# Regular Sparring Sessions is a Go



## KangTsai

Yesterday I had my first 'advanced' standup class with the head coach. Fitness and drills were a breeze (although I had one partner who didn't know the meaning of striking 'drill' and decided to hit my face instead of my gloves used as pads everytime) but sparring for the first proper time intrigued me. Sparring was a majority of the actual class I might add.

Overall, considering I was against larger and considerably more experienced strikers, I don't think I did too bad, although I had some glaring flaws.

Good things I did:

- I swat a front kick out and followed with a spinning back kick which landed
- Overall my leg kick game was working quite well
- I took advantage of cramming my partner with body shot flurries and disengaging kicks
- I weaved some big hooks and followed with side kicks.
- I kept good distance
- I escaped kick catches effectively with minimal damage


Bad Things I did:

- I used angles poorly, I was always open to straight shots and once I got jabbed all the way down to eating a hook.
- I didn't take good advantage of the distance I had
- My guard was too relaxed and body kicks were encouraged against me
- My combo defense was poor: I didn't completely shell nor did I long guard, and I ate a fat overhand right 
- I didn't use enough head movement and stood too tall for the attacks coming against me
- I had too much of a must Thai strategy to sparring, too slow and too still for the combos and volume I was up against 
- I had a hard time hitting anybody's face 
- I fought like a tall person, not the opposite

Things I know I can fix -

- I have to fight like a short person : I was doing very well when I was the up-close aggressor, and somehow I shelled perfectly in clinch range while I was suffering and middle distance.
- in turn, I need to utilise a peek-a-boo in-and-out strategy 
- I need to commit to either a proper long guard or shelling up and dodging
- I have to not be afraid of causing some pain to my partner: this caused me to only go 50℅ speed on my leg kicks which I need to get over. I'm more of a softie than you think.
- I have to put in 100℅ effort. I don't even know why I wasn't operating at 100℅ speed when I could. 

Other than the critical flaws I have properly identified, I believe I have a solid game and a great bit of athleticism.
The introduction of sparring has changed my training to be more dynamic and lucid, and what's not taking several punches to the face?


----------



## drop bear

the difference between being a martial artist and a fighter.


----------



## JowGaWolf

KangTsai said:


> The introduction of sparring has changed my training to be more dynamic and lucid, and what's not taking several punches to the face?


Welcome to real martial arts.  You will never train the same way again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Good self-analysis. Keep at that, and use those sparring sessions to help you figure out what to work on when you have free time in classes.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Sounds like fun. I don't have great endurance so I just get it over with. I like to hit people and I'm not too bad at it. I can take a lot of battle damage, so I just wade in and clobber em.


----------



## Juany118

Sounds like a good session and it reminds me of Monday at class.  We had the visiting Master supervising those of there for a bit and my direct Sifu going over fundamentals with some new students.  I honestly don't know if his advice to me was "right" or "wrong", thinking in terms of my practical purposes and I have been thinking about it non-stop.  The Master visits us twice a month and is very big on defense being soft so counter attacks can be fired more rapidly.  

Once I get into a certain range I tend to "jam" the opponent up because if I am going from striking to "control" at work I find "jamming" up makes it easier to establish control.   On the other hand a soft defense, while it creates an opening for for faster counter strike, doesn't permit for as easy a transition for control.

The visiting Master is WC only, and I want to make him happy of course doing what he sees as proper WC.  At the same time thinking "will it make things difficult at work since you fight the way your train."

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> The Master visits us twice a month and is very big on defense being soft so counter attacks can be fired more rapidly.
> 
> Once I get into a certain range I tend to "jam" the opponent up because if I am going from striking to "control" at work I find "jamming" up makes it easier to establish control. On the other hand a soft defense, while it creates an opening for for faster counter strike, doesn't permit for as easy a transition for control.


This is where kung fu gets personalized.  People will fight according to their areas of strength.  Yours is jamming and your Sifu's area of strength is to utilize soft technique more.   In this case there is no Right or Wrong.

