# Scenario training...



## jks9199 (Apr 13, 2014)

Well... in response to drop bear's repeated comments about scenario training, like HERE, I thought I'd discuss scenario training a bit.  Too be fair -- drop bear is far from the only person who has misunderstandings about it; his posts were just the trigger.

Lots of people do what they call "scenario training" something like this:  "OK, guys, let's do some scenarios.  H'mmm... Fred, you be the attacker.  You stand over there, and you're going to mug Amy here.  Amy... you protect yourself.  Set?  OK -- go!" and Amy walks up to Fred, who proceeds to grab her and she does one of their grab defenses, breaks his grip, and everyone applauds.  Or maybe something goes a little wrong, and everybody laughs...  Fred may or may not really try to hold her, or grab her in a way to force her to defend effectively...   I guess, in a very strict sense, this is a scenario exercise.  They did create a scenario.  But there was no real effort to do anything to make it much more realistic than a routine partner drill.

Done right, scenario training is hard work.  You start by defining the purpose, goal, or intent of the exercise.  Then you develop a situation that allows the students to practice the lesson of that goal. You provide your role players with guidance for how to interact with the students.  You need an observer/controller/evaluator who will watch the scenario as it goes along, and intervene if it gets out of control or guide the students to reach the training goal.  You need to define how much resistance, in what forms, will be presented.  That might range from "no physical contact" all the way to simulated use of lethal force, with things like marking cartridges or Airsoft-type guns.

So, let's look at that mugging scenario again, and try to do it better.  What's our goal?  Let's keep it broad: respond to an attempted robbery, looking for demonstration of skills like deescalation, and appropriate use of force.  We'll give our role-player mugger a training knife, have him set up in the area (maybe have several role players out and about to set the stage a bit...) and give him a bit of a script.  He's to confront the student, and demand money.  At first, he's only to imply that he's armed -- but if they challenge him verbally or physically, he's to present and employ the knife.  If they turn and run, he doesn't chase.  If they call for help, the other role players in the area will run away "in terror".  If they reach physical defense, the safety monitor or evaluator is to watch them, and intervene to prevent serious injury, but the "mugger" is to try to stab the student.  What do we want to see from our student?  Best of all: pick up on the role-players conduct, and avoid him entirely.  OK, we're going to force them to encounter the guy in this scenario, so we'll take that one off the table.  If they surrender their money and leave -- they're out.  But the evaluator should discuss risks of surrendering, dangers of going with an attacker, etc.  It's a "win" solution -- so we'll stop on that.  If they resist -- did they try to escape, or try to "fight?"  Break down why, and repeat if they fell into a sparring/fighting situation rather than an escape, having coached them to escape, not fight.

Another sort of scenario training builds on skills as you develop them.  I'll use room clearing for police or military as an easy example.  If I'm teaching a group of recruits how to clear a room... I'll present the material as a lecture/demo.  I'll explain how to do it, then use an instructor partner, and demonstrate clearing a room.  (There won't be any surprises in this one; it's a demo of the "right" way.)  Then the recruits practice.  At first, there are no surprises.  They're coached in areas that they are missing, and guided on how to do it.  As their familiarity with the exercise increases, new wrinkles are thrown in.  Hidden areas in a room, closets, people hiding behind doors or other places.  In the end, the drill might take place in a shoot house with shoot/don't shoot targets, multiple rooms, role players...  The final exercise can be really complex with a lot of things to deal with.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 13, 2014)

The "scenario training" is "if you attack me ..., I'll respond ...". It's not a good idea to build your MA skill with such dependency. It's better "I attack you. If you respond ..., I'll do ..." instead. This way you make thing to happen instead of to wait for your opponent to make thing to happen.

The right order to learn MA is to learn how to:

1. use a technique.
2. counter that technique.
3. counter the counter of that technique.

and in that order.

Some systems don't teach defense and counter in the first 3 years. Those systems prefer their students will first learn how to attack, attack, and still attack. After you have develop your skill how to knock/take your opponent down, you then learn how not to be knocked/taken down by your opponent. It makes no sense to learn how to counter "leg lift (Uchi Mata)" before you have mastered "leg lift (Uchi Mata)" yourself.[h=1][/h]


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 13, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The "scenario training" is "if you attack me ..., I'll respond ...".



I believe jks9199's point (which I agree with) is that what you are describing is *not *scenario training.  

Some of the best self-defense training I've ever had came through some seminars a cop buddy of mine taught some years back.  Probably 90% of the training was in the form of scenarios.  Specific physical techniques hardly came into it.  We explored concepts like 1) how to avoid needing to use physical force in the first place, 2) how to recognize when and when not to use force, and 3) how not to get in trouble with the law after using force in self-defense.

Some people may think that these are easy questions.  The scenarios we acted out (based on my friend's decades of experience in law enforcement) showed us how easy it is to get things wrong in the heat of the moment.

jks9199 does a good job in laying out the beginnings of a good approach to scenario training.  I'm sure he would tell you that his explanation is just scratching the surface of the topic.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 13, 2014)

*Scenario Based Training* should be very dynamic with lots of possibilities.  There should be room for awareness and avoidance and physical action as well if needed.  It should not be just here is the attacker, your the defender ok defend.  No, instead there should be verbal dialogue, verbal judo so to speak where you are verbally engaged and or the threat can choose then to escalate the situation to a violent attack.  Thoughts should be on how to get out of there, how to avoid a possible confrontation, what to do if it goes physical, if it does become a violent attack on the perpetrator how to disengage at the right time and get out of there.  Good Scenario Based Training should be unpredictable.  This in turn leads to many possibilities and also makes for a possibility for adrenaline to come into play and also for their to be an adrenaline dump.   *Variations during training should happen*. Here are a few examples on just one situation: ie. one guy just wants directions to some place, he becomes verbally abusive and maybe then leaves.  In another scenario maybe he asks for directions and when you speak he attacks, yet another he asks for directions, verbally engages nicely for a bit then begins to leave and then attacks.  Yet in another he asks for directions, gets them, says thanks, leaves, comes back a few minutes later and says he is confused then attempts to mug you. Another situations he asks for directions leaves and comes back with a friend, etc.  Lots of variations on a simple situation and that does not take into account how the person being asked for directions responds as that also could in turn affect how the possible mugger reacts.

After a Scenario there should be feedback from the participants as well as the instructors.  Each and every Scenario should be a teaching moment for everyone including the people conducting the training.  

Good equipment is a must in my opinion as well.  If the scenario goes physical everyone needs to be careful not to injure someone else and having some great equipment that is out there helps.  Personally I use Predator Armour in my Scenarios.  I have utilized other equipment in the past like Filipino Body Armor, Headgear, pads, Nok Knives, Padded Sticks, Training Firearms, etc. 


Predator Armour Photo:

View attachment $WP_20140103_003.jpg View attachment $WP_20140111_003.jpg


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 13, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I believe jks9199's point (which I agree with) is that what you are describing is *not *scenario training.
> 
> Some of the best self-defense training I've ever had came through some seminars a cop buddy of mine taught some years back.  Probably 90% of the training was in the form of scenarios.  Specific physical techniques hardly came into it.  We explored concepts like 1) how to avoid needing to use physical force in the first place, 2) how to recognize when and when not to use force, and 3) how not to get in trouble with the law after using force in self-defense.
> 
> ...



It's barely scratching the surface.  I consciously omitted having the evaluator require students to explain and justify their actions.  I didn't even touch on safety planning.  Let me put it this way...  People teach multiple day, sometimes multiple week classes in running scenario based training.  Kenneth Murray has written a nearly 400 page textbook on doing it right.  

It's easy to do a "you're being mugged/raped/robbed/kidnapped... defend yourself" thing.  It's hard to make it a realistic and good scenario based training event.


----------



## Steve (Apr 13, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> It's easy to do a "you're being mugged/raped/robbed/kidnapped... defend yourself" thing.  It's hard to make it a realistic and good scenario based training event.


This is where I believe most martial arts schools go astray.  Most people are not, in my opinion, competent to do it.  They either don't have the real world experience or they don't have the instructional design experience.  You need both.

But, I completely understand what I think drop bear is trying to say.  Most self defense guys, when pushed, will admit that they've "never been in a fight."  To be fair, most people never get into fights.  We're a pretty civilized bunch.  But, it sure does undermine your position when you imply that sport is less suited for practical self defense than a style where odds are no one in the school has ever been in any kind of real world altercation.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 13, 2014)

It's not a good idea to always think that you are the pray and your opponent is the predator. In conflict, I want to think that I'm the predator and trying to eat my opponent alive. If you don't have this kind of attitude, you should not train MA.

This is why I don't like the term "self-defense". Offense is the best defense. When you attack your opponent and put him in defense mode, he will not have the luxury to attack you.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 13, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's not a good idea to always think that you are the pray and your opponent is the predator. In conflict, I want to think that I'm the predator and trying to eat my opponent alive. If you don't have this kind of attitude, you should not train MA.
> 
> This is why I don't like the term "self-defense". Offense is the best defense. When you attack your opponent and put him in defense mode, he will not have the luxury to attack you.



That's getting into yet another area...  Self defense is really a legal term; it's a justification for doing something that would otherwise be illegal.  And there is certainly a place and time to be the aggressor (especially for cops and related professions).  But being the aggressor on the street is also a very effective way to find yourself enjoying the hospitality of your local hoosegow...  Avoiding that is where exercises where you justify and explain your actions are vital.  The reality is that protecting yourself is about being the prey more often than not.  You certainly need to learn to think like a predator; it helps you recognize your vulnerabilities.

This is another failing of a lot of so-called self defense programs and instructors.  They coach their students in how to get arrested and go to jail, if they do what is taught.  They don't address legal issues, other than with the bravado of "better to be tried by 12..."   They don't prepare their students to understand how a predator thinks and hunts.  They don't understand how violence really works and really happens.  Proper scenario training can address a lot of these issues -- if the person putting it together takes the time to plan it and do so.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 13, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Self defense is really a legal term;


If we consider the legal issue then one should apply the grappling art instead of the striking art. A strike on your opponent's face may end you in jail. A side mount on the ground may be not.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2014)

But we are still talking unscripted (well ish) and resisted here?

I assume the people running this have also been in fights.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2014)

drop bear said:


> But we are still talking unscripted (well ish) and resisted here?
> 
> I assume the people running this have also been in fights.


Right.  The thing that concerns me here isn't whether a student can be taught practical skills.  It's clear that well done, scenario based training can be excellent. It's used all the time by our military, our police and in many other applications.  There are some presumptions here, though. 

First, that the training is well designed.  The examples posted are some good ones of how scenario based training CAN be really well done.

