example, many sports focused or originated martial arts do go on about SD techniques - but they are always starting at the physical fight stage and from the perspective of submitting an opponent - that is very late in the SD game (and often the wrong (= least safest) path to have gone down or to have found yourself on). By example, you see this on "self defence bjj" or "combative bjj" websites and sales materials all the time.



I am talking about one aspect of training in this instance. I mean seriously if I said kata is flawed because you have to also do other things I would be accused of trolling.

Sorry kata doesn't teach you to swim so I don't see the relevance.

Otherwise I am one of very few people who regularly employ pre fight and awareness  technique in situations that can regularly go either way. And that is a competition when done for reals.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Otherwise *I am one of very few people* who regularly employ pre fight and awareness technique in situations that can regularly go either way.



How do you know that?

The swimming comment was a bit random wasn't it, is that why you think kata doesn't work, because it can't teach you to swim?


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> How do you know that?
> 
> The swimming comment was a bit random wasn't it, is that why you think kata doesn't work, because it can't teach you to swim?



Because of the countless threads where people say they don't get into fights and avoid conditions where they might get into a fight. Who also teach deescalation. 
And I am not sure what they are actually deescalating.Are we surviving the walk to the shops on pension day?

For the second part. Did you read that in context?


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Because of the countless threads where people say they don't get into fights and avoid conditions where they might get into a fight. Who also teach deescalation.
> And I am not sure what they are actually deescalating.Are we surviving the walk to the shops on pension day?
> 
> For the second part. Did you read that in context?




Ah, so you are extracting the urine out of people because you think they are wimps, gotcha.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Puts you half in half out of a fight. Where I believe you have to be all the way in or all the way out.



Self-defense is not a fight, even when you are fighting.

You should check out that mma vs marines video on youtube. Faced with three armed opponent's the mma guy reverts to training and takes one to the floor. Aiming to win is just not always the right way to think in self defense.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> Puts you half in half out of a fight. Where I believe you have to be all the way in or all the way out.
> 
> But the other way could say a competitive mindset might be you will not take me to the deck or into that alley or the boot of that car.



Sorry, I simply do not follow what you are saying about half in/ half out of the fight.  Can you please explain more for me?  You saying that gives me the impression you know nothing about and have drilled for or trained in SD and may not have been in any real SD situation.  I don't mean to sound harsh, I am not saying you are not a good bjj fighter and I may be completely wrong there but you saying that goes against a lot of what I have been told, trained in and experienced first hand.

SD itself is not always and if applied right, seldom about a "fight".  I agree with the approach and mind set of when faced with/in an altercation of not being taken down or taken into an alley.  But you are starting from the position of the fight being on and not having avoided such in the first place.  Your approach is just one facet of many components.  It can also be said that a "survival" mind set in the right context is a stronger and more robust one than even a "competitive mind set" when the **** hits the fan and you really have found yourself fighting for your life.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> .
> 
> Otherwise I am one of very few people who regularly employ pre fight and awareness  technique in situations that can regularly go either way. And that is a competition when done for reals.


That is good news, I am glad you put this into practice!!  I still gotta disagree though with the statement that that is a competition when done for real.  A competition in an MA sense is seldom "for real" - you seldom loose your nose, die, get gang raped, etc if you lose a competition, while any of those things can happen when the **** goes south in real life though.  I do not see SD as a competition - it's not exactly a competition of "pitting your awareness and SD abilities against those potential assailants' intentions on the street"...but I could see how you might look at it as such...


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Sorry, I simply do not follow what you are saying about half in/ half out of the fight. Can you please explain more for me? You saying that gives me the impression you know nothing about and have drilled for or trained in SD and may not have been in any real SD situation. I don't mean to sound harsh, I am not saying you are not a good bjj fighter and I may be completely wrong there but you saying that goes against a lot of what I have been told, trained in and experienced first hand.



OK. Most people don't fight to win. They fight not to loose. It is means they are fighting half in half out. And that works against their commitment to get the fight over.

Eg.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> . Most people don't fight to win.



Most people I know fight because they enjoy it and I don't mean MMA or competition fights. Yes I know it's reprehensible but there you go.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> OK. Most people don't fight to win. They fight not to loose. It is means they are fighting half in half out. And that works against their commitment to get the fight over.
> 
> Eg.



This video shows consensual violence, not self-defense. This is what I meant when I said self-defense is not fighting, even when it is.

Two idiots deciding to settle a difference with violence requires that both parties consent to the fight. These kind of dominance exercises are indeed a competition requiring competitive thought. However these fights can usually be avoided by one party conceding or walking away.

Self-defense is when one party does not consent to violence. Then instead of two combatants you have one or more assailantso and victims. This happens when walking away isn't an option either through lack of warning, persistence on the part of the assailant or another factor like the need to protect someone.

In such circumstances the competitive mindset is too limited. The things you describe like being determined not to be dragged into an ally, fall far more comfortably into other terms than competitiveness. Determination, self preservation, will power; all fit and all can be developed without needing to win and sacrificing learning experiences to do so.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> OK. Most people don't fight to win. They fight not to loose. It is means they are fighting half in half out. And that works against their commitment to get the fight over.
> 
> Eg.


Ok, thanks, I understand where you are coming from.  But we gotta disagree on this one.  I think the explanation and comments from DaveB to you on this are completely on point.


----------



## Zero

Tez3 said:


> Most people I know fight because they enjoy it and I don't mean MMA or competition fights. Yes I know it's reprehensible but there you go.


I don't think that is reprehensible at all - it's just how it is. For whatever reason some people just enjoy to fight (in an unsanctioned setting), even if they take a beating now and then. 

It's only reprehensible if they are forcing others to engage in a fight with them when the others did not want to or are having to respond to the violent provocations of a drunken yob.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> I am talking about one aspect of training in this instance. I mean seriously if I said kata is flawed because you have to also do other things I would be accused of trolling.
> 
> Sorry kata doesn't teach you to swim so I don't see the relevance.
> 
> Otherwise I am one of very few people who regularly employ pre fight and awareness  technique in situations that can regularly go either way. And that is a competition when done for reals.


If you are implying I am trolling, let me assure you, I am not (or at least I am not meaning to!!)  : )

I understand you may be talking about just one aspect of training - but if that one aspect or its foundation is starting from a flawed position (in that it is not the best approach to SD), then others can raise their concerns.  I think your views on the "competitive mind set" and its place in SD are incorrect - but that is just my take on it!


----------



## Tez3

Zero said:


> I don't think that is reprehensible at all - it's just how it is. For whatever reason some people just enjoy to fight (in an unsanctioned setting), even if they take a beating now and then.



No they don't force people to fight, they just can't walk away when there's a fight in the offing. they know that someone is baiting them into fighting but they just smile and wade in. Luckily they win most times, they consider it a 'bonding' experience which I suppose it is, if you can be sure of your mates watching your back in a fight in a pub/on the street here you can be sure of them in a fire fight in a warzone is the thinking. On the whole I think they are correct, it's just a real bother cleaning up and doing the paperwork after the fights though. It may be something that non military can't understand, I don't know.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> This video shows consensual violence, not self-defense. This is what I meant when I said self-defense is not fighting, even when it is.
> 
> Two idiots deciding to settle a difference with violence requires that both parties consent to the fight. These kind of dominance exercises are indeed a competition requiring competitive thought. However these fights can usually be avoided by one party conceding or walking away.
> 
> Self-defense is when one party does not consent to violence. Then instead of two combatants you have one or more assailantso and victims. This happens when walking away isn't an option either through lack of warning, persistence on the part of the assailant or another factor like the need to protect someone.
> 
> In such circumstances the competitive mindset is too limited. The things you describe like being determined not to be dragged into an ally, fall far more comfortably into other terms than competitiveness. Determination, self preservation, will power; all fit and all can be developed without needing to win and sacrificing learning experiences to do so.



Except you are sacrificing learning experiences by not having a competitive element in your training. You can yell survival mindset at someone all you want but they are not going to develop one unless they are exposed to hardship.

Otherwise fighting is fighting. If you are getting punched in the head it does not matter how you got there. 

If while you are being punched in the head your mind set is on how much you don't want to be there you will be at more risk of being bashed.

You need to equip your mind to switch from being a polite reasonable person to unleashing hell on a guy. And to do this you need to experience it. And not have to make up the difference between fighting and training with intent.

Especially in self defence where you have already lost momentum.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> No they don't force people to fight, they just can't walk away when there's a fight in the offing. they know that someone is baiting them into fighting but they just smile and wade in. Luckily they win most times, they consider it a 'bonding' experience which I suppose it is, if you can be sure of your mates watching your back in a fight in a pub/on the street here you can be sure of them in a fire fight in a warzone is the thinking. On the whole I think they are correct, it's just a real bother cleaning up and doing the paperwork after the fights though. It may be something that non military can't understand, I don't know.



What mindset do they have with these fights?


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> If you are implying I am trolling, let me assure you, I am not (or at least I am not meaning to!!)  : )
> 
> I understand you may be talking about just one aspect of training - but if that one aspect or its foundation is starting from a flawed position (in that it is not the best approach to SD), then others can raise their concerns.  I think your views on the "competitive mind set" and its place in SD are incorrect - but that is just my take on it!



How does your mindset work out for you in fights. Once you are actually engaged in them?


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> What mindset do they have with these fights?




A fair bit of alcohol, glee, a great deal of enjoyment and an unquenchable belief in themselves and their mates.
No wonder our ex-soldiers are looking for a fight | Barbara Ellen


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> You can yell survival mindset at someone all you want but they are not going to develop one unless they are exposed to hardship.
> 
> Otherwise fighting is fighting. If you are getting punched in the head it does not matter how you got there.
> 
> If while you are being punched in the head your mind set is on how much you don't want to be there you will be at more risk of being bashed.
> 
> You need to equip your mind to switch from being a polite reasonable person to unleashing hell on a guy. And to do this you need to experience it. And not have to make up the difference between fighting and training with intent.
> 
> Especially in self defence where you have already lost momentum.



I agree with everything you wrote bar your first sentence. Trouble is nothing you have written about requires the competitive mindset. All of ithhas well established training methods that avoid competitiveness but still work to foster aggression and will.