On the other hand relying too much on either jamming or soft techniques will cause issues on their own. People who like jamming others can be defeated by soft techniques causing you to fall on emptiness every time you try to jam.  If all you do is Jam then you won't know what to do when someone figures your strategy out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> This is where kung fu gets personalized.  People will fight according to their areas of strength.  Yours is jamming and your Sifu's area of strength is to utilize soft technique more.   In this case there is no Right or Wrong.
> 
> On the other hand relying too much on either jamming or soft techniques will cause issues on their own. People who like jamming others can be defeated by soft techniques causing you to fall on emptiness every time you try to jam.  If all you do is Jam then you won't know what to do when someone figures your strategy out.


For practical purposes, that's not much of an issue in the field. That's more of an issue in competition and sparring.

That said, I think there's also room for using soft techniques to set up body control, which creates a nice bridge between the two areas.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Sounds like a good session and it reminds me of Monday at class.  We had the visiting Master supervising those of there for a bit and my direct Sifu going over fundamentals with some new students.  I honestly don't know if his advice to me was "right" or "wrong", thinking in terms of my practical purposes and I have been thinking about it non-stop.  The Master visits us twice a month and is very big on defense being soft so counter attacks can be fired more rapidly.
> 
> Once I get into a certain range I tend to "jam" the opponent up because if I am going from striking to "control" at work I find "jamming" up makes it easier to establish control.   On the other hand a soft defense, while it creates an opening for for faster counter strike, doesn't permit for as easy a transition for control.
> 
> The visiting Master is WC only, and I want to make him happy of course doing what he sees as proper WC.  At the same time thinking "will it make things difficult at work since you fight the way your train."
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



You need to work different elements to have a more deeply layered approach to the mechanics of fignting. This will mean at some point you have to use these elements that you would not ordinarily use.

It doesn't diminish your skill set. Just like training with a gi doesnt diminish my no gi. Or training with gloves doesnt diminish my glove free fighting. 

It just gives more options.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> For practical purposes, that's not much of an issue in the field. That's more of an issue in competition and sparring.
> 
> That said, I think there's also room for using soft techniques to set up body control, which creates a nice bridge between the two areas.




It depends if you are training to bash some gumby. Then you dont need to over engineer your skill set. If they have half a clue then you will need more options.


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> This is where kung fu gets personalized.  People will fight according to their areas of strength.  Yours is jamming and your Sifu's area of strength is to utilize soft technique more.   In this case there is no Right or Wrong.
> 
> On the other hand relying too much on either jamming or soft techniques will cause issues on their own. People who like jamming others can be defeated by soft techniques causing you to fall on emptiness every time you try to jam.  If all you do is Jam then you won't know what to do when someone figures your strategy out.


Oh understood, I would take advantage of that a WHOLE LOT in my Aikido training days.  With my training today though I tend to try and make sure a lot of what I do in sparring is what will work "quick and dirty" during your typical street encounter.  For the purposes of sparring though I should likely mix it up a little bit more.  At some point one of my sparring partners is probably going to catch on and I take an elbow to the head or end up on my back for my trouble lol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It depends if you are training to bash some gumby. Then you dont need to over engineer your skill set. If they have half a clue then you will need more options.


I'm not sure where the over-engineering was in my statement.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> It depends if you are training to bash some gumby. Then you dont need to over engineer your skill set. If they have half a clue then you will need more options.


Oh I agree another issue I have to deal with though is figure out what "soft" defenses are actually physically practical.  In my "standard" class attire they are no problem, but add the Kevlar vest, the weight (and inflexibility) of a fully ladened duty belt around the waist, etc and some of the soft defenses become more problematic to execute properly.  We have suggested going to a more expensive (but lighter and more flexible vest, lighter weight (and more flexible) nylon duty belt or even a load bearing best to get some of that off the waist and got denied with a combination of "it's what we wear" and "costs too much".  

So it will take a lot of experimentation and that will require my PD's and then Instructors permission to wear my duty gear at class.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Oh I agree another issue I have to deal with though is figure out what "soft" defenses are actually physically practical.  In my "standard" class attire they are no problem, but add the Kevlar vest, the weight (and inflexibility) of a fully ladened duty belt around the waist, etc and some of the soft defenses become more problematic to execute properly.  We have suggested going to a more expensive (but lighter and more flexible vest, lighter weight (and more flexible) nylon duty belt or even a load bearing best to get some of that off the waist and got denied with a combination of "it's what we wear" and "costs too much".
> 
> So it will take a lot of experimentation and that will require my PD's and then Instructors permission to wear my duty gear at class.