Second, that the instructor who is teaching the course is competent to do so.  In every case so far, the instructors have real world experience. "So and so taught me, and he's been a cop/body guard/bouncer/professional security consultant/special forces for X years."

Experiences vary, for sure.  Which is why I'm a huge fan of specificity in any training course.  It allows the student to evaluate the credentials of the instructor.  I wouldn't want to take cooking lessons from someone who owns 10 McDonald's franchises, even though he can say he's made a career in the "Food Service Industry at a Very High Level" for decades.  In the same way, a Navy Seal might not be the best guy to teach some facets of self defense.  But even in this thread, everyone is listing in at least some vague manner the credentials of their instructor.  And I think this is completely appropriate!

The questions I have really bubble up when people suggest that, not only can they LEARN practical skills, but that, with no real experience, they can become competent to teach those skills to others.  That's a red flag for me.  I know I've raised these concerns in the past, but it's relevant here again.  How many generations from ACTUAL experience can you be and still get quality instruction?  At a very basic level of instruction, it's not as important.  But, you just flat out can't be an expert if you've never applied a practical skill.  You can know a lot about it, but you can't be an expert carpenter if you've never swung a hammer.  You can't be an expert swimmer if you've never been in water.


----------



## EddieCyrax (Apr 14, 2014)

Steve said:


> I know I've raised these concerns in the past, but it's relevant here again. How many generations from ACTUAL experience can you be and still get quality instruction? At a very basic level of instruction, it's not as important. But, you just flat out can't be an expert if you've never applied a practical skill. You can know a lot about it, but you can't be an expert carpenter if you've never swung a hammer. You can't be an expert swimmer if you've never been in water.



I generally agree with your premise, but by what standard/life experience would you need to be an expert and is this a requirement to instruct?

This example is extremely exaggerated to make a point.....Does an instructor of rape defense have to have successfully defended themselves in a rape scenario in order to instruct?

How many street fights?  How many mugging defences?  How many x y z? in order to qualify one to instruct?

Way too many variables.....what is enough....

Question in my mind is in the training methods. Are the training methods have proven.  Has the system been designed with the appropriate training methodologies?  Do the instructors adhere to this methodology?


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2014)

Sometimes the best scenario training is one where nothing happens.  People get so amped up in training that every little thing triggers an aggressive reaction that normally wouldn't happen in a real life encounter.  I did an active shooter scenario for our dept inservice training this year with simunitions and no officers ever fired a shot.  Everyone at the end said they got more from that training then they ever did in years past where it ends in a massive shootout.  We also did traffic stop training with the sims and it was interesting watching how amped up everyone was with the helmets on because they just knew they were getting shot on the stop so they handled the stop differently then how I watch them conduct stops on the street.  So one of the downfalls to all training is the lack of surprise everyone involved know to stay alert and ready which may not be the case in the real world


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2014)

EddieCyrax said:


> I generally agree with your premise, but by what standard/life experience would you need to be an expert and is this a requirement to instruct?
> 
> This example is extremely exaggerated to make a point.....Does an instructor of rape defense have to have successfully defended themselves in a rape scenario in order to instruct?
> 
> ...


Good questions, and really, there is no one right answer, but I would argue that there are some that are clearly wrong.  

I'll try to answer your questions individually, but first a disclaimer.  There are a million "what if's" that can be asked.  My goal isn't to provide a skills inventory and competency model for every kind of martial arts/self defense related training that exists.  You asked about rape defense.  I'll do my best to provide an example of some of the kinds of competencies I would expect from a rape prevention instructor.  But, the point isn't that deep in the weeds.  The point is simply that there are core competencies rooted in applied skill.  Whatever those core competencies are is debatable.  I hope this makes sense.

Experiences are often transferable, so, in response to a rape prevention instructor, I would say that the instructor does not necessarily need experience as a rape victim to be competent as an instructor.  Personally, if it were me, I'd want to know what makes the instructor competent to speak to the crime of rape, though.  So, in addition to real world experience using the techniques he's sharing, I would also expect some practical experience with rape, whether as a cop, a counselor or in some other way.  

Regarding the "how many" questions, there is no one right answer.  The only real wrong answer is, "None."  If I am learning carpentry from someone who has never swung a hammer, I'm not learning from the right guy.  But other than "none" it really depends.  How complicated is the subject?  What experiences do you have as a student that are transferable?  How much do you really need to know?  Do you need to know it or is it ok if you just know about it?  

In something practical, like self defense, I'd say you need to be able to do it. Just talking about it convincingly isn't going to suffice.  

I've suggested in other threads that teaching a system is potentially a very good way to go.  You can be an expert in a system, because you're actually learning and applying skills within the context of the system, and because it's a system, the skills are demonstrable and measurable.  But here again, I'd personally be suspicious if the "system" purports to teach abstracts (like self defense) that no one in the school has actual experience with.   For example, you can be an expert, 10th dan in Kyokushin Karate and not be competent to teach "self defense."   You can be an MMA instructor and not be a self defense expert. 

Conversely, your experiences as a cop/bouncer/security guard etc, may give you some specialized experience that helps with self defense, but won't give you any expertise in Kyokushin Karate.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2014)

Steve said:


> Good questions, and really, there is no one right answer, but I would argue that there are some that are clearly wrong.
> 
> I'll try to answer your questions individually, but first a disclaimer.  There are a million "what if's" that can be asked.  My goal isn't to provide a skills inventory and competency model for every kind of martial arts/self defense related training that exists.  You asked about rape defense.  I'll do my best to provide an example of some of the kinds of competencies I would expect from a rape prevention instructor.  But, the point isn't that deep in the weeds.  The point is simply that there are core competencies rooted in applied skill.  Whatever those core competencies are is debatable.  I hope this makes sense.
> 
> ...



So you need zero real world rape defense to be a rape defense expert but in the next paragraph you say zero is not a correct answer.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> So you need zero real world rape defense to be a rape defense expert but in the next paragraph you say zero is not a correct answer.


If I believed for even a moment you were interested in an honest discussion, I'd try to explain it to you, ballen.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2014)

Steve said:


> If I believed for even a moment you were interested in an honest discussion, I'd try to explain it to you, ballen.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk



You can't because your point is impossible you have too many contractions already.  However that has nothing to do with the topic so back to scenario based training.  Do you guys use it in your Bjj training?  I'd be interested to see what you guys do


----------



## MJS (Apr 14, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Well... in response to drop bear's repeated comments about scenario training, like HERE, I thought I'd discuss scenario training a bit.  Too be fair -- drop bear is far from the only person who has misunderstandings about it; his posts were just the trigger.
> 
> Lots of people do what they call "scenario training" something like this:  "OK, guys, let's do some scenarios.  H'mmm... Fred, you be the attacker.  You stand over there, and you're going to mug Amy here.  Amy... you protect yourself.  Set?  OK -- go!" and Amy walks up to Fred, who proceeds to grab her and she does one of their grab defenses, breaks his grip, and everyone applauds.  Or maybe something goes a little wrong, and everybody laughs...  Fred may or may not really try to hold her, or grab her in a way to force her to defend effectively...   I guess, in a very strict sense, this is a scenario exercise.  They did create a scenario.  But there was no real effort to do anything to make it much more realistic than a routine partner drill.
> 
> ...



Yup, this is pretty much how I do my scenario training.  Personally, I'm not sure how anyone could think the first way you mentioned, ie: Fred, come on over, etc.  would be scenario training.  Oh sure, it's training, but I'd put that more in line with what I'd consider spontaneous reaction drills.  The attacker randomly attacks the defender, not letting them know what type of attack is coming.  Of course, the scenario training, as we know it, is what you describe later.  As I've said, I enjoy this training very much, and done right, it's very beneficial.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Sometimes the best scenario training is one where nothing happens.  People get so amped up in training that every little thing triggers an aggressive reaction that normally wouldn't happen in a real life encounter.  I did an active shooter scenario for our dept inservice training this year with simunitions and no officers ever fired a shot.  Everyone at the end said they got more from that training then they ever did in years past where it ends in a massive shootout.  We also did traffic stop training with the sims and it was interesting watching how amped up everyone was with the helmets on because they just knew they were getting shot on the stop so they handled the stop differently then how I watch them conduct stops on the street.  So one of the downfalls to all training is the lack of surprise everyone involved know to stay alert and ready which may not be the case in the real world




Yeah I have done those. My attitude is if I know i am going to go physical why the preamble.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 14, 2014)

Steve said:


> Good questions, and really, there is no one right answer, but I would argue that there are some that are clearly wrong.
> 
> I'll try to answer your questions individually, but first a disclaimer.  There are a million "what if's" that can be asked.  My goal isn't to provide a skills inventory and competency model for every kind of martial arts/self defense related training that exists.  You asked about rape defense.  I'll do my best to provide an example of some of the kinds of competencies I would expect from a rape prevention instructor.  But, the point isn't that deep in the weeds.  The point is simply that there are core competencies rooted in applied skill.  Whatever those core competencies are is debatable.  I hope this makes sense.
> 
> ...




Even as a bouncer you have to realise you have one dimension in the world of street fighting. And that there are a lot of variables. Personally if I am giving bouncer advice I mention what has worked for me rather than what is the hard and fast rule.

Like putting a jigsaw together.

So a rape victim could tell you. I was grabbed like this etc. Martial arts instructor knows that grab and counter. Bouncer has seen the same set up used in a bashing and knows the awareness signs.

Then take it to the lab and give it a test. See what happens.

So you define. This is what I have experienced. This is what I have learned through others. This is what I have tested.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 15, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah I have done those. My attitude is if I know i am going to go physical why the preamble.



Because how you get there can matter.  One excellent training ever exercise (as ballen mentioned) is to gear up for a nonviolent solution.  It's a way for students to see the contact great or marking cartridge stuff and go "PARTY TIME!". That sort of scenario forces them to actually think it through and keep to things that they can justify legally. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 15, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Because how you get there can matter.  One excellent training ever exercise (as ballen mentioned) is to gear up for a nonviolent solution.  It's a way for students to see the contact great or marking cartridge stuff and go "PARTY TIME!". That sort of scenario forces them to actually think it through and keep to things that they can justify legally.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk



Just to elaborate...  Had a call like that last week.  Call was for a disorderly naked individual. I thought sure we'd be fighting...  Guy complied immediately and with no fuss. No, I didn't use the Taser " just cuz" nor did I thump him. I cuffed him and assisted the medics. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Apr 15, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Just to elaborate...  Has a call like that last week.  Call was for a disorderly naked individual. I thought sure we'd be fighting...  Guy complied immediately and with no fuss. No, I didn't use the Taser " just cuz" nor did I think him. I cuffed him and assisted the medics.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk



Yeah but a real life vs training difference. In real life you can talk someone down as they may be undecided as to what they want to do.
And probably goes 90 percent comply and 10 percent fight.