Your writing is disingenuous. Everyone on this thread has agreed to the methods required to develop effective skills, so we're not sacrificing anything; we do not avoid hardship by avoiding competitiveness, we avoid selfishness and narrow focus. Furthermore competitiveness may well be fostered in other areas of training where it is more welcome. Like competition.

The question is do we need it for self-defense?  Clearly the answer is no since not one thing you describe is directly associated with competitiveness.

And no, self-defense and fighting are not the same mentally even when they are the same physically.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> You need to equip your mind to switch from being a polite reasonable person to unleashing hell on a guy. And to do this you need to experience it. And not have to make up the difference between fighting and training with intent.


How many self defense situations have you been in and, separately, where there may be multiple assailents becoming involved?  

How many serious unsanctioned street fights have you been in?  I mean serious fights outside of the ring where someone is trying to hurt you?


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> How does your mindset work out for you in fights. Once you are actually engaged in them?


Brawls and street fights (quite a few fights, differing in agression and intent on the street a few at parties and one in a bar when I was much younger): mind set was confrontational, aggressive, more than willing to get involved, alchohol sometimes involved but often not much (mindset probably not disimilair to Tez's army guys).  I was always big/strong and athletic for my age and had years of judo and TKD (for what it is worth) so did fairly well, better, more wins than not.  Got some hidings, split lips, black eyes, broken finger, etc but nothing too bad, couple times things started getting scary.

One street fight in London with an ex-hard man turned cab driver: more of a fun, mutual exchange. I put one controlled snap kick into side of his head as he was coming in with raised fists and ended up suplexing him on the asphalt road by his cab, transitioned to ground n pound in a very controlled manner. He had a bloody lip and cut knuckles from hitting the road and we laughed about it after and reminisced about his younger hard-man years.

Competition fights: always enjoyed judo and TKD, always very competitive and happy mindset.  Shifted to full contact kickboxing and karate tournaments.  Initial fights I still got some pre and after fight jitters/shakes a you are dishing out and receiving a full on hidding but after a bit and for many years now mind set generally calm outlook and nothing more, it's just getting down to business.  Same with the few mma and free style fights I have been in. I have won far, far more tournaments than lost.

To be frank with you, I _train_ very competitively for a fight, I work my conditioning to the max both base fitness, fight fitness and strength and work on hand speed, etc big time.  But my mindset is focused but calm generally; it is not a hyped "competitive" state.

SD: jumped by four guys with no immeidate exit.  Tried to de-escalate, when they got in red zone I ended up punching three straight in the face and each went down.  Mind-set: happended very quick, not sure, was reflex.  Don't remember having shakes after.  I went from trying to talk them down to essentiallly immediately lashing out when I was getting smothered.

Shop-lifter/citizen's arrest:  shop lifter escaping from several mall and waitrose security guards, barging through average Jo-Public. Mind-set: "take guy out", I remember looking at his hands to see if he was packing something to avoid. Didn't telegraph anything, when crook coming alongside I shoulder barged him into shop wall, spear tackled him to ground and put shoulder lock on him with knee pin until security guys caught up.

There it is all laid out for you, quite a cathartic exercise.


----------



## Tez3

We've had new postings in with the withdrawal of the troops from Germany. I'm so pleased have retired and don't have to deal with one regiment in particular, the Highlanders who have taken the place of the Scots Guards. It's my father's old regiment. They have a reputation of being hard, they will fight as soon as look at you, only the Paras and Royal Irish fight as much as they do. I've spent 20 years breaking up fights, ducking flying pub furniture, skirting spilt beer and jumping of squaddies bigger than me, so glad not to have to do it anymore. Oh and the Highlanders? they have recruited the biggest meanest looking rugby playing Fijians they can find, I don't think I will even be going out locally much.

I forgot, we have the rugby World cup coming up, I was working during the last one, it was hell. Scotland v England v Wales v Fiji v Ireland, we have soldiers from all of those places and it's as good a reason for a fight as any. Thank goodness the Gurkhas don't fight in public.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> How many self defense situations have you been in and, separately, where there may be multiple assailents becoming involved?
> 
> How many serious unsanctioned street fights have you been in?  I mean serious fights outside of the ring where someone is trying to hurt you?



Been a few. 
Bounced for 20ish years.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> OK. Most people don't fight to win. They fight not to loose. It is means they are fighting half in half out. And that works against their commitment to get the fight over.
> 
> Eg.


ha ha ha..Here's a walk through of the fight
(0:00 - 0:34) "I'm scared to get hit that's why neither one of us can hit the other"
(0:35 - 1:05) "I'm tired so I'm going to talk crap while I catch my breath"
(1:30 - 1:40) "I'm still tired so I'm just going to lay here.
(1:50 - 2:19) "Damn, I'm still tired"

That fight gets an A+ for effort lol. It's a good thing neither one of them really wanted to fight.  Maybe the camera cause the fight because neither one wanted to look weak on camera.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> Been a few.
> Bounced for 20ish years.


Good, so you should have a fair bit of real world to draw on and not just mat time (and it's probably why you do have awareness and pre-fight skills, when many sports fighters, if they are not adding other things to their repertoire, do not). 

That said, bouncing and a bouncing mind set is totally different to SD.  Clearly if you are a good bouncer you need to have great awareness and people/situation reading ability.  And sure you can (depending on location or overall number of other support/bouncers) at times be going into hairy situations, but you are generally acting from a position of "authority", as an instigator of your action on another and often with backup nearby or already there (and with the cops coming in a possibility) and with numerous witnesses/patrons.  If you are good and the yob is not wired or drunk you can use de-escalation or you may need to simply act to escort or put the dude on his can on the street. 

The mind set is very different from an SD situation, where you may be on your own, on unfamiliar ground and when faced with a surprise attack and/or greater numbers against you.  And remember, the focus is now on "you" and not you wading in to blind side some yob causing trouble.  Much of the skills and "presence" garnered from bouncing can be put to use if faced with certain SD scenarios - but it is a different situation and needs a different approach, mind set and all. 

I am going to hazard a guess and say that I bet deep down, when you dwell on it, you know that.


----------



## Zero

Tez3 said:


> We've had new postings in with the withdrawal of the troops from Germany. I'm so pleased have retired and don't have to deal with one regiment in particular, the Highlanders who have taken the place of the Scots Guards. It's my father's old regiment. They have a reputation of being hard, they will fight as soon as look at you, only the Paras and Royal Irish fight as much as they do. I've spent 20 years breaking up fights, ducking flying pub furniture, skirting spilt beer and jumping of squaddies bigger than me, so glad not to have to do it anymore. Oh and the Highlanders? they have recruited the biggest meanest looking rugby playing Fijians they can find, I don't think I will even be going out locally much.
> 
> I forgot, we have the rugby World cup coming up, I was working during the last one, it was hell. Scotland v England v Wales v Fiji v Ireland, we have soldiers from all of those places and it's as good a reason for a fight as any. Thank goodness the Gurkhas don't fight in public.


Those rugby players can be huge too, a lot of them just naturally big lads.  I am 6ft (nothing in itself) but have done a lot of heavy weights over the years so broad and large but when you come up against these guys in pubs or clubs, it's like, shoot, what did your momma feed you when you were growing!!  : )   You don't get if from the screen or watching the matches live but when you see them in person they're pretty big units.  Not necessarily the best fighters but monstrous lads!!  Must have been hell getting trampled by Jonah back in the day, those poor English fellas getting cut down like stalks of wheat...   : )  hehe!
Bring on the World Cup, actually let's stop talking about the rugby, I don't want any jinxes!!!


----------



## Tez3

Rugby world cup should be good. During the Football world cup ( soccer) the level of violence in pubs, clubs and at home rises. It's known that domestic violence escalates during the football world cup. The relatively modern thing about watching the matches on screens in pubs etc has brought together the football thugs, alcohol and Jingoism as well as national divides ( here we have the Scotland v England thing which tends to be violent) We've seen on repeated news reports fans going on the rampage in foreign cities, people being killed and badly injured. The violence isn't confined to British fans but throughout Europe. There is a culture of violence which actually has little to do with sport but views violence as a sport in itself. Getting caught up in that sort of mob violence is horrendous and needs more than a competitive mind set and skills to get out of.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> I am going to hazard a guess and say that I bet deep down, when you dwell on it, you know that




Really no. For the bulk of it I think it is a fantasy made up to sell self defence training. Like sunscreen.(where you can buy the face one or the sport one but they all have the same ingredients)

If deescalation or awareness was ever trained in a comprehensive and proven method and so validate a mindset difference then I would agree. But it isn't.

Otherwise I almost never fight when I am not being paid to. It is not that hard to avoid. Don't be a duche and leave if things are getting heated. I mean how simple is that. I spent 20 years not being allowed to leave a confrontation. Everybody else has it easy.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Like sunscreen.(where you can buy the face one or the sport one but they all have the same ingredients)



Sunscreens don't all have the same ingredients, some are effective some aren't, they come in different strengths which is why you have different ones for face, children, fair people etc etc. Not all sunscreens are equal. the cheap ones you buy are often very weak and need applying very often, the more expensive ones are more effective due to have better ingredients which do the job better and don't irritate the skin.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> Really no. For the bulk of it I think it is a fantasy made up to sell self defence training. Like sunscreen.(where you can buy the face one or the sport one but they all have the same ingredients)
> 
> *If deescalation or awareness was ever trained in a comprehensive and proven method and so validate a mindset difference then I would agree. But it isn't.*
> 
> Otherwise I almost never fight when I am not being paid to. It is not that hard to avoid. Don't be a duche and leave if things are getting heated. I mean how simple is that. I spent 20 years not being allowed to leave a confrontation. Everybody else has it easy.



I think you used this "proven" reference in another similar themed post/topic.  I don't know how much merit the word's inclusion has.  Very hard to prove by using de-escalation, awareness or avoidance training that a fight or altercation was avoided.  Would be such a large scale complex poll that would need to be undertaken to basically determine of the population (maybe with a martial artist sub-set) how many of those that trained in SD specific teachings and applied them, in comparison to people that did not, ended up being jumped/mugged/attacked.  To my knowledge, that kind of survey has not been undertaken as yet.  And I am not going to buy an argument that that means SD training is not effective - because it is not "proven".