See, that's something that never occurred to me. You guys carry a LOT of weight around the middle (and on that belt, too! LOL).


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> "soft" defenses are actually physically practical


Example of Soft Techniques
0:38
0:55
1:00
1:03





Example of Hard Technique: force vs force example


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> Example of Soft Techniques
> 0:38
> 0:55
> 1:00
> 1:03
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Example of Hard Technique: force vs force example




Oh I am not talking about the actual takedown, I always prefer "soft" there and there are more than a few I can use, when I refer to "jamming" I mean on entry.  An example of how to "jam them up" is here.






While this is from one of Sifu Keith's seminars I have used the concept successfully not only in sparring but in "real world" practice.  With the right footwork you can also, instead of just covering the next "hit" jam it up as well.  Regardless from that jammed position I then proceed to the control technique, especially ones that involve controlling the limb I have jammed up (cutting arm bars, controlled single leg sweeps, goose necks etc.)  Now the take downs are something Sifu Keith usually only focuses on in LEO seminars, this is a straight up WC seminar, but the entry principles are very similar.   

You can do it with a _bong sau, wu sau, chun sau, lan sau _and many other arm structures.  At the same time you can can use some of these structure to essentially redirect the limb to "pass" vs "jamming" it.  Sorry if I wasn't clear that it was about entry and not the take down itself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Oh I am not talking about the actual takedown, I always prefer "soft" there and there are more than a few I can use, when I refer to "jamming" I mean on entry.  An example of how to "jam them up" is here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While this is from one of Sifu Keith's seminars I have used the concept successfully not only in sparring but in "real world" practice.  With the right footwork you can also, instead of just covering the next "hit" jam it up as well.  Regardless from that jammed position I then proceed to the control technique, especially ones that involve controlling the limb I have jammed up (cutting arm bars, controlled single leg sweeps, goose necks etc.)  Now the take downs are something Sifu Keith usually only focuses on in LEO seminars, this is a straight up WC seminar, but the entry principles are very similar.
> 
> You can do it with a _bong sau, wu sau, chun sau, lan sau _and many other arm structures.  At the same time you can can use some of these structure to essentially redirect the limb to "pass" vs "jamming" it.  Sorry if I wasn't clear that it was about entry and not the take down itself.


Some day you and I need to get together and compare some thoughts. I keep seeing things that are right next to what we do in NGA, and can't help thinking we'd find some interesting new tools for each other.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> Oh I am not talking about the actual takedown, I always prefer "soft" there and there are more than a few I can use, when I refer to "jamming" I mean on entry.  An example of how to "jam them up" is here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While this is from one of Sifu Keith's seminars I have used the concept successfully not only in sparring but in "real world" practice.  With the right footwork you can also, instead of just covering the next "hit" jam it up as well.  Regardless from that jammed position I then proceed to the control technique, especially ones that involve controlling the limb I have jammed up (cutting arm bars, controlled single leg sweeps, goose necks etc.)  Now the take downs are something Sifu Keith usually only focuses on in LEO seminars, this is a straight up WC seminar, but the entry principles are very similar.
> 
> You can do it with a _bong sau, wu sau, chun sau, lan sau _and many other arm structures.  At the same time you can can use some of these structure to essentially redirect the limb to "pass" vs "jamming" it.  Sorry if I wasn't clear that it was about entry and not the take down itself.


To me that would be a soft technique because the technique isn't trying to go force against force.  If you look closely you can see that the punch still comes out.  You can also see the Sifu there step off center.  The step off center is insurance because getting the timing down is always questionable.  So if you mess up then it's better to be out of the way than to get by the punch.  If this is what you already doing then you are using a "Soft technique"

In Jow Ga and I've seen in WC with Bong Sau, there is a jamming that goes force against force where the punch gets stuck.  For me the jam works better on those who hesitate and the soft technique version works better on those who overcommit.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Example of Soft Techniques
> 0:38
> 0:55
> 1:00
> 1:03
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Example of Hard Technique: force vs force example



dont go head outside single. learn what a crossface is.

That cop example by the way was kind of tragic. There is nothing stopping you learning a decent sprawl and potentually not being very good at it. It has to be better than learning a poor sprawl. And then not being very good at that.