Very hard to reflect that in training as your partner is decided one way or the other. And I have never done combat scenarios that work on a 90 percent comply.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 15, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but a real life vs training difference. In real life you can talk someone down as they may be undecided as to what they want to do.
> And probably goes 90 percent comply and 10 percent fight.
> 
> Very hard to reflect that in training as your partner is decided one way or the other. And I have never done combat scenarios that work on a 90 percent comply.


But you can.   You give your roll players the option if the person taking the scenario does a good job of verbally controlling the situation it doesn't go physically.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 15, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> But you can.   You give your roll players the option if the person taking the scenario does a good job of verbally controlling the situation it doesn't go physically.




No I always fight. He is just not good enough at talking me down.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 15, 2014)

drop bear said:


> No I always fight. He is just not good enough at talking me down.



Ok


----------



## BrendonR (Apr 15, 2014)

Scenario training is for the elite, not the beginner. The beginner has no understanding of how to interpret the training for the scenario. Which is why in Krav Maga, when they start with scenario's it is a ineffective method. However, the Krav Maga self defense itself, is VERY effective.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 15, 2014)

BrendonR said:


> Scenario training is for the elite, not the beginner. .


Thats not correct.  We train the military and police recruits with this type of training


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 15, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> But you can.   You give your roll players the option if the person taking the scenario does a good job of verbally controlling the situation it doesn't go physically.


*
This is very important in Scenario training.*  Verbal de-escalation techniques, movement allowing you to get away, etc. should all be a part of the scenarios.  Some times a roll player will not attack and respond positively to good verbal de-escalation technique.  Or the scenario was set up that they never would attack just argue.  Another time, maybe not and they attack.  This makes Scenario Based Training very hard to gage for a potential victim "roll player" and when done right gets their adrenaline going.  Afterwards talk about each scenario and go through what was done right or wrong.  What could be improved upon, etc.  Scenario Based Training is very valuable when done right!


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 15, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but a real life vs training difference. In real life you can talk someone down as they may be undecided as to what they want to do.
> And probably goes 90 percent comply and 10 percent fight.
> 
> Very hard to reflect that in training as your partner is decided one way or the other. And I have never done combat scenarios that work on a 90 percent comply.



No, it's not.  That's the point I've been trying to make.  PROPERLY designed and constructed training can have a range of outcomes.  It's not just "OK, so you gotta fight this guy" or "talk this guy down."


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 15, 2014)

BrendonR said:


> Scenario training is for the elite, not the beginner. The beginner has no understanding of how to interpret the training for the scenario. Which is why in Krav Maga, when they start with scenario's it is a ineffective method. However, the Krav Maga self defense itself, is VERY effective.



No.  I can do scenario training with someone with no experience, or with students with decades of experience both doing and teaching.  Some types of scenario training are indeed more effective once the students have some tools (verbal, physical, psychological, etc.) -- but scenarios can also be a very good way to wake up students to some of the realities of violence.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 15, 2014)

drop bear said:


> No I always fight. He is just not good enough at talking me down.



Then you're a lousy role player.  Role players are given guidelines.  They have to work within them.  (That's actually one of the weaknesses of scenario training -- but can be mitigated through planning and design.)  Sometimes the guidelines are simple; sometimes they're extensive with lots of progression points where the student's decision and action can lead to various outcomes.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 15, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> No, it's not.  That's the point I've been trying to make.  PROPERLY designed and constructed training can have a range of outcomes.  It's not just "OK, so you gotta fight this guy" or "talk this guy down."


In my opinion if there isnt multiple possible outcomes for each scenario then its not scenario training its a preset drill with more acting then normal


----------



## drop bear (Apr 15, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Then you're a lousy role player.  Role players are given guidelines.  They have to work within them.  (That's yactually one of the weaknesses of scenario training -- but can be mitigated through planning and design.)  Sometimes the guidelines are simple; sometimes they're extensive with lots of progression points where the student's decision and action can lead to various outcomes.



The issue is there while you can set guidelines there is no good hard and fast rule and you rely on somebodies interpretation. I think that aspect has to be really watched.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 15, 2014)

drop bear said:


> The issue is there while you can set guidelines there is no good hard and fast rule and you rely on somebodies interpretation.


But you have already stated your interpretation which is you always fight no matter what


----------



## drop bear (Apr 15, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> But you have already stated your interpretation which is you always fight no matter what



And relying on that breaks the scenario.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 15, 2014)

drop bear said:


> And relying on that breaks the scenario.


Which is why you were called a lousy roll player and prob a future inmate if you always resort back to violence


----------



## drop bear (Apr 15, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Which is why you were called a lousy roll player and prob a future inmate if you always resort back to violence



Being called a lousy roll player when discussing martial arts training is a compliment.


Sometimes I even attack people wrong.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 15, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Being called a lousy roll player when discussing martial arts training is a compliment.


not when the topic is about the serious concept of Scenario Training.  



> Sometimes I even attack people wrong.


Actually I doubt you have ever attacked or been attacked in real like but keep telling yourself that


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 15, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Being called a lousy roll player when discussing martial arts training is a compliment.
> 
> 
> Sometimes I even attack people wrong.



No, it's not. A good training partner, whether a scenario role player or partner in drills or even a sparring partner, doesn't just do their own thing and to hell with the training plan. They work with their partner in the context of the training so that both become better. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Apr 15, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> No, it's not. A good training partner, whether a scenario role player or partner in drills or even a sparring partner, doesn't just do their own thing and to hell with the training plan. They work with their partner in the context of the training so that both become better.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk




So I fall down when I am supposed to. Not when I am made to? How much of a gift am I supposed to give my partner in training?

It is really hard to accurately descalate a situation that is not escalating anyway. 

How often would you go physical to just verbal in one of these drills. The same amount as say you would on the job?


----------



## drop bear (Apr 16, 2014)

I look at it like this. If it is my job to drop someone within the scenario. For example I play the role of a mugger. I am not conversing with any intent to be talked down. I am positioning myself for an ambush.

The victim is playing into my game by trying to talk me down because he is giving me that opportunity. Instead of just wacking me or running off.

So the preamble is good tactics for me and bad for him.


----------



## MJS (Apr 16, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but a real life vs training difference. In real life you can talk someone down as they may be undecided as to what they want to do.
> And probably goes 90 percent comply and 10 percent fight.
> 
> Very hard to reflect that in training as your partner is decided one way or the other. And I have never done combat scenarios that work on a 90 percent comply.





drop bear said:


> No I always fight. He is just not good enough at talking me down.



I have to agree with Ballen and JKS.  Furthermore, what you said here, contradicts the other.  Is he really not that good at talking you down...or do you just want to give the guy a hard time, which means being a lousy role player?


----------



## MJS (Apr 16, 2014)

BrendonR said:


> Scenario training is for the elite, not the beginner. The beginner has no understanding of how to interpret the training for the scenario. Which is why in Krav Maga, when they start with scenario's it is a ineffective method. However, the Krav Maga self defense itself, is VERY effective.



Not true at all.  Someone just starting out....no, I wouldn't throw them into the mix.  I'd show them the basic strikes, blocks, etc, and then they could be gradually introduced to this training.  But no, you don't have to train for 30yrs before you can do scenario training.


----------



## Steve (Apr 16, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I look at it like this. If it is my job to drop someone within the scenario. For example I play the role of a mugger. I am not conversing with any intent to be talked down. I am positioning myself for an ambush.
> 
> The victim is playing into my game by trying to talk me down because he is giving me that opportunity. Instead of just wacking me or running off.
> 
> So the preamble is good tactics for me and bad for him.


You're outlining one possible scenario.  There are others.  If the scenario you've been given is X and you choose to do Y instead, you're being a crappy training partner.  The goal isn't to "win" the scenario and thwart your training partner.  It's to react in a realistic manner so that your training partner can practice specific skills.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 16, 2014)

Here is a very interesting scenario that I have run a few times.  I typically run it after having a few scenarios where verbal de-escalation techniques work.

Five participants.  Boyfriend and girlfriend.  Three drunk men or harassing men in a bar with them and the ruffians and the bartender as the only people there.  I counsel the boyfriend and girlfriend team to try and use good verbal de-escalation techniques and if they can get out of there to do so.  If violence happens then be quick and get away as soon as possible.  However, I usually put the ruffians between them and any door.  One ruffian the ring leader so to speak is told he is to be verbally abusive to the woman but that is it.  If anything happens he is to be verbal ie. cheering on, etc.  The next ruffian is instructed that his role is to be a grouper and or try to get the woman to come with them.  He has the option to be physical or not.  His choice.  The third ruffian, I always say do whatever you want.  You can be physical, verbal, hang back, etc.  This typically makes for interesting dynamics.  Some times verbal de-escalation works, some times they have been slick enough to get out the door to a parking lot, some times the lady gets grouped and all hell ensures.  Some times the boyfriend and girlfriend are taken to the woodshed so to speak.  Some times the boyfriend or girlfriend jack one of the assailants and get out the door quick.  Plus more. (see below)

One ace in the whole is the person playing the bartender has options as well.  Call the police, be verbal, baseball bat (padded of course but when he hits someone in the head they are out) and a training firearm under the counter.

I have on occasion mixed training knifes into the situation, gun's, etc.

As you can see this Scenario can go a lot of way's from verbal, to escape and avoidance, to mild violence to extreme violence.  Last time I ran it the boyfriend had a concealed training pistol and the Third ruffian had a knife and was told if he wanted to brandish it he could and of course he did and threatened to cut the girl if she did not come with them.  Boyfriend surprised three ruffians with the handgun and shot the knife wielding attacker.  Bartender also pulled his gun but did not shoot.  Girlfriend called the police as instructed by boyfriend.  First aid was given by one of the ruffians friends.

I had myself, another instructor and a third person watching and we critiqued.  One of the first critique was why did you not have a clear exit point set up so that you could get out quickly. Why not sit by the chairs nearest to the exit with a clear view of the room.  Even though I directed them to a certain set of chairs if they had asked for the chairs by the exit door they could have had them. (that was part of their training and their first mistake)  Having a clear view of entrances and exits and a quick exit plan should be part of your training when going into any building!

Lots of potential variables.  Just one fairly simple scenario but you can see how it is laid out.