With that out of the way, de-escalation, awareness, avoidance and much more is absolutely consistently drilled at dedicated SD classes/schools and to a lesser degree (I admit), in some martial arts schools.  My old goju ryu school was just such a place, it was heavily focused on competitions and fighting but also thankfully three of the top seniors/senseis were also very much into SD and other real world applications.  Again, I have nothing against bjj but I just don't think you have seen it at your particular club (and you will not see a focus on this at most bjj clubs, the same was when I did judo, (never saw any training other than focused on mat/sport application).

You are making the mistake of taking your view and experience and applying this to all things.  There is no need to be walking the streets with a competitive mind set or feeling the need to be ready to drop into such a mind set.

Absolutely agree with you on most of the times it is not that hard to avoid these situations and it's better to just exit a bad looking scene!  It's just plain common sense (which is a lot of what SD training entails) but unfortunately, a lot of this common sense does not seem obvious to many people - and why SD, for many, needs to be _trained_.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> I think you used this "proven" reference in another similar themed post/topic. I don't know how much merit the word's inclusion has. Very hard to prove by using de-escalation, awareness or avoidance training that a fight or altercation was avoided. Would be such a large scale complex poll that would need to be undertaken to basically determine of the population (maybe with a martial artist sub-set) how many of those that trained in SD specific teachings and applied them, in comparison to people that did not, ended up being jumped/mugged/attacked. To my knowledge, that kind of survey has not been undertaken as yet. And I am not going to buy an argument that that means SD training is not effective - because it is not "proven"



So it can,t be proven. Why would you assume it is effective?


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Sunscreens don't all have the same ingredients, some are effective some aren't, they come in different strengths which is why you have different ones for face, children, fair people etc etc. Not all sunscreens are equal. the cheap ones you buy are often very weak and need applying very often, the more expensive ones are more effective due to have better ingredients which do the job better and don't irritate the skin.



No a lot of times it is a marketing device. Cosmetics pull the same stunt. Same company same stuff different lable different price.

Not sunscreen but you get the idea.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> You are making the mistake of taking your view and experience and applying this to all things. There is no need to be walking the streets with a competitive mind set or feeling the need to be ready to drop into such a mind set.



When you are attacked you need to be prepared to drop the hammer. And you need to do it with a bit of haste. 

When you deescalate you need to be prepared to drop the hammer. 

In both circumstances it is you against them.

From my experience anyway.


----------



## Tez3

LOL at a chap telling a woman about cosmetics, son, you have no idea what I know about them!
Your analogy about sunscreens was almost right but probably not in the way you think. Various sunscreens has different ratings, they can also contain more active ingredients than others depending on cost, a cheap sunscreen will have very little active ingredients in it, more expensive ones have more plus are more stable. So basically the trick is to read the label carefully so you know what you are buying and isn't that just a metaphor for life ie don't assume everything is the same because it has the same 'name' and look carefully at what the 'ingredients' are and in what quantity before you buy, just the same as martial arts.

Oh and for those who live in or need a sunscreen this is a very good article which I recommend reading. yep off topic but *life saving.
Sunscreen Fact Sheet - British Association of Dermatologists*


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> When you are attacked you need to be prepared to drop the hammer. And you need to do it with a bit of haste.
> 
> When you deescalate you need to be prepared to drop the hammer.
> 
> In both circumstances it is you against them.
> 
> From my experience anyway.


Ah, yup, all valid points Dropbear.  I just don't think that you equating any of that to (or requiring) a "competitive" mind set is correct.  And if it is a competitive mind set (as in, "I am going to beat him") that you are generally applying to how you address SD circumstances, well, good luck to you and each to their own.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> So it can't be proven. Why would you assume it is effective?


I never said it cannot be proven.  I simply said that in my view it would be a massive task to do it on a large scale empirical / scientific level.

From my own experience, I have proven that it works.  I have de-escalated situations that could very likely (I can actually say 99% (as you never know exactly what another person will do, but you can have a damn good idea when you have enough experience)) have gone to all out violence...and if I had gone about it with a "competitive" mind set, it would have gone violent, when there was no need for such.

I have assessed environments becoming very shady and have exited and/or avoided such.  I am going to put it back to you, that the fact I was not attacked therefore proves the effectiveness of these skills.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> When you are attacked you need to be prepared to drop the hammer. And you need to do it with a bit of haste.
> 
> When you deescalate you need to be prepared to drop the hammer.
> 
> *In both circumstances it is you against them.*
> 
> From my experience anyway.


Not always.  And in this context, "you against them" is not a competition and a competitive mind set is therefore not optimal or even on point.


----------



## RTKDCMB

JowGaWolf said:


> It's a good thing neither one of them really wanted to fight.


Or knew how to.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> So it can,t be proven. Why would you assume it is effective?


'Proof' implies absolutes and there are no absolutes in nature.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Not always.  And in this context, "you against them" is not a competition and a competitive mind set is therefore not optimal or even on point.



You against them is kind of the definition of competition.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> 'Proof' implies absolutes and there are no absolutes in nature.



There should be some sort of evidence it is based on. Tested for effect in some manner.


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> You against them is kind of the definition of competition.



I think it is the definition of a conflict, a competition is defined as a contest for some prize or supremacy. Alternatively rivalry.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> There should be some sort of evidence it is based on. Tested for effect in some manner.


So do you think that a non-competitive martial art does not base estimates of its effectiveness on any evidence?


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> So do you think that a non-competitive martial art does not base estimates of its effectiveness on any evidence?



Evidence would get a bit weird. It would be all third hand and anecdotal.


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> Evidence would get a bit weird. It would be all third hand and anecdotal.



I think you mean first hand. Since you are the one validating your own martial art, rather than looking at others competing and hoping they can improve the art you train.

Unless you focus on competition yourself in which case you risk become focused on the sport aspect and not on self defence.

EDIT: I agree however on one account, validation is the only proof you need but dont kid yourself. Having a partner not suited for the task would render validation useless.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> I think you mean first hand. Since you are the one validating your own martial art, rather than looking at others competing and hoping they can improve the art you train.
> 
> Unless you focus on competition yourself in which case you risk become focused on the sport aspect and not on self defence.
> 
> EDIT: I agree however on one account, validation is the only proof you need but dont kid yourself. Having a partner not suited for the task would render validation useless.




Well it wouldn't be sport based evidence. So you would have to find a guy who has been in enough fights to create a sample. And that is usually a third part. Mabye statistics,police reports or something.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Evidence would get a bit weird. It would be all third hand and anecdotal.


I forget, to you anything that is not caught on video is anecdotal evidence.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> I forget, to you anything that is not caught on video is anecdotal evidence.



Well kind of yeah. Some sort of evidence that it actually happened.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Well kind of yeah. Some sort of evidence that it actually happened.



Like evidence of the following statement from you:



drop bear said:


> Been a few.
> Bounced for 20ish years.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Zero said:


> There are tragic examples of where great competitive sports fighters have made grave errors of judgement and ended up dead when faced with what is essentially an SD situation.





drop bear said:


> That is pretty second guessy though. If he hadn't gone in as aggressively or if he wasn't aggressive enough or mindset herp derp guessed wrong and got him killed.



Alex Gong was a world class kickboxer. I met him once. Seemed like a nice guy. Could have kicked my *** in a fight pretty easily.

Unfortunately, he got himself shot to death chasing after and confronting a hit-and-run driver who had damaged his car. If he had just written down the plate number and given it to the police, he'd probably be alive today.  



drop bear said:


> There should be some sort of evidence it is based on. Tested for effect in some manner.



Yeah, it would be nice to have some way to evaluate the efficacy of de-escalation training. You could probably do a decent study with LEOs or other professionals who have to deal with potentially violent situations that need to be de-escalated on a regular basis. In fact, if such studies haven't been done, they really should be.

Unfortunately, such studies aren't practical for normal civilians who shouldn't be getting into fights on a regular basis anyway. The best I can come up with is the "do no harm" principle, trying to make sure that my students aren't _more_ likely to get into trouble due to their training. I try to do this by occasionally tossing in drills and scenarios where the "win condition" is something like getting to the exit rather than tapping out the opponent. It's remarkable how many people forget that objective under pressure and just become fixated on "beating" their training partner.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Zero said:


> Would be such a large scale complex poll that would need to be undertaken to basically determine of the population (maybe with a martial artist sub-set) how many of those that trained in SD specific teachings and applied them, in comparison to people that did not, ended up being jumped/mugged/attacked. To my knowledge, that kind of survey has not been undertaken as yet. And I am not going to buy an argument that that means SD training is not effective - because it is not "proven".


  I would actually like to see a poll like this.  It will probably be skewed because there are more people who don't take martial arts than there are people who do take martial arts. Then they would have to break down the martial category to how many take martial arts for self-defense with the goal of learning how to fight vs those who just take it with no intent on learning how to use it for fighting. Maybe one day someone will jump down that rabbit hole.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Zero said:


> There is no need to be walking the streets with a competitive mind set or feeling the need to be ready to drop into such a mind set.


  I agree with this statement having lived and worked in the not so friendly areas of Baltimore, Maryland.  This type of mindset would get a person into a lot of trouble on the streets.  Our mindset often shows in our body language and the last thing you want people to think of when on the streets is that you are competing.  Competitors get challengers so definitely don't have this mindset especially in rough areas.  

Whenever I was in the streets I tried to always broadcast multiple messages in my body language.
1. I'm not there to compete and I'm minding my own business
2. I'm not afraid and carry myself as if I fit in the environment. In other words I don't look uneasy
3. I'm alert and aware of my surroundings.
4. I'm not an easy target

Most people who get mugged or attacked on the streets fail in one or more of these areas.  When you see a street full of people yet one person out of crowd is singled out then one has to ask what did the person fail to do, that would have made the attack less likely to happen.  Humans are like predator animals tracking a herd.  The animal that the predator will attack will be the one that they think will be the easiest meal.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Zero said:


> From my own experience, I have proven that it works. I have de-escalated situations that could very likely (I can actually say 99% (as you never know exactly what another person will do, but you can have a damn good idea when you have enough experience)) have gone to all out violence...and if I had gone about it with a "competitive" mind set, it would have gone violent, when there was no need for such.


  I agree with this 100%.  de-escalation method are used to prevent things from getting violent. When someone is de-escalating then what they really are saying is that they don't want to fight.  Competitive mindsets in the streets is a challenge for men and women it comes off as who is the alpha male or alpha female.  A competitive mindset says "come get some."  

Having to stand up to some drug dealers in Baltimore, the last message that I want to give is one that says "come get some." I think of myself as a tough man, but I'm definitely not stupid when it comes to the streets.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Alex Gong was a world class kickboxer. I met him once. Seemed like a nice guy. Could have kicked my *** in a fight pretty easily.
> 
> Unfortunately, he got himself shot to death chasing after and confronting a hit-and-run driver who had damaged his car. If he had just written down the plate number and given it to the police, he'd probably be alive today.



On the flip side we had those soldiers in France who stopped that terrorist. Had that gone wrong then we would have said they should have done something different.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Unfortunately, such studies aren't practical for normal civilians who shouldn't be getting into fights on a regular basis anyway. The best I can come up with is the "do no harm" principle, trying to make sure that my students aren't _more_ likely to get into trouble due to their training. I try to do this by occasionally tossing in drills and scenarios where the "win condition" is something like getting to the exit rather than tapping out the opponent. It's remarkable how many people forget that objective under pressure and just become fixated on "beating" their training partner.



Acknowledgment that it is guesswork is the key there. I know I couldn't teach any more than what works for me. But that is a bit different to teaching proven stuff. And I believe it is important to make the distinction.

Ironically that is one of our wrestling scenarios. To get the stand up and that is for purely competitive reasons.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> On the flip side we had those soldiers in France who stopped that terrorist. Had that gone wrong then we would have said they should have done something different.




One soldier, one airman and two civilians actually. One civilian the Frenchman was badly wounded and would have died if one of the Americans hadn't stopped the bleeding.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> On the flip side we had those soldiers in France who stopped that terrorist. Had that gone wrong then we would have said they should have done something different.


Probably not. They knew they were risking their lives in order to protect others and themselves. If they had died in the attempt, they still might have given someone else the chance to take down the gunman or to get away. If they hadn't made the attempt, they could still have been killed. Sometimes there are no really safe options.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> On the flip side we had those soldiers in France who stopped that terrorist. Had that gone wrong then we would have said they should have done something different.


If I was in their situation I would have done the same thing. Not because I was trying to be a hero, but because I don't want to die without trying to save my own life.  Those soldiers struck at the right opportunity, which was before he started firing the rifle.  Waiting for him to spray the train with bullets would mean the opportunity would be lost and then you'll have to wait until he reloads to attack him, provided that you don't die during the first wave of flying bullets.


----------



## Zero

Tony Dismukes said:


> Alex Gong was a world class kickboxer. I met him once. Seemed like a nice guy. Could have kicked my *** in a fight pretty easily.
> 
> Unfortunately, he got himself shot to death chasing after and confronting a hit-and-run driver who had damaged his car. If he had just written down the plate number and given it to the police, he'd probably be alive today.



Sorry to hear you knew him and this is exactly the situation that comes to my mind when conversation goes onto such topics.  I was aware of Alex but did not know him and when I read the report when it first happened it was a shock and a loss.  It rams home that this "competitive", me against him or confrontational/aggressive mind set, rather than other approaches can end up badly.  I was not there so am not directly commenting on what Alex did or did not do that day.  I don't want to focus on the loss of Alex specifically but the tragedy highlights a lot of things.




Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, it would be nice to have some way to evaluate the efficacy of de-escalation training. You could probably do a decent study with LEOs or other professionals who have to deal with potentially violent situations that need to be de-escalated on a regular basis. In fact, if such studies haven't been done, they really should be.
> 
> Unfortunately, such studies aren't practical for normal civilians who shouldn't be getting into fights on a regular basis anyway. The best I can come up with is the "do no harm" principle, trying to make sure that my students aren't _more_ likely to get into trouble due to their training. I try to do this by occasionally tossing in drills and scenarios where the "win condition" is something like getting to the exit rather than tapping out the opponent. It's remarkable how many people forget that objective under pressure and just become fixated on "beating" their training partner.


  Noted.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Like evidence of the following statement from you:


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Probably not. They knew they were risking their lives in order to protect others and themselves. If they had died in the attempt, they still might have given someone else the chance to take down the gunman or to get away. If they hadn't made the attempt, they could still have been killed. Sometimes there are no really safe options.



And the no really safe options is the point there. Sometimes life has risk.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> On the flip side we had those soldiers in France who stopped that terrorist. Had that gone wrong then we would have said they should have done something different.


Crikey, I see these as two scenarios worlds apart from each other, the facts are very different and call for different actions/responses. 

Some guy (you don't know if armed/unarmed) tears off in your car and you still have your boxing gloves on (giving you limited hand use outside of boxing glove punches) and you run up and confront them through the window.  That is not needed.  There will/should be car insurance, you can report to cops, etc.  No need to get directly involved. Kind of like handing over your wallet rather than fighting to death over it, aside from a few dollars (that are often also insured these days), your banks and credit card agents will cover any loss.

Some guy racks an automatic rifle (= bad, bad intentions for all) in the carriage you and your mates are in, go for broke.  That may save you and everyone else, or you (and everyone else) may still die, go for it.  Or plunge through the carriage door into next compartment, jump from train etc.  You may get out, others and your friends/family may not - that's your individual choice, you need to live with it, it may be the right choice for you...


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> View attachment 19476


You do realize that picture is not actually evidence of anything other than you have access to a shirt with 'Security' written on it right?

Security Polo Shirt | eBay


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Zero said:


> Crikey, I see these as two scenarios worlds apart from each other, the facts are very different and call for different actions/responses.
> 
> Some guy (you don't know if armed/unarmed) tears off in your car and you still have your boxing gloves on (giving you limited hand use outside of boxing glove punches) and you run up and confront them through the window.  That is not needed.  There will/should be car insurance, you can report to cops, etc.  No need to get directly involved. Kind of like handing over your wallet rather than fighting to death over it, aside from a few dollars (that are often also insured these days), your banks and credit card agents will cover any loss.
> 
> Some guy racks an automatic rifle (= bad, bad intentions for all) in the carriage you and your mates are in, go for broke.  That may save you and everyone else, or you (and everyone else) may still die, go for it.  Or plunge through the carriage door into next compartment, jump from train etc.  You may get out, others and your friends/family may not - that's your individual choice, you need to live with it, it may be the right choice for you...


Some years ago I went through a series of street survival seminars put on by a friend/training partner of mine who was a long-time cop. 90-95% of the training was scenario-based. One of the big takeaways was figuring out when physical action was necessary and when it could get you in bigger trouble. Often there were enough clues so that if you were just calmly analyzing after the fact it was easy to figure out the best course of action. However under the stress of even a play-acted scenario it was common for people to choose wrongly when making a snap decision under pressure. It helped me appreciate a) the value of having an appropriate mental script ready to run and b) the dangers of having a mental script prepared that was inappropriate for the situation.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tony Dismukes said:


> However under the stress of even a play-acted scenario it was common for people to choose wrongly when making a snap decision under pressure.


  This usually happens when people base their self-defense plan on something that's out of their reach.  They play a scenario  in their mind that doesn't take into account of the abilities of an attacker.  The only thing that should be involved in a self defense plan is the lay of the land.  The rest of your plan should consist of analyzing the current situation and staying calm.

I tell women that they should always use the reflection from the parked cars in the parking lot like a mirror so that they can track what's going on behind them.  I also tell them if they can't run far and very fast, and still have energy left to fight just in case the attacker catches them, then they need to be looking at their environment to see what they can use to keep some distance between them in the attacker.   If I can't run far or fast then maybe the only thing I really need to do is run fast enough to get to  a car  or some kind of structure where I can keep my attacker on one side of the and me on the other and yell for help.  If there are no cars then use a tree, if there's no tree, then find something that can be used as a weapon.   Once people start thinking like this they begin to change how they move about their environment.   Most people get attacked in environments that they know very well but the person never thought to take that into consideration in relation to self-defense.


----------



## DaveB

Dropbear, you should look up John Titchen and his DART training school. He runs some impressive looking scenario based day sessions for all comers. I've never had the pleasure but they look like the ideal testing ground.

I think he has some videos on YouTube.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> You do realize that picture is not actually evidence of anything other than you have access to a shirt with 'Security' written on it right?
> 
> Security Polo Shirt | eBay



Different shirt.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Crikey, I see these as two scenarios worlds apart from each other, the facts are very different and call for different actions/responses.
> 
> Some guy (you don't know if armed/unarmed) tears off in your car and you still have your boxing gloves on (giving you limited hand use outside of boxing glove punches) and you run up and confront them through the window.  That is not needed.  There will/should be car insurance, you can report to cops, etc.  No need to get directly involved. Kind of like handing over your wallet rather than fighting to death over it, aside from a few dollars (that are often also insured these days), your banks and credit card agents will cover any loss.
> 
> Some guy racks an automatic rifle (= bad, bad intentions for all) in the carriage you and your mates are in, go for broke.  That may save you and everyone else, or you (and everyone else) may still die, go for it.  Or plunge through the carriage door into next compartment, jump from train etc.  You may get out, others and your friends/family may not - that's your individual choice, you need to live with it, it may be the right choice for you...



The point is what happened. Happened. You can't accurately armchair the situation you were not in because there is too much unpredictability.

OK. We will use this one.

Victorian man jailed over 'unprovoked' one-punch death of David Cassai - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

And say something monstrously duchebaggy and claim that if he had not tried to deescalate and instead acted aggressively he would be alive today.

I could probably find enough example to support a whole system based on not deescalating. And therefore why you should buy my method and not someone else's. 

But it relies on me armchair commandoing a whole bunch of scenarios I wasn't in. And couldn't possibly solve.

And we are back to inflating egos


----------



## JowGaWolf

Why is it that people on this site can't accept what others say about their lives and move on.  Seriously, is this what the martial arts community has come down to?


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Dropbear, you should look up John Titchen and his DART training school. He runs some impressive looking scenario based day sessions for all comers. I've never had the pleasure but they look like the ideal testing ground.
> 
> I think he has some videos on YouTube.



As opposed to just being attacked by drunk duchebags every weekend.

You will be pleased to know two days ago I deescalated an unhinged homeless guy who was at one stage up and throwing air crescent kicks at me. 