----------



## wingchun100 (Apr 16, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Here is a very interesting scenario that I have run a few times.  I typically run it after having a few scenarios where verbal de-escalation techniques work.
> 
> Five participants.  Boyfriend and girlfriend.  Three drunk men or harassing men in a bar with them and the ruffians and the bartender as the only people there.  I counsel the boyfriend and girlfriend team to try and use good verbal de-escalation techniques and if they can get out of there to do so.  If violence happens then be quick and get away as soon as possible.  However, I usually put the ruffians between them and any door.  One ruffian the ring leader so to speak is told he is to be verbally abusive to the woman but that is it.  If anything happens he is to be verbal ie. cheering on, etc.  The next ruffian is instructed that his role is to be a grouper and or try to get the woman to come with them.  He has the option to be physical or not.  His choice.  The third ruffian, I always say do whatever you want.  You can be physical, verbal, hang back, etc.  This typically makes for interesting dynamics.  Some times verbal de-escalation works, some times they have been slick enough to get out the door to a parking lot, some times the lady gets grouped and all hell ensures.  Some times the boyfriend and girlfriend are taken to the woodshed so to speak.  Some times the boyfriend or girlfriend jack one of the assailants and get out the door quick.  Plus more. (see below)
> 
> ...



I think the hardest part about the scenario training is if you are in the role of the aggressor. It'd be difficult for me to think like one of these chest-thumping alpha male show-offs. And you can never tell which ones are all talk, and which ones will act on their boasting. Speaking of "act," you almost have to BE an actor to be on that side of the scenario...and I am a crappy actor. LOL


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 16, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So I fall down when I am supposed to. Not when I am made to? How much of a gift am I supposed to give my partner in training?
> 
> It is really hard to accurately descalate a situation that is not escalating anyway.
> 
> How often would you go physical to just verbal in one of these drills. The same amount as say you would on the job?





drop bear said:


> I look at it like this. If it is my job to drop someone within the scenario. For example I play the role of a mugger. I am not conversing with any intent to be talked down. I am positioning myself for an ambush.
> 
> The victim is playing into my game by trying to talk me down because he is giving me that opportunity. Instead of just wacking me or running off.
> 
> So the preamble is good tactics for me and bad for him.



Maybe I need to break things down a bit.

I wrote "A good training partner, whether a scenario role player or partner in  drills or even a sparring partner, doesn't just do their own thing and  to hell with the training plan. They work with their partner in the  context of the training so that both become better."

What's a "good training partner"?  Good means beneficial or of use.  Training is practice aimed at improvement.  A partner is someone who works with another person in an endeavor or exercise.  So a "good training partner" is someone who helps another to practice so that they improve.

A "scenario role player" is someone who fills a particular function with a scenario in order to create a reasonably realistic training event.  A "partner in a drill" is someone who works with another person while performing a training exercise focused on developing a skill (this is a drill).  A sparring partner is someone who works with another person in a sparring exercise; sparring is a form of practicing the learned techniques against the pressure of an opponent.

A "training plan" is a set of directions, steps, objectives, or an agenda for practice aimed at improving.  

So... putting the first sentence together -- a "good training partner" is someone who helps a student improve by following the following the steps or agenda for the practice aimed at improvement.

The key thing in the second sentence is "context of the training."  Context is the set of circumstances or facts surrounding a particular event.  Training is, again, practice aimed at improving.  So...  putting the sentence together again, a good training partner is someone who assists another person within the circumstances, plan, or agenda of a practice event aimed at improvement.

Given that...

How the hell is it beneficial to your training partner if you just jump them unless the point of the exercise is an ambush?  If you're going to do a pre-assault interview, you have to do it properly and in a realistic context.  If the student responds and can deescalate (even if it's just handing over their wallet)... you flow with it.  You don't just jump them.  If you're practicing a technique, you vary the level of resistance as familiarity improves.  You don't give full resistance to someone the first time they try something, you let them feel it and work it.  As they get better at it, you start to counter it or show points where they are vulnerable.


----------



## Steve (Apr 16, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> I think the hardest part about the scenario training is if you are in the role of the aggressor. It'd be difficult for me to think like one of these chest-thumping alpha male show-offs. And you can never tell which ones are all talk, and which ones will act on their boasting. Speaking of "act," you almost have to BE an actor to be on that side of the scenario...and I am a crappy actor. LOL


I do a lot of management training.  Scenario training and role playing is the part they like the best, particularly for soft skills like coaching/feedback and for addressing LR/ER issues.  The scenarios are very effective at conveying the subtle differences between conduct issues and performance issues, and it really helps the managers to practice the skills in a safe environment, where I can give them feedback, before they use them with their own employees.

You're right, though.  Role playing IS a skill and takes practice.  

In BJJ, we do a lot of conditional sparring and such.  It's a little different than "scenario" training, but it's much the same.  We also do a lot of drills and exercises that are designed to reinforce good habits.  If we're working a particular submission chain and you don't react in the way that would allow the chain to continue, you're undermining the drill.  Or, even simpler, if we're doing a drill where you attack an arm with a particular submission depending upon your arm's position.  If you NEVER put your arm on the mat (a bad idea, I know), I'll NEVER develop the awareness to attack that arm with a kimura.  So much of BJJ is timing.  The window of opportunity just gets smaller and smaller.  So, developing these responses and making them intuitive is critical, and you never get there without good partners.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 16, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Maybe I need to break things down a bit.
> 
> I wrote "A good training partner, whether a scenario role player or partner in  drills or even a sparring partner, doesn't just do their own thing and  to hell with the training plan. They work with their partner in the  context of the training so that both become better."
> 
> ...




By the time you hit resisted scenarios you should in theory have your gear together to be able to handle your partner being a bit of a prick though.

I do accept there are different levels of resistance. But for me at the level of resisted drills. I am really trying to stop you. As Steve mentioned though you can still give a feed.

At a pre fight level we position give the feed. Resist. Stop reset or do some sort of drill progression and go again. They are generally set up though that there is a very real risk the defender will fail.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 16, 2014)

drop bear said:


> By the time you hit resisted scenarios you should in theory have your gear together to be able to handle your partner being a bit of a prick though.
> 
> I do accept there are different levels of resistance. But for me at the level of resisted drills. I am really trying to stop you. As Steve mentioned though you can still give a feed.
> 
> At a pre fight level we position give the feed. Resist. Stop reset or do some sort of drill progression and go again. They are generally set up though that there is a very real risk the defender will fail.



But if you're "being a bit of a prick" and you're not working within the context of the scenario -- you're not helping him.

Look, this is one of the things a lot of instructors do wrong with scenarios.  They start building scenarios to show how they can get the drop on the student and how they can win  Well, duh...  You're setting the rules, you're setting the scenario up... Yep, you can set it up to beat the student every single time.  How is that going to help the student?


----------



## Steve (Apr 16, 2014)

My bjj coach said one time that here's a counter to every move and a counter to every counter.  Today, we are practicing this one.  

When a white belt gets too curious about what if questions, he'll often say something like, "if that happens, I'd do something different." And leave it at that.

Point is, there's a happy medium between opening up the training at times to invite aliveness, but to keep it controlled enough at times to allow for skill development.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 16, 2014)

drop bear said:


> By the time you hit resisted scenarios you should in theory have your gear together to be able to handle your partner being a bit of a prick though.
> 
> I do accept there are different levels of resistance. But for me at the level of resisted drills. I am really trying to stop you. As Steve mentioned though you can still give a feed.
> 
> At a pre fight level we position give the feed. Resist. Stop reset or do some sort of drill progression and go again. They are generally set up though that there is a very real risk the defender will fail.


Whats the point of that?  There is no value in that type of training when the roll players always win.  For example I went to a Drug investigator school once.  One of the scenarios was to execute a warrant on a suspected drug house.  We had a 4 person team and since I was SWAT trained and had been a Narcotics investigator for a while my team had 2 prosecutors that were taking the class and a new officer with little experience.  We hit the house and there were 9 people in the house 6 had AK47s and were set up in an ambush. We were all dead before we got out of the living room. I went off on the instructors because the scenario was impossible to win.  I could have sent SEAL Team 6 in and they would have lost.  The instructors were "being pricks" because there were lawyers in the group.  They got zero benefit from that.  SO being a prick may sound fun to you but it benefits noone


----------



## K-man (Apr 16, 2014)

Steve said:


> When a white belt gets too curious about what if questions, he'll often say something like, "if that happens, I'd do something different." And leave it at that.
> 
> Point is, there's a happy medium between opening up the training at times to invite aliveness, but to keep it controlled enough at times to allow for skill development.


I have a guy with only a little experience who questions things all the time. "But what if I do this instead?" "OK mate, try it and see." That way he gets to find out for himself whether or not his technique works. I expect it will one day, if he keeps training long enough.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 17, 2014)

K-man said:


> I have a guy with only a little experience who questions things all the time. "But what if I do this instead?" "OK mate, try it and see." That way he gets to find out for himself whether or not his technique works. I expect it will one day, if he keeps training long enough.



Sometimes with students like that, when they ask so many questions it slows down the teaching, I will say "there are many different ways to get out of any hold but unfortunately I can not teach you every thing at once so we will just concentrate on these for now".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 17, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Sometimes with students like that, when they ask so many questions it slows down the teaching, ...


Sometime it may be better for students to ask questions than just to be quite. When students are quite, there are many possibilities:

- They are not interesting.
- They don't understand.

Sometime the whole class can be just Q&A for 2 hours. It's very challenge to teach this way.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 17, 2014)

Steve said:


> My bjj coach said one time that here's a counter to every move and a counter to every counter.  Today, we are practicing this one.


It can be a good discussion which teaching method is better.

In one class, 

1. Depth first approach - To teach 10 different counters that can be used to against the same technique (10-1), or
2. Breadth first approach - To teach 10 different counters that can be used to against 10 different techniques (1-1)?

One thing for sure is, it's always be better to teach the technique first and teach the counter afterward.


----------



## K-man (Apr 17, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Sometimes with students like that, when they ask so many questions it slows down the teaching, I will say "there are many different ways to get out of any hold but unfortunately I can not teach you every thing at once so we will just concentrate on these for now".


The difference is that in your example the question is phrased in a way it has merit. Sadly, in my example it never has, at least not to date. I do live in hope. 

My classes are always small and informal with black belts outnumbering kyu grades. With 2 1/2 hour classes there is always time for discussion. If I need to help one student I have plenty of skilled backup available.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Whats the point of that?  There is no value in that type of training when the roll players always win.  For example I went to a Drug investigator school once.  One of the scenarios was to execute a warrant on a suspected drug house.  We had a 4 person team and since I was SWAT trained and had been a Narcotics investigator for a while my team had 2 prosecutors that were taking the class and a new officer with little experience.  We hit the house and there were 9 people in the house 6 had AK47s and were set up in an ambush. We were all dead before we got out of the living room. I went off on the instructors because the scenario was impossible to win.  I could have sent SEAL Team 6 in and they would have lost.  The instructors were "being pricks" because there were lawyers in the group.  They got zero benefit from that.  SO being a prick may sound fun to you but it benefits noone



You are correct that situation was silly. Not at all what I am talking about though.