We even fist bumped at the end of it.

(Having said that if he had gone me I was going to belt him with a torch I had concealed so I had both bases covered)


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Dropbear, you should look up John Titchen and his DART training school. He runs some impressive looking scenario based day sessions for all comers. I've never had the pleasure but they look like the ideal testing ground.
> 
> I think he has some videos on YouTube.








Why does the other guy run off all the time? I mean it it 2 on 2 and you bugger off leaving your mate to get bashed.

Survival mentality?

Anyway. That scenario is competitive. You put people in a position were both sides are trying to win.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

That is one of John Titchen's reality based scenario videos.  Good stuff!  As to why one guy left that actually may be the Scenario they are working on when your friends deserts you.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> That is one of John Titchen's reality based scenario videos.  Good stuff!  As to why one guy left that actually may be the Scenario they are working on when your friends deserts you.



Or situational sparring. As we would call it. I have no major problem with the method. 

I think you might be grasping with that explanation. Because I am not sure why you would bother. It would be more difficult and more productive to save the guy you are working with rather than run off on him.

If you wanted to have your friend run off. Don't include him in the first place.

But in any event it goes back to the original idea about competitive training. 
(Now everybody split hairs about the terminology)


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Ahhh but in a Scenario there are unpredictable things happening.  Meaning, his partner may know that his role is to run off but the other guy did not.  So one minute he thinks it is two on two and the next he is by himself having to deal with that particular problem.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Ahhh but in a Scenario there are unpredictable things happening.  Meaning, his partner may know that his role is to run off but the other guy did not.  So one minute he thinks it is two on two and the next he is by himself having to deal with that particular problem.



Unpredictable things happen anyway. Scripting unpredictability?


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> Unpredictable things happen anyway. Scripting unpredictability?



And you somehow think that it was unpredictable for the guy jumping you on the streets?

"Why am I attacking you? Oh well, might as well continue!"

Nothing is fully unpredictable in terms of self defence. You should use the word "suprise" instead of unpredictability. In hindsight one can say it was unpredictable, while it occurs it must be suprise.

As for competitiveness, every second you continue to compete against your opponent the likelyhood of you ever getting home in one piece diminishes. At least where I live one common misstake is to think that guys around you will understand it is none of their business.

For whatever reason there are always some people that are interested in escalating a fight and/or join what they believe to be the winning side.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Different shirt.


Besides the point.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Scripting unpredictability?


It only needs to be unpredictable by one of the participants.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> As opposed to just being attacked by drunk duchebags every weekend.
> 
> You will be pleased to know two days ago I deescalated an unhinged homeless guy who was at one stage up and throwing air crescent kicks at me.
> 
> We even fist bumped at the end of it.
> 
> (Having said that if he had gone me I was going to belt him with a torch I had concealed so I had both bases covered)


It was simply a recommendation from one martial arts practitioner to another. Not meant to prove or dispute any point.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> And you somehow think that it was unpredictable for the guy jumping you on the streets?
> 
> "Why am I attacking you? Oh well, might as well continue!"
> 
> Nothing is fully unpredictable in terms of self defence. You should use the word "suprise" instead of unpredictability. In hindsight one can say it was unpredictable, while it occurs it must be suprise.
> 
> As for competitiveness, every second you continue to compete against your opponent the likelyhood of you ever getting home in one piece diminishes. At least where I live one common misstake is to think that guys around you will understand it is none of their business.
> 
> For whatever reason there are always some people that are interested in escalating a fight and/or join what they believe to be the winning side.



On good let's have another semantic argument about terminology.that will get to the heart of the matter.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> It was simply a recommendation from one martial arts practitioner to another. Not meant to prove or dispute any point.



No dramas.


----------



## ShotoNoob

DaveB said:


> From the patronising "sigh" I presume you magic all your knowledge from the air. The rest of us who aren't so lucky do need to find people qualified in or experienced enough to codify knowledge in a given field. The first two in the fields of Self Defense and Martial arts  to pop in my head are linked below.
> WELCOME TO GEOFF THOMPSON.COM
> Home.


|
I figured this was the character / org behind the Britain-sourced commentary.  Really a kyo karate-like philosophy.  Not a Gichin Funakoshi type @ all.  Also has a big axe to grind.


----------



## Tez3

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> I figured this was the character / org behind the Britain-sourced commentary.  Really a kyo karate-like philosophy.  Not a Gichin Funakoshi type @ all.  Also has a big axe to grind.



I really think you should keep opinions about someone you don't know, haven't trained with and have very little idea about to yourself because in this case your 'opinion' is offensive.
Geoff is a karateka, from Shotokan, and does not have an axe to grind far from it, he has made peace with himself and with the world long ago. He is an extremely good instructor, good company and a great guy to know. As you don't you should probably not pass facile and pointless comments about him. Critique his work by all means, he welcomes that but to say he is not a 'Funakoshi' type is laughable because you certainly aren't either. If you are going to attack other's then please do it to their faces, he has an email address I would be happy to pass on to you and you can tell him your thoughts instead on plastering nonsense on the internet.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> The point is what happened. Happened. You can't accurately armchair the situation you were not in because there is too much unpredictability.
> 
> OK. We will use this one.
> 
> Victorian man jailed over 'unprovoked' one-punch death of David Cassai - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
> 
> And say something monstrously duchebaggy and claim that if he had not tried to deescalate and instead acted aggressively he would be alive today.
> 
> I could probably find enough example to support a whole system based on not deescalating. And therefore why you should buy my method and not someone else's.
> 
> But it relies on me armchair commandoing a whole bunch of scenarios I wasn't in. And couldn't possibly solve.
> 
> And we are back to inflating egos


But de-escalation is only one part of the SD tool kit/package.  This "competitive mind set approach", if I understand how you are seeing it, does not readily lend itself to being anywhere in the SD tool kit, there are far better approaches, for both avoiding problems and for going head-on with a problem if it is unavoidable.

Maybe it is all just semantics and you are grouping a lot of other mental approaches under this "competitive" umbrella.  And I think you have acknowledged that in some situations a more placatory or disarming approach (while remaining absolutely aware/keyed), ie "de-escalation" does have its place.  Right?  Otherwise almost every confrontation, bump, or half drunk fool in a pub one was faced with would end in fists thrown.

So maybe, we are just looking at this from more extreme and differing ends of the same equation.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> Unpredictable things happen anyway. Scripting unpredictability?


For sure, as said by others, this could be used in training in clubs. I don't remember coming across it. But why not?  All you do is don't let one guy in on the full script.  Sounds like fun!!  (It would be a bit sick but would be a laugh if you actually had your supposed mate turn on you and join in the melee with your assailants!)

It can be a shock when you are out, and generally when young, with a few mates to find out who the more likely one to leg it is when faced with a hairy situation.  Sometimes those you would think who are decent enough sport fighters will exit left and leave you with reduced numbers.


----------



## Tez3

Zero said:


> All you do is don't let one guy in on the full script. Sounds like fun!! (It would be a bit sick but would be a laugh if you actually had your supposed mate turn on you and join in the melee with your assailants!)



Sounds like training with our lot, they do it all the time to their mates. It doesn't seem planned suddenly they are all on one guy, quite disturbing if you didn't know what they are like.
When they are out together though they never leave their mates come what may, never.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Tez3 said:


> I really think you should keep opinions about someone you don't know, haven't trained with and have very little idea about to yourself because in this case your 'opinion' is offensive.
> Geoff is a karateka, from Shotokan, and does not have an axe to grind far from it, he has made peace with himself and with the world long ago. He is an extremely good instructor, good company and a great guy to know. As you don't you should probably not pass facile and pointless comments about him. Critique his work by all means, he welcomes that but to say he is not a 'Funakoshi' type is laughable because you certainly aren't either. If you are going to attack other's then please do it to their faces, he has an email address I would be happy to pass on to you and you can tell him your thoughts instead on plastering nonsense on the internet.


|
And you're spot on example with what I'm saying....  Just look at the ego explosion....


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> But de-escalation is only one part of the SD tool kit/package.  This "competitive mind set approach", if I understand how you are seeing it, does not readily lend itself to being anywhere in the SD tool kit, there are far better approaches, for both avoiding problems and for going head-on with a problem if it is unavoidable.
> 
> Maybe it is all just semantics and you are grouping a lot of other mental approaches under this "competitive" umbrella.  And I think you have acknowledged that in some situations a more placatory or disarming approach (while remaining absolutely aware/keyed), ie "de-escalation" does have its place.  Right?  Otherwise almost every confrontation, bump, or half drunk fool in a pub one was faced with would end in fists thrown.
> 
> So maybe, we are just looking at this from more extreme and differing ends of the same equation.



Why can't a competitive mindset deescalate?

You just set the rules that if you don't fight you win.

The non competitive band wagon becomes this idea that you can either not pressure test of half test ideas. Because competition does not work in S.D.

And it is a misconception.

So we do a S. D. And you do a drill where they throw one punch and then stand there and collapse. Compliant and ego stroking.


You do a drill where you put in a token effort to attack the guy but ultimately loose due to an expectation that they should be successful in the technique they are learning. Semi compliant and ego stroking.(this is where I would place intent)

You do a drill where you attempt to attack the guy to conclusion. Their defence either works or it dosent. This is competitive.

For self defence to need to train all three methods.

Removal of the final component will make it appear that you have learned the technique. It is quicker and more personally satisfying. But it removes a vital aspect of self defence.

So by black belt level you still can't do the technique properly.






Actually ignore that one. Here is a much better example.
"Come on guys don't let them get back up" facepalm.


----------



## Tez3

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> And you're spot on example with what I'm saying....  Just look at the ego explosion....



What on earth are you talking about? You bad mouth someone you don't know and then come out with this? It's attacking a poster, off topic and just weird.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> Why can't a competitive mindset deescalate?
> 
> *You just set the rules that if you don't fight you win*.



This I like  : )

The rest, I am still trying to follow and figure out where this is coming from:



drop bear said:


> The non competitive band wagon becomes this idea that you can either not pressure test of half test ideas. Because competition does not work in S.D.
> 
> And it is a misconception.
> 
> So we do a S. D. And you do a drill where they throw one punch and then stand there and collapse. Compliant and ego stroking.
> 
> 
> You do a drill where you put in a token effort to attack the guy but ultimately loose due to an expectation that they should be successful in the technique they are learning. Semi compliant and ego stroking.(this is where I would place intent)
> 
> You do a drill where you attempt to attack the guy to conclusion. Their defence either works or it dosent. This is competitive.
> 
> For self defence to need to train all three methods.
> 
> Removal of the final component will make it appear that you have learned the technique. It is quicker and more personally satisfying. But it removes a vital aspect of self defence.
> 
> So by black belt level you still can't do the technique properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually ignore that one. Here is a much better example.
> "Come on guys don't let them get back up" facepalm.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> This I like  : )
> 
> The rest, I am still trying to follow and figure out where this is coming from:



Right back to the beginning of this thread. And the question asked. Why are black belts crap at self defence?

In theory they should know what they are doing. So then kata something something bunkai. An why that method fails the practitioner.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Why are black belts crap at self defence?



That's a massive generalisation, ALL black belts, in every style in every country lol. No I don't think so.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> That's a massive generalisation, ALL black belts, in every style in every country lol. No I don't think so.



Why *the *black belts observed by the op are crap.

 "The problem is that after years of training, I see a lot of black belts standing there with no clue what to do in response to the attack. I've had my moments of confusion too."


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Why *the *black belts observed by the op are crap.




Not my monkeys, not my circus, it's his problem.


----------



## ballen0351

Perhaps the ok needs to find better friends and training partners.  I know plenty of good black belts.  I know a few that are pretty bad as well.  Has more to do with the person then it does the color of his belt


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Perhaps the ok needs to find better friends and training partners.  I know plenty of good black belts.  I know a few that are pretty bad as well.  Has more to do with the person then it does the color of his belt







drop bear said:


> If you want to do a drill of any sort with enough realism to learn from it then it has to be done at a pace and resistance level where you don't always win.
> 
> Which by the way can be really frustrating.





Perhaps bloody this.


----------



## drop bear

Double post.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> Why *the *black belts observed by the op are crap.
> 
> "The problem is that after years of training, I see a lot of black belts standing there with no clue what to do in response to the attack. I've had my moments of confusion too."


Yeah, true but I think it is a mix of what Ballen is saying more than anything, most times it comes down to the individual.  You see great fighters (and if you are that way inclined, great kata exponents) at many clubs and right there alongside them are practitioners that may have been training for the same time or longer but whose skills, ability, focus, whatever, are markedly less (I certainly drag down the mean average weighting of any club I am at with respect to kata!!).

I agree that there are some clubs, where the entire class, class after class, is just rows of students lined up doing kata and simple air punching drills and marching up and down the room performing techniques with little or no one-on-one or direct input from the trainer.  In those schools you might get a majority of students that are going to "fail"/freeze when confronted with a concerted attack or anything that is not controlled and scripted, unless the student is inherently/naturally equipped to deal with such (and some people are).


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> "I've had my moments of confusion too."


Most of them on this forum.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Yeah, true but I think it is a mix of what Ballen is saying more than anything, most times it comes down to the individual.  You see great fighters (and if you are that way inclined, great kata exponents) at many clubs and right there alongside them are practitioners that may have been training for the same time or longer but whose skills, ability, focus, whatever, are markedly less (I certainly drag down the mean average weighting of any club I am at with respect to kata!!).
> 
> I agree that there are some clubs, where the entire class, class after class, is just rows of students lined up doing kata and simple air punching drills and marching up and down the room performing techniques with little or no one-on-one or direct input from the trainer.  In those schools you might get a majority of students that are going to "fail"/freeze when confronted with a concerted attack or anything that is not controlled and scripted, unless the student is inherently/naturally equipped to deal with such (and some people are).



The reason is that the technique is different. It is not just intent. The rules change at high intensity.

Judo is a good example. You see these static judo throws that look different resisted.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> The reason is that the technique is different. It is not just intent. The rules change at high intensity.
> 
> Judo is a good example. You see these static judo throws that look different resisted.


I think I might by loosing you again...

I agree that often when a style (some styles...) is put under pressure, either in the ring or on the street, what you see is completely different to the forms practiced and even drilled in the club.

But I have always had great success with judo, in ending fights (more like spats) in high school, when I have used it in brawls to throw people and when I have competed in mma or sparred freestyle.  If you have good technique, then judo works and it's pretty hard to resist going over if the timing and tech is right.  That said, while someone who knows what they are doing can "block" or negate judo takedowns, the same goes with someone who is an experienced grappler, so that they can avoid or escape from bjj moves.

I am struggling with what your point is about "resistance"...


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> I think I might by loosing you again...
> 
> I agree that often when a style (some styles...) is put under pressure, either in the ring or on the street, what you see is completely different to the forms practiced and even drilled in the club.
> 
> But I have always had great success with judo, in ending fights (more like spats) in high school, when I have used it in brawls to throw people and when I have competed in mma or sparred freestyle.  If you have good technique, then judo works and it's pretty hard to resist going over if the timing and tech is right.  That said, while someone who knows what they are doing can "block" or negate judo takedowns, the same goes with someone who is an experienced grappler, so that they can avoid or escape from bjj moves.
> 
> I am struggling with what your point is about "resistance"...



A technique that is used against resistance is a different technique to one that is not used against resistance.

Which is why fights don't have that crisp look that demos do.

Why heavy sparring dosent have he crisp look that light sparring does.

They are actually doing different technique.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> A technique that is used against resistance is a different technique to one that is not used against resistance.


When

- you attack your opponent with "single leg", you have to move in toward him. When you do that, he may move his leading leg back and let you to kiss the dirt.
- your opponent attacks you, he has to move in his legs toward you. Since he is doing the "move in" for you, his leading leg will come into your hand. All you need is just to have your hands ready to catch his leading leg.

You can borrow a resistance opponent's force but you can't borrow a non-resistance opponent's force. It's the same technique. The only different may be when you deal with a

- non-resistance opponent, you have to do the whole technique by yourself.
- resistance opponent, you only have to do part of the technique and your opponent will do part of your technique for you.

In the following clip, your opponent's chest pushing arm gives you 2 free contact points so you can use it to take him down.


----------



## Tez3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When
> 
> - you attack your opponent with "single leg", you have to move in toward him. When you do that, he may move his leading leg back and let you to kiss the dirt.
> - your opponent attacks you, he has to move in his legs toward you. Since he is doing the "move in" for you, his leading leg will come into your hand. All you need is just to have your hands ready to catch his leading leg.
> 
> You can borrow a resistance opponent's force but you can't borrow a non-resistance opponent's force. It's the same technique. The only different may be when you deal with a
> 
> - non-resistance opponent, you have to do the whole technique by yourself.
> - resistance opponent, you only have to do part of the technique and your opponent will do part of your technique for you.
> 
> In the following clip, your opponent's chest pushing arm gives you 2 free contact points so you can use it to take him down.




That's very obvious set up for camera.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When
> 
> - you attack your opponent with "single leg", you have to move in toward him. When you do that, he may move his leading leg back and let you to kiss the dirt.
> - your opponent attacks you, he has to move in his legs toward you. Since he is doing the "move in" for you, his leading leg will come into your hand. All you need is just to have your hands ready to catch his leading leg.
> 
> You can borrow a resistance opponent's force but you can't borrow a non-resistance opponent's force. It's the same technique. The only different may be when you deal with a
> 
> - non-resistance opponent, you have to do the whole technique by yourself.
> - resistance opponent, you only have to do part of the technique and your opponent will do part of your technique for you.
> 
> In the following clip, your opponent's chest pushing arm gives you 2 free contact points so you can use it to take him down.




Non resistance as in a colapso tap out monkey. 

If I single leg someone I am running them across the room.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> A technique that is used against resistance is a different technique to one that is not used against resistance.
> 
> Which is why fights don't have that crisp look that demos do.
> 
> Why heavy sparring dosent have he crisp look that light sparring does.
> 
> They are actually doing different technique.


Maybe, but only if you have been trained or are training incorrectly or if you have poor tech.  It's the same tech my friend, if you are talking striking the only difference is it is not thrown with bad intentions.  If you are grappling or shooting, the only difference is you are executing your throw with more control or warning to your uke (to avoid unnecessary injury to training partner).  If you are on the ground or otherwise doing locks/bars etc, you again are simply doing with more control and less intensity to ensure not going through and damaging joints.  But it is absolutely the same tech, boxing, judo, kickboxing, bjj, whatever...

Maybe you are getting extra bang for your buck and getting taught two forms of each tech?  Lucky!!  : )

I don't say, "hey, now check out my non-tournament kick, see, I put this little squiggle twist thing at the end, that's how you can tell I ain't really fighting"


----------



## Zero

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When
> 
> - you attack your opponent with "single leg", you have to move in toward him. When you do that, he may move his leading leg back and let you to kiss the dirt.
> - your opponent attacks you, he has to move in his legs toward you. Since he is doing the "move in" for you, his leading leg will come into your hand. All you need is just to have your hands ready to catch his leading leg.
> 
> You can borrow a resistance opponent's force but you can't borrow a non-resistance opponent's force. It's the same technique. The only different may be when you deal with a
> 
> - non-resistance opponent, you have to do the whole technique by yourself.
> - resistance opponent, you only have to do part of the technique and your opponent will do part of your technique for you.
> 
> In the following clip, your opponent's chest pushing arm gives you 2 free contact points so you can use it to take him down.


Woa-ho-ho-hoo...
Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting, dedededededededdoo...


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Maybe, but only if you have been trained or are training incorrectly or if you have poor tech.  It's the same tech my friend, if you are talking striking the only difference is it is not thrown with bad intentions.  If you are grappling or shooting, the only difference is you are executing your throw with more control or warning to your uke (to avoid unnecessary injury to training partner).  If you are on the ground or otherwise doing locks/bars etc, you again are simply doing with more control and less intensity to ensure not going through and damaging joints.  But it is absolutely the same tech, boxing, judo, kickboxing, bjj, whatever...
> 
> Maybe you are getting extra bang for your buck and getting taught two forms of each tech?  Lucky!!  : )
> 
> I don't say, "hey, now check out my non-tournament kick, see, I put this little squiggle twist thing at the end, that's how you can tell I ain't really fighting"



It depends where your reference is. If you are referring back to resisted training then ou would be correct. If you are not referring back to resisted training then anything could happen.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Why does the other guy run off all the time? I mean it it 2 on 2 and you bugger off leaving your mate to get bashed.
> 
> Survival mentality?
> 
> Anyway. That scenario is competitive. You put people in a position were both sides are trying to win.