But being a prick also forces a reaction under pressure.

Real pressure exists when you can fail.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> But if you're "being a bit of a prick" and you're not working within the context of the scenario -- you're not helping him.
> 
> Look, this is one of the things a lot of instructors do wrong with scenarios.  They start building scenarios to show how they can get the drop on the student and how they can win  Well, duh...  You're setting the rules, you're setting the scenario up... Yep, you can set it up to beat the student every single time.  How is that going to help the student?



The best set up would be where the outcome is in doubt. So both sides are pushing each other.

There is no point doing a scenario that cannot be won and then the drivers of that have to cheat. You may as well just recognise that is a bad situation.

We do a drill where you have to escape from guard. Which a lot of people can't readily do.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 17, 2014)

drop bear said:


> You are correct that situation was silly. Not at all what I am talking about though.
> 
> But being a prick also forces a reaction under pressure.
> 
> Real pressure exists when you can fail.


Well thankfully none of my training partners are pricks.  We all come together to train to help each other not to show them how "I can kick the crap out of you ha ha ha" your attitude is selfish and all about you you you.  When your a roll player for a scenario it should be all about them them them.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 17, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime it may be better for students to ask questions than just to be quite.



I always encourage questions as long as they are relevant and constructive and always tell students to ask questions if they do not understand.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> When students are quite, there are many possibilities:
> 
> - They are not interesting.
> - They don't understand.



or - You've explained your self adequately.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 17, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Well thankfully none of my training partners are pricks.  We all come together to train to help each other not to show them how "I can kick the crap out of you ha ha ha" your attitude is selfish and all about you you you.  When your a roll player for a scenario it should be all about them them them.



Exactly. If an instructor of 25 years experience wanted to be a prick and go all out when sparring a beginner of 2 weeks experience then how could the beginner possibly learn anything?


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Well thankfully none of my training partners are pricks.  We all come together to train to help each other not to show them how "I can kick the crap out of you ha ha ha" your attitude is selfish and all about you you you.  When your a roll player for a scenario it should be all about them them them.




So you are about letting the other guy win.

Look if that makes people feel good about themselves then I am glad there is an outlet for that. 

Or we could just be arguing the extremes in some sort of point scoring exercise.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Exactly. If an instructor of 25 years experience wanted to be a prick and go all out when sparring a beginner of 2 weeks experience then how could the beginner possibly learn anything?




Everything I get on my instructor I have to fight for.

Everything is earned.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 17, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So you are about letting the other guy win.
> 
> Look if that makes people feel good about themselves then I am glad there is an outlet for that.
> 
> Or we could just be arguing the extremes in some sort of point scoring exercise.


No its about sticking to the scenario that the training was designed for. You have made it clear you don't care what the lesson is your going to fight.  If I know that when I'm creating a scenario I just won't use someone like you.  Training isn't about winning and loosing it's about learning


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 17, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> No its about sticking to the scenario that the training was designed for. You have made it clear you don't care what the lesson is your going to fight.  If I know that when I'm creating a scenario I just won't use someone like you.  Training isn't about winning and loosing it's about learning



Agree.  But there should be room for a student to learn consequences of incorrect decisions.  Shouldn't happen all the time, but once in a while, even the most proficient and experienced person will make a decision that doesn't turn out as expected.

But all that said, I am in agreement with you that the goal for the instructor is to teach, and for the student to learn.


----------



## Jason (Apr 17, 2014)

Scenario based training benefits when it exercises effective and efficient responses to simulations of reality. There are so many elements, however, that I believe are falsely simulated bringing a skewed picture of what real violence looks like. If you are going to mimic violence it would be a good idea to first look up real video footages of violence in its various forms. 

The very first thing we should be thinking about going into scenario based training is how much information about the situation do you know going into the event. Often times attacker(s), victim(s), by-standers(s), and possibly a third party rescuer are all designated prior to going into the situation. Unfortunately one fails to learn to identify everyone involved. This is part of situational awareness and is crucial in knowing to act accordingly.

Another thing all too many people miss is understanding and identifying social, antisocial, and asocial behavior. Social behavior and antisocial behavior work along the lines of a social continuum of what is acceptable and what is tolerable in the social realm. People who operate on the social realm have a sense or tendency to "connect" with others. This line of connection is used to communicate whether it be though acceptable social skills or tolerable (bad but acceptable) social skills such as puffing up of the chest, flipping people off, raise voice,... This connection can be also be utilized for tactics such as verbal deescalating and like such.

However, someone who exhibits asocial (not social) behavior does not accept messages put out by people trying to connect. Attempting to connect with an asocial predator is very dangerous and can get you killed. It is important that we can identify like such behavior and include it into our training.

There are numerous elements in violence such as these and we could go on and on. The important thing is that we learn everything we can from real life situations and train to identify and act accordingly. This is where one must understand principles and concepts because people are organic and dynamic. Techniques that aren't guided by a principle are responses set into place and are limited to a controlled situation. Unfortunately the flashpoint of violence is most often times chaotic and a technique only becomes available when it is merrily an application to a concept in which it then becomes irrelevant.

Thanks for reading and I hope it helps draw attention the importance of training right so that our training is available to us when we need it most.


----------



## MJS (Apr 17, 2014)

drop bear said:


> You are correct that situation was silly. Not at all what I am talking about though.
> 
> But being a prick also forces a reaction under pressure.
> 
> Real pressure exists when you can fail.



Be that as it may, the point we're trying to make, is if the person is a jerk ALL the time, the drill is counter productive.  You said yourself, that you always fight, which leads us to believe you fall into that category of being a jerk, thus resulting in a counter productive drill.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 17, 2014)

Scenario training is indeed a "laboratory" setting.  A particular exercise probably won't cover every possible outcome.  Taking Brian's design above (bar, 3 ruffians each with their own goal, bartender may or may not be in play)... you don't have a white knight bystander, you don't have actually drunk people, you probably won't have a cop rolling in to do a bar check...  that list gets kind of endless.  With a bit of experience, you can probably predict most of the outcomes that are likely -- but students will often surprise you.  Brian gave a couple of common outcomes -- but then one student might leap the bar, grab the weapon from the bartender and use it.  Good role players have to adapt within their role as the scenario runs -- but generally, the student's going to get response A if they prompt it properly.  We all know the real world doesn't always work that way...

When you design a scenario, you generally should have a goal or purpose, as well as specific training objectives.  The evaluator or instructor generally has the task of helping the student reach those goals.  Again, using Brian's scenario -- one objective is for the students to get out of the bar safely.  You might decide that a particular training objective for the exercise is to use verbal deescalation over fighting.  So, if the student jumps straight to fighting, the evaluator should be stepping in, validating the good parts of the response but coaching on deescalation.


----------



## Steve (Apr 17, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So you are about letting the other guy win.


That wouldn't be great training either.  Sparring isn't about winning.  You win or lose in the ring or at a tournament.  But in class, sparring is about pushing each other.  If you're less experienced, you should be stretching yourself and working technique you're not comfortable with.  In BJJ, guys who camp out in their A game end up as blue belts with gaping holes in their technique.  They may have a terrific top game, but are terrible from guard.  You have to tap a lot and let go of your fear of losing if you're ever going to get better.  

And for the more experienced person, it's about giving the other guy enough resistance to push him, but not to crush him.  If I've been training for 8 years, and I'm rolling with a white belt, I could probably tap the guy relentlessly for 5 or 10 minutes.  But is that doing him any good at all?  I'd say not.  He's learned one way to open guard and maybe one or two guard passes.  If I never give him a chance to execute those techniques, he's not able to learn anything.  

When rolling with brand new guys, I'll go slow (slower than normal, because I'm slow anyway) and give them time to see the technique, process it and then try to execute the defense.  If they don't do it right, they get submitted or swept or whatever.  

Simply put, I try to go just a little bit harder than them.  Scenario training is just like that.


> Look if that makes people feel good about themselves then I am glad there is an outlet for that.


It's a time tested, proven technique for developing skills, IF DONE WELL.  It's LARPing if it's done poorly.  


> Or we could just be arguing the extremes in some sort of point scoring exercise.


It may be some of that.  Hard to avoid getting sucked in.


----------



## Steve (Apr 17, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Everything I get on my instructor I have to fight for.
> 
> Everything is earned.


Yeah, but here's the thing.  Do you think he's fighting for anything he gets on you?  I am guessing not.  I would bet that he's giving you space to do things the right way.  He's making you earn every inch of it, but forcing you to go full out doesn't mean he's even shifted into 3rd gear.


----------



## Jason (Apr 17, 2014)

I agree...

If someone has the intent, means, and opportunity to hurt you that identifies him as a threat in which has now become my target. 

"I prey on predators because I will not be a victim; I sleep with sheep because I am not a monster." 
- quote from S-M-A.R.T. Training on a warrior's spirit


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 17, 2014)

As others have said, creating good scenario training requires careful preparation, good acting skills, and actual knowledge of what happens before, during, and after various real world violent encounters. This has nothing to do with how well you understand how to execute a right cross or double-leg takedown.

I've done scenario training with different people, but the best lessons were from the seminars I mentioned previously that were taught by my cop friend.  Will knew how to set up little traps that made it easy to do the wrong thing under pressure.  Whenever a student would fall into one of those traps we would review the scenario and establish how things could have been handled better. Some of what we saw included:
How acting at the wrong time could get you killed.
How *not *acting at the right time could get you killed.
How someone could handle everything reasonably in a violent encounter and still end up in trouble with the cops afterwards.

I don't think that I'm qualified to run any kind of in-depth scenario training myself.  What I do use sometimes are exercises with specific asymmetric victory conditions  that can map onto one little portion of a real scenario, just to break students out of the one-on-one dueling mindset.  Even in those simple exercises, it's interesting to see how easy it is for students to develop tunnel vision and fall back onto habits from sparring.  

For example, in one exercise the student starts out in one corner of the boxing ring.  I'm at the other corner, representing the "exit".  In between is the "bad guy", wearing boxing gloves and having instructions to aggressively catch and "beat up" the student.  The student's victory condition was to get past the bad guy and reach the "exit."  The confines of the ring meant that the student pretty much had to make contact with the bad guy at some point.  When I ran this exercise last time I found that almost all the students, once they made that contact, became fixated on "winning" the fight and stayed engaged until they took the bad guy down and finished him - even when they had a clear shot at disengaging and getting to the exit.  Only one student remembered the primary objective and disengaged as soon as he had the chance to get to the exit. I made sure to give that student a round of applause after we were done.

Note to Chris Parker - this does not mean I agree with your contention that sparring is counterproductive for real world self-defense.  I still maintain that sparring (done correctly) builds important skills that no other training method does.  Like all other training methods it has shortcomings which need to be counter-balanced with other aspects of training.


----------



## Buka (Apr 17, 2014)

Scenario training. What a great thread this has been to read!


Lot  of factors involved. Experience, as already mentioned, but resources as  well. Some instructors I know have better resources than others. (just  through luck of the draw) Some have friends that own bars that they can  use in off hours, others are members of police departments with enough  pull to use any and all of that department's equipment and personnel.  Others don't really have many resources - but do a really good job  despite that.



Another thing is the make-up of the students themselves.  If the students are young adults, or police officers, advanced ranks, or housewives or  fellow instructors or whoever - the depth and intensity of the scenario  training could be quite different. 


Some scenario training can involve the particulars of what you  set up - and some can be non situational completely. For instance...I  went to a nice recertification of DT. It was a week long training  session. One afternoon we did what they called "A concentration  scenario"


We took turns standing in the middle of the range. Three  instructors each had a golf ball in a sock. They would swing them in an  arc and let them fly at you. You were thirty - forty feet away, so it  was no big deal. Then you put on goggles and popped in a mouthpiece and  did it again. Then you did it again with vaseline on the lens of the  goggles. Then again - this time they added the loudest, ugliest heavy  metal music over the loudspeakers. (at this point I was purposely  looking to get hit and killed) Then they added a strobe light. Then they  started whipping the socks faster and faster.(man, those suckers stung)  Then they cuffed your feet together. It was nuts....and a whole lot of  fun. There was more to it, of course, using various aspects of vision, excluding noise, watching background etc.. By the end of the day we all had welts on our faces and knots on our heads, but it was a good exercise  in concentration. Taken by itself, it was okay. Taken in context with  the rest of the week's exercises and studies - it was superb.


Point being - some scenario training is probably more  beneficial than others. But it's all good. it just adds to the students  overall knowledge and, hopefully,  abilities.


A few times  every year, once class is lined up and bowed in - we have them go change  into their street clothes, shoes included. Then we drill them that way.  Other times, we bring them into the parking lot in the rain, snow or  cold - and we train them like that. It's nice watching them fight in  street clothes, especially on slick footing. (especially while I watch  from the edges, all bundled up)  This type of training makes them look  at things entirely different. (and teaches them never to wear really  nice duds to class) it makes them reassess their own abilities and increases their awareness of factors they hadn't been thinking about.

I consider all of the above as scenario training.


And it's all good.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2014)

Steve said:


> Yeah, but here's the thing.  Do you think he's fighting for anything he gets on you?  I am guessing not.  I would bet that he's giving you space to do things the right way.  He's making you earn every inch of it, but forcing you to go full out doesn't mean he's even shifted into 3rd gear.




Sort of. We tend to exhaust the guy first to even things out. But for the most part we never get good role play out of him if it is resisted. There is a difference between not having high pace or contact and fighting with intensity


----------



## Steve (Apr 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Sort of. We tend to exhaust the guy first to even things out. But for the most part we never get good role play out of him if it is resisted. There is a difference between not having high pace or contact and fighting with intensity


I agree with you completely.  I think that the guys here who are discussing scenario training would also agree.  For any kind of scenario training, there has to be intensity.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2014)

Scenario training isn't about the "fight" or how much you resist the student. You teach that on the mat/ring. Scenarios are about the strategy/tactics you employ to navigate through a "real worldish" type of environment.

Ive been through those "no win" style scenarios before, and in every one, it was about the egotistical ******* role player rather than any attempt to teach the student anything.

A scenario should be about trying to TEACH something vs an all out paintball game style competition IMO. For example...we had a scenario where we were trying to teach officers to call a known suspect OUT of a room and too them vs going into a room after a BG once you see him.

If the student called out the BG, the BG complied and then the SECOND person hiding in the room was found during the completion of the search. WIN. If the officers went in, both BG opened up on them. LOOSE.

There was a specific lesson being taught in the scenario....it wasn't about winning a gunfight. If the role players decided that they would "fight no matter what", the *******s would be removed from the training unit.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2014)

If a student LOOSES a scenario, he/she should be taught why, ran through it again and be allowed to WIN if/when they employ the tactic being taught. The absolute worst thing you can do to a student is have them walk away from a scenario "dead".

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 18, 2014)

Tgace said:


> If a student LOOSES a scenario, he/she should be taught why, ran through it again and be allowed to WIN if/when they employ the tactic being taught. The absolute worst thing you can do to a student is have them walk away from a scenario "dead".
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


Students should always end with a success -- and should never be "dead."  The scenario may be stopped -- but I NEVER want a student practicing being dead.  That tends to come rather naturally and doesn't need to be trained.

There is a small exception; students in a practical scenario testing where they are required to demonstrate particular skills may fail the scenario, and depending on the course of training, may end up failing the training.  But testing is really a separate thing from training...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2014)

+1

One of the first simunition hurdles we hit (back in the day) was the "I'm out" factor. Experience playing painball and even childhood wargaming with bb guns, cap pistols etc...tends to ingrain the "play dead" thing in guys. They feel the pellet strike and act like the scenario is over and that they "lost".

In good scenarios the "good guy never dies..hit or not" you keep fighting till the "bad guys" die or the scenario is ended. That's how it is in the "real world"....you fight as long as you can fight. There's no "dying" until you die.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jason (Apr 18, 2014)

"Scenario training is indeed a "laboratory" setting."

Good statement


----------



## drop bear (Apr 18, 2014)

Steve said:


> I agree with you completely.  I think that the guys here who are discussing scenario training would also agree.  For any kind of scenario training, there has to be intensity.



A lot of the scenarios we do are simply escapes. And you don't always succeed.

An example of a fight prep drill we use.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/75-mma/113976-mother-all-drills.html


----------



## drop bear (Apr 18, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Scenario training isn't about the "fight" or how much you resist the student. You teach that on the mat/ring. Scenarios are about the strategy/tactics you employ to navigate through a "real worldish" type of environment.
> 
> Ive been through those "no win" style scenarios before, and in every one, it was about the egotistical ******* role player rather than any attempt to teach the student anything.
> 
> ...



They are doing scenarios instead of the mat or the ring though.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> They are doing scenarios instead of the mat or the ring though.



You don't know what scenario training is....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 18, 2014)

What kind of scenario training do you do in order to 

- safely move into your opponent without being kicked, kneed, punched, or elbowed?
- finish the fight ASAP?

Does the terms "entering strategy" and "finish strategy" have any meaning if all your concern is "self-defense" and not "sport"?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What kind of scenario training do you do in order to
> 
> - safely move into your opponent without being kicked, kneed, punched, or elbowed?
> - finish the fight ASAP?
> ...



I don't think "scenario training" has the same meaning in a sport sense....that would be "drill" as I see things. Or "ring strategy".

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## drop bear (Apr 18, 2014)

Tgace said:


> You don't know what scenario training is....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



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

I did them in the ses. 
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ7yclPZNKs

The original premis is that cs is an alternative to sparring or competition. And aparently a better one for skills development.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> The original premis is that cs is an alternative to sparring or competition. And aparently a better one for skills development.



Where was that "premise"?

Scenarios are not about martial arts technique training....no more than our LE scenarios are about firearms marksmanship l.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## drop bear (Apr 18, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Where was that "premise"?
> 
> Scenarios are not about martial arts technique training....no more than our LE scenarios are about firearms marksmanship l.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2




On another thread that pretty much started this. Combat scenarios are supposed to be all encompassing because the street or something.

First post mentions it.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/90-general-self-defense/114337-scenario-training.html

I did them for my security course. We all learnt goose necks and then had to do them in scenario.

Within about five seconds everybody was doing chokes.

Instructor said we were doing it wrong. Rather than it just doesn't work all that well when someone is fighting back

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y05Xf1FYlG8


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> On another thread that pretty much started this. Combat scenarios are supposed to be all encompassing because the street or something.
> 
> First post mentions it.
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/90-general-self-defense/114337-scenario-training.html
> ...



Scenarios are not all encompassing.   They are specific exercises with specific goals and objectives to look for.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 18, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Scenarios are not all encompassing.   They are specific wot specific goals and objectives to look for.




Yeah.


No kidding.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah.
> 
> 
> No kidding.



You seem to not know that


> Combat scenarios are supposed to be all encompassing because the street or something.


----------



## K-man (Apr 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> A lot of the scenarios we do are simply escapes. And you don't always succeed.
> 
> An example of a fight prep drill we use.
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/75-mma/113976-mother-all-drills.html


Sorry, but this is not scenario training to my mind. Your SES example was scenario as it is trying to create a real world situation. Training for the ring is training for the ring. Training when you are tired is training when you are tired. Nothing to do with scenario training.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Apr 18, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> You seem to not know that



Possibly all the people who told me that it was.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 18, 2014)

K-man said:


> Sorry, but this is not scenario training to my mind. Your SES example was scenario as it is trying to create a real world situation. Training for the ring is training for the ring. Training when you are tired is training when you are tired. Nothing to do with scenario training.
> :asian:



They are scenarios.

You don't do mma. You wouldn't understand.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 18, 2014)

MJS said:


> Be that as it may, the point we're trying to make, is if the person is a jerk ALL the time, the drill is counter productive.



Then it would just be a sparring/fighting drill and not scenario training.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 18, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Then it would just be a sparring/fighting drill and not scenario training.



But then sparring would teach different skills to scenarios. You might even need both in whatever system you train.

The thing is if you are too easy then you fall in to that compliant drill trap. It becomes larp.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Everything I get on my instructor I have to fight for.



Doesn't he teach you any thing or just fight you?



drop bear said:


> Everything is earned.



Everything I got I earned.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> They are scenarios.
> 
> You don't do mma. You wouldn't understand.



If that's the case..you are misusing the term.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## drop bear (Apr 19, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Doesn't he teach you any thing or just fight you?
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I got I earned.



I get taught. But when it comes to resisted I don't get a hand out.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 19, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Students should always end with a success -- and should never be "dead."  The scenario may be stopped -- but I NEVER want a student practicing being dead.  That tends to come rather naturally and doesn't need to be trained.
> 
> There is a small exception; students in a practical scenario testing where they are required to demonstrate particular skills may fail the scenario, and depending on the course of training, may end up failing the training.  But testing is really a separate thing from training...