That's what I need.  Some body armor, so I can go hard like that lol.   The good about the scenario is that these guys aren't going to panic in a real situation where they get jumped like that.  It will be something that they are familiar with, and they are probably developing some tactile sensing and awareness as well just by defending and trying to determine where the treats are.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> It depends where your reference is. If you are referring back to resisted training then ou would be correct. If you are not referring back to resisted training then anything could happen.


Drop bear what the heck is that mess?  No contact sparring?  Might as well stand still the other guy won't hit you anyway.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Why can't a competitive mindset deescalate?
> 
> You just set the rules that if you don't fight you win.
> 
> The non competitive band wagon becomes this idea that you can either not pressure test of half test ideas. Because competition does not work in S.D.
> 
> And it is a misconception.
> 
> So we do a S. D. And you do a drill where they throw one punch and then stand there and collapse. Compliant and ego stroking.
> 
> 
> You do a drill where you put in a token effort to attack the guy but ultimately loose due to an expectation that they should be successful in the technique they are learning. Semi compliant and ego stroking.(this is where I would place intent)
> 
> You do a drill where you attempt to attack the guy to conclusion. Their defence either works or it dosent. This is competitive.
> 
> For self defence to need to train all three methods.
> 
> Removal of the final component will make it appear that you have learned the technique. It is quicker and more personally satisfying. But it removes a vital aspect of self defence.
> 
> So by black belt level you still can't do the technique properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually ignore that one. Here is a much better example.
> "Come on guys don't let them get back up" facepalm.


lol not the 3 hour black belt test again.  They were kind of fresh for 3 hours worth of combat drills.  I can do my beginner form back to back for 10 minutes and I'm ready to drop lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I'm so glad I missed this new conversation lol.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> It depends where your reference is. If you are referring back to resisted training then ou would be correct. If you are not referring back to resisted training then anything could happen.


Of course, but the techniques are always the same.  It is good that "anything" can happen in non-scripted, free sparring, because that's pretty much what you face when out of the dojo.  Sure, there will be changes to how techs may end up being thrown: you may be more off balance, may have to modify footing or stance depending on ground conditions or even you own landing depending on form of takedown or throw, if you actually go for that in a street fight or SD situation...your tech might be a somewhat smothered as well, if you are caught by surprise.

In other words, things can start to look messy.  But you are always talking about the same techs. 

That's why, in my view, a mutually agreed street fight is different to SD.  When you square off after some bad mouthing or a shoulder barge/bump, things may get a lot nastier than in a ring but you still have the time and option to use plenty of techs.  But in SD, while anything can happen, most of you go-to responses to "anything" should be simple and easily/quickly executed, as you may well be on the back foot, off balance/off-guard and find yourself without the space to be able to move freely.  Depending on numbers you may also have to quickly rattle off a number of strikes to several assailants, while hopefully being able to keep moving so that you are only ever directly faced by the one bad'un, using their numbers to jam each of them (Musashi 101). 

I'm not going to go to ground and/or work on locks/submissions when faced with more than one assailant, it will be gross motor, heavy impact action.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> It depends where your reference is. If you are referring back to resisted training then ou would be correct. If you are not referring back to resisted training then anything could happen.


I have no idea what that video is...


----------



## Phobius

Training without resistance would in my opinion feel like being shown the end of a movie and then explain the entire story for your friends.

A technique may be performed in perfect shape but if one does not know how to get into that perfect shape, one has to recreate and understand this at that instant moment when the technique is needed to save life. A perfect technique is the goal, resistance points out what is good or bad when trying to achieve your goal.

Are we discussing the use of resistance or not in total? As for sparring, if no resistance what is the point of sparring? You are then two guys doing their own individual thing without no concern about your opponent. If only the movements were scripted it would be nothing less than kata.

Reacting to an opponents movement when that opponent is not a threat will only teach someone very bad habits and will make them predictable and beaten if the day for fighting comes.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Drop bear what the heck is that mess?  No contact sparring?  Might as well stand still the other guy won't hit you anyway.



Apparently non contact sparring is just like full contact without the contact.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Training without resistance would in my opinion feel like being shown the end of a movie and then explain the entire story for your friends.
> 
> A technique may be performed in perfect shape but if one does not know how to get into that perfect shape, one has to recreate and understand this at that instant moment when the technique is needed to save life. A perfect technique is the goal, resistance points out what is good or bad when trying to achieve your goal.
> 
> Are we discussing the use of resistance or not in total? As for sparring, if no resistance what is the point of sparring? You are then two guys doing their own individual thing without no concern about your opponent. If only the movements were scripted it would be nothing less than kata.
> 
> Reacting to an opponents movement when that opponent is not a threat will only teach someone very bad habits and will make them predictable and beaten if the day for fighting comes.



To make a point of reference. OP wondered why his black belts were crap when they did self defence drills. And my answer was basically because nobody has ever actually attacked them.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> That's why, in my view, a mutually agreed street fight is different to SD.



No fundamental difference. 

But probably worth its own thread.


----------



## O Saru

To be honest, I didn't feel like reading all the comments.

Come to my dojo and I can show you practical kata applications. Also check out Iain Abernathy or Ray Parker. The more "traditional" or "old" the kata is, usually it is more effective.


----------



## drop bear

O Saru said:


> To be honest, I didn't feel like reading all the comments.
> 
> Come to my dojo and I can show you practical kata applications. Also check out Iain Abernathy or Ray Parker. The more "traditional" or "old" the kata is, usually it is more effective.



Is that physically possible? Where are you?


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> Non resistance as in a colapso tap out monkey.
> 
> If I single leg someone I am running them across the room.



As a wrestler, thats more of a lack of finishing technique than resistance






Youll see all these means of finishing the single leg in actual matches (with the double leg and trip being the most common)

If I get the single, and have proper technique in finishing, I dont have to run someone across the room

Hell, in wrestling you cant, you risk giving up the position by going out of bounds


----------



## Drose427

drop bear said:


> Apparently non contact sparring is just like full contact without the contact.



Does anyone here actually do non contact sparring?

Theres always this assumption that TMA's only do it,

but I've been all over appalachia and never seen a single one that doesnt do at least medium contact (around 40%), whereas quite a few do do harder

edit: Im not saying NOBODY in the world does it, but its not that common and since it pops up so much here I was wondering if another poster told you they did


----------



## Tez3

Drose427 said:


> Does anyone here actually do non contact sparring?
> 
> Theres always this assumption that TMA's only do it,
> 
> but I've been all over appalachia and never seen a single one that doesnt do at least medium contact (around 40%), whereas quite a few do do harder
> 
> edit: Im not saying NOBODY in the world does it, but its not that common and since it pops up so much here I was wondering if another poster told you they did



I've never met anyone who did non contact sparring not even with children, there's always contact.


----------



## Drose427

Tez3 said:


> I've never met anyone who did non contact sparring not even with children, there's always contact.


Same here in the states

Ive felt bad some nights from having to tell kiddies to suck it up cause they were hurt instead of injured..


----------



## Koshiki

Yeah, I realize I've only been in the arts for fifteen years, but I've never met a school, even the ones I find to be more about exercise, or the ones that are more art and less martial, who does "no contact" sparring. I've seen light contact, where the aim is to thump rather than injure, but I didn't realize _no_ contact was a thing...

As far as resistance goes, I think of it on a scale, with about seven steps:
1. Facilitation - The opponent reacts intentionally in the desired way. Only for isolated demonstration purposes, NEVER for actual training. Unfortunately, difficult to avoid.
2. Accommodation - The opponent allows themself to be manipulated however is desired, but does not in any way assist or resist. Useful when first practicing a technique, but not for long-term training.
3. Resistance - The opponent attempts to remain as they were, but initiates no actions of their own volition. First test of technique learned with accommodation. Useful for long term training, allows detailed technical study of what is possible, but not what is feasible.
4. Neutralization - The opponent attempts to escape, avoid, deflect, or stop the desired effect. Good test of practicality of technique. Essential for long-term training.
5. Counteraction - The opponent not only attempts to neutralize but also initiates technique of their own. Develops adaptability and increased awareness of feasibility and practicality. The essential standard for long-term training. This is basically sparring, but not a full-fledged, competition levels of contact.
6. Aggression - The opponent counteracts but with full intent to injure or subdue, either in unavoidable real world combat or a close simulation.. The best reality check, but inherently dangerous. Essential for serious long-term training, but to be used extremely sparingly and only among experienced practitioners. This is full-contact, full-force sparring, essentially.
7. Assault - (This one is illegal, and for good reason.) The opponent utilizes full aggression, but is beyond normal human mental states, whether due to drug use or extreme emotional or neurological states. Only in unavoidable real world combat. Never for training, due to extreme danger, impracticality, and issues of morality.

No contact isn't even on this spectrum. It's its own beast, and I'm not certain why anyone would do it.

I really don't understand the "is kata useful" question that comes up so much. Kata is nothing but a way to remember a whole ton of two-person drills, as well as a platform to spur innovation into new drills, all of which should then be incorporated into your sparring. I assume we're all a fan of two person drills, and I further assume we all are fans of practicing those two person drills alone, when we really want to perfect them, or have no partner at the moment. I don't understand how a Mnemonic pattern for remembering those drills becomes such a source of contention for some people...

People focus on the actual, lengthy, one-person dance part of the kata, and forget that actually _doing_ that dance should be a fundamental, but otherwise small part of your training. Analysis and application should, in my understanding, be where the vast majority of your kata training time is spent.

If you're art is kata-based, then take what you learn from kata, and experiment with it, test it, experiment, test, refine, abandon, or assimilate as needed, at varying points of resistance along the spectrum from full cooperation to full opposition, every level short of all-out assault has it's place in true training.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Drose427 said:


> Same here in the states
> 
> Ive felt bad some nights from having to tell kiddies to suck it up cause they were hurt instead of injured..



We do light contact with low ranks, regardless of age. As they progress, the contact can ramp 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.