I did think of one other situation where you're going to have a student "die" or otherwise become incapacitated; if you're working on extracting an injured person like an officer rescue scenario or practicing getting someone hurt out of an active shooter situation.  I've done things where one person on an entry team is designated as injured, and the team has to get him out.  For a civilian take -- it might be a school or workplace shooter scenario, and the participants have to figure out how to get the injured person out safely.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 19, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I don't get a hand out.


Who does?


----------



## K-man (Apr 19, 2014)

drop bear said:


> They are scenarios.
> 
> You don't do mma. You wouldn't understand.


I understand that training for the ring you might train 'what if' drills but that is hardly scenario training in the way the term is normally used. 
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Apr 19, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Who does?




People who train with good role players.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 19, 2014)

K-man said:


> I understand that training for the ring you might train 'what if' drills but that is hardly scenario training in the way the term is normally used.
> :asian:



We are going to be training up some cops soon which will be closer to what you are suggesting. But that will just be a two on one scrap and we will probably leave the cop stuff to them.

Basically they will either be able to throw a set of handcuffs on us or they won't. If they can't we will get them to a point where they can.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 19, 2014)

drop bear said:


> We are going to be training up some cops soon which will be closer to what you are suggesting. But that will just be a two on one scrap and we will probably leave the cop stuff to them.
> 
> Basically they will either be able to throw a set of handcuffs on us or they won't. If they can't we will get them to a point where they can.



Once again...you keep using that word (scenario). It does not mean what you think it means.

Again...not true scenario training as the 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 19, 2014)

drop bear said:


> People who train with good role players.



You obviously have no idea what your talking about


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 19, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Basically they will either be able to throw a set of handcuffs on us or they won't. If they can't we will get them to a point where they can.


You will huh......How much training do you have in this?  Do you know these cops General Orders and Use if force rules?


----------



## drop bear (Apr 19, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> You will huh......How much training do you have in this?  Do you know these cops General Orders and Use if force rules?



I assume they know them. Why would I be trying to teach grandmas to suck eggs?


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 19, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I assume they know them. Why would I be trying to teach grandmas to suck eggs?


I have no idea what that means but
If your going to claim to be teaching law enforcement you may want to at least know what they can and cant do. For example no point in teaching them a technique they are not allowed to use


----------



## drop bear (Apr 19, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> I have no idea what that means but
> If your going to claim to be teaching law enforcement you may want to at least know what they can and cant do. For example no point in teaching them a technique they are not allowed to use




They are not potatoes I am pretty sure they can sing out if we are training something they are not allowed to use.


----------



## K-man (Apr 19, 2014)

drop bear said:


> We are going to be training up some cops soon which will be closer to what you are suggesting. But that will just be a two on one scrap and we will probably leave the cop stuff to them.
> 
> Basically they will either be able to throw a set of handcuffs on us or they won't. If they can't we will get them to a point where they can.


I've seen a few examples of this happening but in reality it is a waste of time. Certainly they wouldn't be doing it in Victoria unless the police are doing it in their own time. Why would you grapple someone to put on cuffs and risk injury. Police are trained to use other methods to obtain compliance.

Even if they did it, are you allowed to punch then? Are they allowed to punch you? If the answer to either question is 'no' then I would ask, what is the point of the exercise? If the answer is 'yes', then is it realistic? If you resist arrest or if you assault police the courts are not too impressed.



ballen0351 said:


> You will huh......How much training do you have in this?  Do you know these cops General Orders and Use if force rules?


I'm sure the real answer is ... "No".



drop bear said:


> I assume they know them. Why would I be trying to teach grandmas to suck eggs?


Not only do I not know why you would teach anyone to suck eggs, I don't know why cops would be learning grappling in order to cuff. It doesn't make sense. If the guy has mates there is no way the cops would be going to the ground and if the guy is alone then they have baton, spray and taser to stop the guy. The police do very little H2H training now because when they did that sort of training there were more injuries in training than on the street, and that was expensive in manpower and compensation.



ballen0351 said:


> I have no idea what that means but
> If your going to claim to be teaching law enforcement you may want to at least know what they can and cant do. For example no point in teaching them a technique they are not allowed to use


In reality they can use any reasonable force as police use of force to obtain an arrest is specifically included in legislation. However there are things like using pressure points against protestors that are specifically discouraged. 
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Apr 19, 2014)

K-man said:


> I've seen a few examples of this happening but in reality it is a waste of time. Certainly they wouldn't be doing it in Victoria unless the police are doing it in their own time. Why would you grapple someone to put on cuffs and risk injury. Police are trained to use other methods to obtain compliance.
> 
> Even if they did it, are you allowed to punch then? Are they allowed to punch you? If the answer to either question is 'no' then I would ask, what is the point of the exercise? If the answer is 'yes', then is it realistic? If you resist arrest or if you assault police the courts are not too impressed.
> 
> ...



So that they can actually handle situations I suppose.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TFcz1PoTTk8

And their training so far has been pretty awful. Probably because people use the " you can just pepper spray them excuse" 

Which is quite simply unfair on the police.

Real training will give them a chance.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mnwi6wO03As&has_verified=1&client=mv-google&layout=tablet


----------



## drop bear (Apr 19, 2014)

I Actually found some scenario training.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F1KQKF6GfqY


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 19, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So that they can actually handle situations I suppose.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TFcz1PoTTk8
> 
> ...



So a few YouTube clips and your now an expert on police training?  You able to say their training is crap off of a few seconds of film taken out of context and not know what is really going on huh.  Damn that's impressive.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 19, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> So a few YouTube clips and your now an expert on police training?  You able to say their training is crap off of a few seconds of film taken out of context and not know what is really going on huh.  Damn that's impressive.



I try my best.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5HDKYBYTx4M

Honestly that police are being put at risk is unacceptable.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IpW9NA1NI74


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 20, 2014)

drop bear said:


> They are not potatoes I am pretty sure they can sing out if we are training something they are not allowed to use.



And that would be a product of poor preparation on your part.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 20, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> And that would be a product of poor preparation on your part.




No.

Teaching grandmother to suck eggs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 20, 2014)

The "sport" guys enjoy sport. They try to do scenario training for spot. The SD guys may not care about the "sport scenario training" that sport guys call it "sparring/wrestling".


----------



## K-man (Apr 20, 2014)

drop bear said:


> No.
> 
> Teaching grandmother to suck eggs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sucking eggs is really a means of eating a raw egg. If you just want to have the shell to paint as we did with our grandson this Easter you actually 'blow' the egg. That way you get to use the shell and the contents. And, it was my Grandmother who taught me how to do it about sixty years ago.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 20, 2014)

drop bear said:


> No.
> 
> Teaching grandmother to suck eggs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Where are you from you come up with some pretty interesting examples


----------



## K-man (Apr 20, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Where are you from you come up with some pretty interesting examples


Australian vernacular. You need to watch more Aussie films.


----------



## MJS (Apr 21, 2014)

drop bear said:


> A lot of the scenarios we do are simply escapes. And you don't always succeed.
> 
> An example of a fight prep drill we use.
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/75-mma/113976-mother-all-drills.html



I suppose it's just like the English language.  Take the following words: There, Their, They're. They're all pronounced the same, yet they all have a different meaning.  So, that said, what you describe could be a scenario, just not in the sense of the meaning that many, including the OP, are referring to.  My empty hand Kenpo SD techs, can be scenarios, but really, they're not, at least not in the fashion, again, that the OP is talking about.


----------



## MJS (Apr 21, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Then it would just be a sparring/fighting drill and not scenario training.



Yeah, pretty much.


----------



## MJS (Apr 21, 2014)

drop bear said:


> But then sparring would teach different skills to scenarios. You might even need both in whatever system you train.
> 
> The thing is if you are too easy then you fall in to that compliant drill trap. It becomes larp.



As I said in another post...it all depends on the focus.  Different things, have different meanings.


----------



## MJS (Apr 21, 2014)

drop bear said:


> People who train with good role players.



You're STILL missing the point though.  If the badguy in the scenario drill, is a dick 100% of the time, nevermind...why bother?  You're set in your ways, and no matter what anyone else says, you're never going to accept anything else.

What're you saying? That in order to be a good role player, the guy has to be an *** each and every time?


----------



## MJS (Apr 21, 2014)

drop bear said:


> They are not potatoes I am pretty sure they can sing out if we are training something they are not allowed to use.



Sooooo....rather than have them 'sing out', why not have an understanding of what they can/can't do beforehand, and then only focus on said things?  Seems counter productive to start showing them a double leg takedown, when we all know damn well, that is pointless to the LEO.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 21, 2014)

MJS said:


> Sooooo....rather than have them 'sing out', why not have an understanding of what they can/can't do beforehand, and then only focus on said things?  Seems counter productive to start showing them a double leg takedown, when we all know damn well, that is pointless to the LEO.




Because?


----------



## drop bear (Apr 21, 2014)

MJS said:


> You're STILL missing the point though.  If the badguy in the scenario drill, is a dick 100% of the time, nevermind...why bother?  You're set in your ways, and no matter what anyone else says, you're never going to accept anything else.
> 
> What're you saying? That in order to be a good role player, the guy has to be an *** each and every time?




No you can train to defend against that reasonable person who will give you an even break if you want.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 21, 2014)

MJS said:


> I suppose it's just like the English language.  Take the following words: There, Their, They're. They're all pronounced the same, yet they all have a different meaning.  So, that said, what you describe could be a scenario, just not in the sense of the meaning that many, including the OP, are referring to.  My empty hand Kenpo SD techs, can be scenarios, but really, they're not, at least not in the fashion, again, that the OP is talking about.




Yeah you are talking more about this sort of stuff which is good to do if people have there basic technique down and are not relying on a bit of role play from the bad guy for it to work.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F1KQKF6GfqY

"Oh help I have been tripped over by the officer!"

Vs reality.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=egPDYeQW-AI


----------



## MJS (Apr 21, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Because?



Are you asking me why I said what I did?  Because the job of a LEO, CO, etc, isn't to trade blows with the suspect.  

Seriously, you're asking these questions? I mean, do you really not know, or are you trolling?


----------



## MJS (Apr 21, 2014)

drop bear said:


> No you can train to defend against that reasonable person who will give you an even break if you want.



Oh, ok...so if you were in the role of the bad guy, you'd give the defender an even break?  Really?  After you, in another post, said that you always fight.


----------



## MJS (Apr 21, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah you are talking more about this sort of stuff which is good to do if people have there basic technique down and are not relying on a bit of role play from the bad guy for it to work.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F1KQKF6GfqY
> 
> ...



Check out stuff by guys like Peyton Quinn.  THAT is the role playing scenario drilling stuff the OP is talking about.  Since you like to use YT as the Bible, I'll let you do your own digging.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 21, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah you are talking more about this sort of stuff which is good to do if people have there basic technique down and are not relying on a bit of role play from the bad guy for it to work.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F1KQKF6GfqY
> 
> ...