----------



## O Saru

Joplin, Missouri


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> Does anyone here actually do non contact sparring?
> 
> Theres always this assumption that TMA's only do it,
> 
> but I've been all over appalachia and never seen a single one that doesnt do at least medium contact (around 40%), whereas quite a few do do harder
> 
> edit: Im not saying NOBODY in the world does it, but its not that common and since it pops up so much here I was wondering if another poster told you they did




Misconceptions about non-contact sparring. | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


----------



## drop bear

O Saru said:


> Joplin, Missouri




Yeah well if I am ever halfway across the world I will pop in.


----------



## drop bear

Drose427 said:


> As a wrestler, thats more of a lack of finishing technique than resistance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youll see all these means of finishing the single leg in actual matches (with the double leg and trip being the most common)
> 
> If I get the single, and have proper technique in finishing, I dont have to run someone across the room
> 
> Hell, in wrestling you cant, you risk giving up the position by going out of bounds



Mma worse comes to worse you just ping them against a wall.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Misconceptions about non-contact sparring. | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community



Not sure why you'd repost something that you didn't understand the first time round.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Not sure why you'd repost something that you didn't understand the first time round.



No people just say I don't understand. To try to make themselves sound mysterious.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> No people just say I don't understand. To try to make themselves sound mysterious.



No, they are saying you don't understand because you demonstrate by your answers that you don't. The people posting do so to explain things not to 'sound mysterious', of course if it sounds mysterious to you then you don't understand it do you? The fact you are reposting shows too that you don't understand it.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> No, they are saying you don't understand because you demonstrate by your answers that you don't. The people posting do so to explain things not to 'sound mysterious', of course if it sounds mysterious to you then you don't understand it do you? The fact you are reposting shows too that you don't understand it.




No there is a disagreement not a miscommunication. I understand fine.

And if you understood context.(and this is the difference I will explain why you don't understand) it was posted in direct response to a question who does non contact sparring.

So who does non contact sparring?

The guy advocating its benefits on this forum.

I think you even posted on that thread.

So what I don't understand is why you posted this.



Tez3 said:


> I've never met anyone who did non contact sparring not even with children, there's always contact.



Because you obviously know someone who does non contact sparring.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> No there is a disagreement not a miscommunication. I understand fine.
> 
> And if you understood context.(and this is the difference I will explain why you don't understand) it was posted in direct response to a question who does non contact sparring.
> 
> So who does non contact sparring?
> 
> The guy advocating its benefits on this forum.
> 
> I think you even posted on that thread.
> 
> So what I don't understand is why you posted this.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you obviously know someone who does non contact sparring.



 Thing is, when in a hole stop digging.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Thing is, when in a hole stop digging.



But when you are going through hell keep going.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> But when you are going through hell keep going.



This is a hell then of your own making because you refuse to accept anything from a so called TMA says and believe firmly that it's your way or it's rubbish. An open mind would take you out of this hell immediately.


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> Apparently non contact sparring is just like full contact without the contact.


Many others have commented since this post of yours.  I was not sure if you were posing this as a question, in that you are not sure, or if you were asserting this as your view?

I guess it is possible to have completely non-contact "sparring" as a kind of drill or exercise.  I have never seen it. Kind of like "shadow sparring"?  Have come across much "light" contact with youngsters or juniors but normally with more experience comes more control and ability (and familiarity with taking and deflecting and avoiding harder hits) and so the contact ratchets up.

My view is non-contact, or even light contact (while of great value for starting off or for safely trying/experimenting with some strikes or takedowns unfamiliar with) is a world apart from contact sparring.  For a start and with karate/kickboxing as an example.  Sport karate tournaments (ie, light contact points awarded) do allow one to use skills and to hone great timing and speed but in my experience, if entirely focused on, it leads to very bad fighting technique and strategy for when faced with full contact tournament or a "gloves-off" street fight or possibly even SD situation.

I have always preferred full contact tournaments but have gone into clicker/sport tournaments for enjoyment.  I have experienced and seen a hell of a lot of techniques thrown without adequate guard (particularly head cover) to counters employed and the norm is by far to throw strikes with less damage effect for getting your point in.  Time and again I have been hit with punches to torso with my own head strike connecting split seconds after.  I have seen so many fighters with great technical skill bouncing around on their feet and edging in slowly to duck in and out with a reverse torso punch and this resembles nothing of any of the "real" bad intention fights I have been in or witnessed.  It also hardly resembles full contact tournaments.   And it's the last kind of go-to mind set I would want if jumped on the street or otherwise in an SD situation.

Train hard, fight hard...stay hard(?)    : )
Os


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Drose427 said:


> Does anyone here actually do non contact sparring?
> 
> Theres always this assumption that TMA's only do it,
> 
> but I've been all over appalachia and never seen a single one that doesnt do at least medium contact (around 40%), whereas quite a few do do harder
> 
> edit: Im not saying NOBODY in the world does it, but its not that common and since it pops up so much here I was wondering if another poster told you they did


I believe that @RTKDCMB is an advocate of non-contact sparring. I'm not sure if anyone else here does it. I don't think it's all that common.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> This is a hell then of your own making because you refuse to accept anything from a so called TMA says and believe firmly that it's your way or it's rubbish. An open mind would take you out of this hell immediately.



Rubbish. I don't accept dogma or heresay from any system. I accept evidence from any system. That is an open mind.

You don't understand.


----------



## drop bear

Zero said:


> Many others have commented since this post of yours.  I was not sure if you were posing this as a question, in that you are not sure, or if you were asserting this as your view?
> 
> I guess it is possible to have completely non-contact "sparring" as a kind of drill or exercise.  I have never seen it. Kind of like "shadow sparring"?  Have come across much "light" contact with youngsters or juniors but normally with more experience comes more control and ability (and familiarity with taking and deflecting and avoiding harder hits) and so the contact ratchets up.
> 
> My view is non-contact, or even light contact (while of great value for starting off or for safely trying/experimenting with some strikes or takedowns unfamiliar with) is a world apart from contact sparring.  For a start and with karate/kickboxing as an example.  Sport karate tournaments (ie, light contact points awarded) do allow one to use skills and to hone great timing and speed but in my experience, if entirely focused on, it leads to very bad fighting technique and strategy for when faced with full contact tournament or a "gloves-off" street fight or possibly even SD situation.
> 
> I have always preferred full contact tournaments but have gone into clicker/sport tournaments for enjoyment.  I have experienced and seen a hell of a lot of techniques thrown without adequate guard (particularly head cover) to counters employed and the norm is by far to throw strikes with less damage effect for getting your point in.  Time and again I have been hit with punches to torso with my own head strike connecting split seconds after.  I have seen so many fighters with great technical skill bouncing around on their feet and edging in slowly to duck in and out with a reverse torso punch and this resembles nothing of any of the "real" bad intention fights I have been in or witnessed.  It also hardly resembles full contact tournaments.   And it's the last kind of go-to mind set I would want if jumped on the street or otherwise in an SD situation.
> 
> Train hard, fight hard...stay hard(?)    : )
> Os



The game changes. What is high percentage in light contact is not always high percentage in full contact.

You can train light but you are loosing an important element. Like I can train bjj. But it is a different game to judo.

Now whether or not to train it will depend on whether you believe you can train small adjustments and not get messed up because of it. The old can I train karate and kung fu together? Question.

Which I don't see a problem with.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Rubbish. I don't accept dogma or heresay from any system. I accept evidence from any system. That is an open mind.
> 
> You don't understand.



Yes, dear.


----------



## Koshiki

I'm not an advocate that everyone regularly train full contact; that's just not realistic for the average person with a moderate interest in martial arts as a hobby. I_ do_ believe that anyone who intends to consider themselves a serious and effective fighter needs at least a bit of full contact experience, preferably cross-style and with un-trained buddies as well.

For any martial arts hobbyist though, I think moderate contact is still necessary for you to have any idea of what you're really doing. While you're light-contact punch and your full contact punch _should_ have the same technique, if you never practice it live, there's a good chance it won't be.

Aside from the obvious, that a solid tap to the forehead with a fist is different on your hand then a strong, full-power reverse, that that pretty wrist-lock to arm-bar is pretty hard if the other guy is really fighting it and hitting with his free hand, that that flurry of patty-tappy strikes isn't very effective, meanwhile the other guy just hauls back and slugs you once....

Aside from all that testing of technique, tactics, and strategy, the first time you really get your nose cracked is an eye-opener (eye-closer??), and you want that initial, "oh wow, this hurts oh my god he actually hit me! I'm BLEEDING!" to happen when your opponent is friendly, not when that moment of startled pause lands you in the ER.


I _do_ have a serious gripe about no-contact sparring, aside from what I've already mentioned. Every form of sparring has trade-offs, compromises from realism that must be made to able to train regularly and with some degree of safety. For example, most sport arts forbid many very unpleasant or damaging techniques, like head kicks to a grounded opponent, finger breaks, etc, and usually use some assortment of padded gear. A padded punch reacts nothing like a bare punch, for the striker or strikee. (I like to have people hit me with a glove on in the forehead, as hard as they feel like, have them take the glove off and do it again. It drives home the point that the gloves protect your hands in _exactly _the same amount as they protect the target.)

However, the trade-off in no-contact sparring is the worst possible trade-off. It's the trade-off of distancing. In a striking art, distancing and positioning are the most important things. (not unlike much grappling) If you train to fight 10 inches farther apart than you should, you will _not _automatically be able to make the switch when misfortune calls. You might be able to pick up the speed, to follow through on technique, to hit with more power, etc, the trade-offs from other sparring games, but distance is something that needs to be very accurate, and very intuitive.

If you train to kick, stopping two inches from your opponent's body, then when you need to hit hard, you will _still _stop two inches short. Or worse, actually hit at the right distance, find you developed bad balance habits, and stagger backward out of control...

I don't want to denigrate anyone who enjoys no-contact sparring, and I'm sure it is great fun and a wonderful aerobic workout and timing and reactions drill, but as effective, real-world training, I would be tempted to label it a liability, rather than an asset.


----------



## Koshiki

...Not sure what any of this has to do with Kata, though. The Kata I'm familiar with all pretty much require at least moderate contact, since they're not remotely related to the stand-five-feet-apart-and-hit-at-each-other style of sparring we seem to be discussing...


----------