Yep, reality is messier than a scenario.  That's been freely admitted.  

Let's look at the scenario:  What was the point of the exercise?  Was it a DT simulation, or were the role players pretty much going to submit to the recruit officer's with minimal resistance because the point of the exercise was to see if the recruits would treat everyone according to a certain standard?  "We challenge them to see if they'll look outside and show respect to everyone."  So, yeah, the one take down shown wasn't the best, and there's a good chance more might have been needed if the role player was really fighting it.  But that wasn't the goal of the training exercise...  Sure, the role players could have been asshats about it, and fought and resisted (and probably do in other exercises) -- but then they wouldn't be working within the context of that scenario.  (I rather suspect that had the recruit in question given the guy a bit more time, he'd have gotten on the ground in response to verbal commands alone.)   So, we have a scenario with a very particular goal, and the role players did their job, allowing the training staff to assess the recruits performance in meeting that goal.

Now... the real situation.  I've got several problems with how it was handled, that I'm not going into at length, and I hope that the officers have reviewed this and addressed some of these concerns.  I routinely debrief and reassess how things went down -- especially if it didn't go according to plan.  But it was the real world, and not a scenario.  (As an aside... have you ever tried to wrestle a naked person?  It ain't as easy as you might think.)


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 21, 2014)

How about a scenario training like this.

- You attack me, I move back.
- You attack me the 2nd time, I will move back again.
- You attack me the 3rd time, I will still move back again.
- As soon as I have detected that you have intention to attack me the 4th time, I'll jump in and eat you alive.

It's not proper to always think that someone will always attack you. In the above scenario, you will have to play as an attacker.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 21, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah you are talking more about this sort of stuff which is good to do if people have there basic technique down and are not relying on a bit of role play from the bad guy for it to work.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F1KQKF6GfqY
> 
> ...



Do you even understand what the hat video is about?  You have posted it twice it has nothing to do with fighting.  It's about showing people a little respect to get them on your side.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 22, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Do you even understand what the hat video is about?  You have posted it twice it has nothing to do with fighting.  It's about showing people a little respect to get them on your side.



Which is my point that combat scenarios taken too lightly can have nothing to do with fighting.

Regardless of the point of that scenario he still could have done that throw right.

Why not?

He was doing it anyway.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 22, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Which is my point that combat scenarios taken too lightly can have nothing to do with fighting.
> 
> Regardless of the point of that scenario he still could have done that throw right.
> 
> ...



It had nothing to do with combat or the throw.
It also wasn't scenario training.  It was acting to show a point for a police academy class


----------



## drop bear (Apr 22, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> It had nothing to do with combat or the throw.
> It also wasn't scenario training.  It was acting to show a point for a police academy class



Then you show some scenario trading.

Because you are a bit unbelievable at the moment.

Why is everything super secret with you guys?


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 22, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Then you show some scenario trading.
> 
> Because you are a bit unbelievable at the moment.
> 
> Why is everything super secret with you guys?


It's not super secret that's just not scenario training that's a skit or acting to demonstrate a principal to students in the police academy about being nice to people can go along way.  They guy wanted his hat.  Had they been a jerk and not given him the hat it may have turned into a fight.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 22, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Then you show some scenario trading.
> 
> Because you are a bit unbelievable at the moment.
> 
> Why is everything super secret with you guys?





ballen0351 said:


> It's not super secret that's just not scenario training that's a skit or acting to demonstrate a principal to students in the police academy about being nice to people can go along way.  They guy wanted his hat.  Had they been a jerk and not given him the hat it may have turned into a fight.



There are some things that we do try to keep close to the vest; they're tactics and approaches we use to try to ensure we go home at the end of the day.  But, honestly, most of them can be found out there.

While many academies do video record most of the training for liability reasons -- it's not necessarily stuff we can lay hands on and share publicly.  And I'm not sifting through everything that pops up on a web search for them to find some good ones.  You can do that.  The one about the hat was actually being well conducted -- but it wasn't what you wanted to see.  You want to see training where people fight.  I get it.  I'm just not wading through videos to find that.  And, even then, without all of the context, it's hard to evaluate and too easy to twist.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> It's not super secret that's just not scenario training that's a skit or acting to demonstrate a principal to students in the police academy about being nice to people can go along way.  They guy wanted his hat.  Had they been a jerk and not given him the hat it may have turned into a fight.



I am not disagreeing. But what does it cost to do that throw properly?

I have mentioned why? Moments in training.

Even with our drills we are expected to do all of it right.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 23, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> There are some things that we do try to keep close to the vest; they're tactics and approaches we use to try to ensure we go home at the end of the day.  But, honestly, most of them can be found out there.
> 
> While many academies do video record most of the training for liability reasons -- it's not necessarily stuff we can lay hands on and share publicly.  And I'm not sifting through everything that pops up on a web search for them to find some good ones.  You can do that.  The one about the hat was actually being well conducted -- but it wasn't what you wanted to see.  You want to see training where people fight.  I get it.  I'm just not wading through videos to find that.  And, even then, without all of the context, it's hard to evaluate and too easy to twist.




I am not trying to twist anything. I maintain a stance on compliance in training. At the point of scenario it probably should be resisted. Scenarios are a skills test.

Eg. Well sorta.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=11K32LpOCE8

Ambush counter ambush. This sort of droll opens itself to bad role playing as the attacker can use nastier methods to gain advantage the defender is forced to use better methods to defend.

So say the next time the attacker blocks the door. And so on.

Otherwise your scenarios fall into this trap.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNN0bI0QLAg

Defend a takedown form someone who can't do one.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 23, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I am not disagreeing. But what does it cost to do that throw properly?
> 
> I have mentioned why? Moments in training.
> 
> Even with our drills we are expected to do all of it right.



Because the throw has ZERO to do with the drill.  Because they are all cops and the guy just falls down because they don't want to hurt each other doing a drill that has ZERO to do with the throw.  Because it's not Not a self defense video.  Because he didn't need to the guy went down.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 23, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Otherwise your scenarios fall into this trap.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNN0bI0QLAg
> 
> Defend a takedown form someone who can't do one.



Real "Scenario Training" is not about "_defending from a takedown_".

I don't know how clearer we can be. Scenario training in a professional context has nothing to do with martial arts "techniques" against resistance. You train those on the mat/in the ring. Your argument is akin to saying that military war games are useless because we don't actually fire live rounds at each other.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 23, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> There are some things that we do try to keep close to the vest; they're tactics and approaches we use to try to ensure we go home at the end of the day.  But, honestly, most of them can be found out there.
> 
> While many academies do video record most of the training for liability reasons -- it's not necessarily stuff we can lay hands on and share publicly.



Plus you don't want the criminals to learn how you do things.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Because the throw has ZERO to do with the drill.  Because they are all cops and the guy just falls down because they don't want to hurt each other doing a drill that has ZERO to do with the throw.  Because it's not Not a self defense video.  Because he didn't need to the guy went down.




Which is why police have to seek guys like us out to learn how to throw a guy.

Actually I think I understand scenarios.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 23, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Real "Scenario Training" is not about "_defending from a takedown_".
> 
> I don't know how clearer we can be. Scenario training in a professional context has nothing to do with martial arts "techniques" against resistance. You train those on the mat/in the ring. Your argument is akin to saying that military war games are useless because we don't actually fire live rounds at each other.




This whole thing started with the idea you don't train on the mat or the ring. And then I/said something like how about people get their basics together with some resisted training first.


I can live with scenarios being different to basic martial arts training.


----------



## K-man (Apr 24, 2014)

OMG! 
:s67:


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 24, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Which is why police have to seek guys like us out to learn how to throw a guy.
> 
> Actually I think I understand scenarios.



That's a big no on both of those statements


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 24, 2014)

Yeah, let's back it up a bit since at least a couple of posters in this thread still don't seem to get the idea of what scenario training is for and why it's necessary.

1) _Fighters _train to test their skills, athleticism, and willpower against other fighters.

2) In contrast, other professionals* who deal with potential violence want to control the scenario so that there_ is _no fight. In some cases they work to manipulate social scripts so that there is no physical violence. In others they work to set up the tactical situation and force multipliers so that when violence does occur it isn't really a fight - just a beat-down in their favor. If you can arrange to start a violent encounter with surprise, positioning, weaponry, and numbers on your side, then it doesn't matter that much how tough or skilled the other guy is. He might be a world champion, but if you can a) convince him to cooperate peacefully or b) bring a dozen friends along and hit him from behind with a baseball bat then his world-class skills and toughness aren't that relevant.

* (This can be professionals on either side of the law - LEOs and corrections officers or muggers and mob leg-breakers.)

3) Scenario training is primarily* designed to prepare the trainee to either control the situation as outlined above or else keep an attacker from doing the same. (And to prepare for the aftermath.) If you get to the point where your skills in punching or throwing make a big difference, then you have probably failed in the scenario.

*(I'm aware that there are other types of scenario training - this is a simplistic overview.)

4) Training fighting skills can still be a valuable endeavor, but it's largely separate from scenario training and for a different purpose.


----------



## Buka (Apr 24, 2014)

Maybe should have posted examples earlier. Here's a couple of links that might define what most consider info about scenario training.

http://www.jimwagnertraining.com/images/Conflict_Scenario_Training.pdf

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=9323807


----------



## jks9199 (May 13, 2014)

Doing something else, I came across this blog by Kasey Keckeisen on Scenario Training.  Lot's of good info...



> If you are going to incorporate scenario training into your repertoire (Train as Romans do) there are a couple things to consider.
> You want to make the training as real as can be safely done.  *To do it right you will need to spend at least three hours of preparation  for every hour of training.*  The first part of preparation is the development of the scenarios.  I like to start with a few clear training objectives and then work  from there.   What situation would illicit the response we are training for?  Situations the trainees are likely to face  train for what happens most and you can handle most of what happens.
> 
> It doesnt make sense to have SWAT teams run womens self defense - social violence to set up asocial violence(charm predator) drills.  Nor does it make sense to have suburban moms train high risk narcotic search warrant raids.  If the RBS training being sold to you has you doing commando raids and killing with your bare hands the instructor is playing of the fears of the insecure and offering fantasy fulfillment for profit. (See Marcs blog the super bowl of violence) Thats not training thats fantasy role playing.  If you are playing make believe with a scenario that will most likely never happen whether it be commando tactics or a light saber battle with an ork, they are both equally just LARP (live action role playing or dungeons and dragons)


 (emphasis added)


----------



## Ian Kinder (May 20, 2014)

Hi Guys,

We created this video for this thread.  Hope you find it useful:


----------