Decent spawl.





Now if you are not athletic you can still apply all of those principles. You will just have less of a chance of pulling them off against a decent takedown. There are not really any lazy man principles in this case that will help you out.

If you wanted to honk on about weapon retention you may need to sacrifice the crossface  or overhook for a wrist grab. But then you would need extra classy hip movement.

Learning a half baked method is pretty unhelpful.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Oh I am not talking about the actual takedown, I always prefer "soft" there and there are more than a few I can use, when I refer to "jamming" I mean on entry.  An example of how to "jam them up" is here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While this is from one of Sifu Keith's seminars I have used the concept successfully not only in sparring but in "real world" practice.  With the right footwork you can also, instead of just covering the next "hit" jam it up as well.  Regardless from that jammed position I then proceed to the control technique, especially ones that involve controlling the limb I have jammed up (cutting arm bars, controlled single leg sweeps, goose necks etc.)  Now the take downs are something Sifu Keith usually only focuses on in LEO seminars, this is a straight up WC seminar, but the entry principles are very similar.
> 
> You can do it with a _bong sau, wu sau, chun sau, lan sau _and many other arm structures.  At the same time you can can use some of these structure to essentially redirect the limb to "pass" vs "jamming" it.  Sorry if I wasn't clear that it was about entry and not the take down itself.



The issue you get. And you get it in boxing as well. If you chase a guy to desperately close distance. You can get your face smashed into hamburger. So you need alternate strategies so that when you do chase and jam he is not waiting for it.

This guy exploited the hell out of that particular problem.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> The issue you get. And you get it in boxing as well. If you chase a guy to desperately close distance. You can get your face smashed into hamburger. So you need alternate strategies so that when you do chase and jam he is not waiting for it.
> 
> This guy exploited the hell out of that particular problem.



I have seen that video before and it isn't exactly applicable.  The reason why I say this is he seems to be using what mos would call "stereotypical" WC theory.  The "school of thought" I follow, TWC, is often called "modified" but most other Lineages that claim Yip Man origin.  As an example "fight on the blind side" where we try to move to the flank ourselves is seen as "wrong."  If you watch the video I noted as well, the way you "jam" is with techniques that actually assume the other hand will be coming, some of which aren't that different than a western boxing "cover".

Ultimately the guy in the video you showed literally did the exact opposite of what Sifu Kieth said you should do in the video I linked.  Likely why he got clobbered because he was thinking "dead straight ahead" which is NOT what the WC I study teaches you to do.  If you go to 1:00 on my video you see Sifu Keith saying "don't do what the guy in Drop Bear's video did!" 

As you say, you need to alternate if it doesn't succeed, BUT The video you linked doesn't even vaguely represent the idea I am talking about so I really don't know what to say in response.  Tbh I thought you would dig Sifu Keith's ideas/tactics for the most part because it isn't what one stereotypically thinks of when they picture WC.  He applies practical stuff to WC that he gains from his instruction of US Spec Ops and LE organizations ( Keith Mazza ) as he sees learning as a two way street, even in his "paid" seminars (a rare guy that way in my experience.)

I also, just for personal gratification, would love to know the name of the WC guy to see if he really is a "master".  He does a lot of things wrong according to other lineages as well.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I have seen that video before and it isn't exactly applicable.  The reason why I say this is he seems to be using what mos would call "stereotypical" WC theory.  The "school of thought" I follow, TWC, is often called "modified" but most other Lineages that claim Yip Man origin.  As an example "fight on the blind side" where we try to move to the flank ourselves is seen as "wrong."  If you watch the video I noted as well, the way you "jam" is with techniques that actually assume the other hand will be coming, some of which aren't that different than a western boxing "cover".
> 
> Ultimately the guy in the video you showed literally did the exact opposite of what Sifu Kieth said you should do in the video I linked.  Likely why he got clobbered because he was thinking "dead straight ahead" which is NOT what the WC I study teaches you to do.  If you go to 1:00 on my video you see Sifu Keith saying "don't do what the guy in Drop Bear's video did!"
> 
> As you say, you need to alternate if it doesn't succeed, BUT The video you linked doesn't even vaguely represent the idea I am talking about so I really don't know what to say in response.  Tbh I thought you would dig Sifu Keith's ideas/tactics for the most part because it isn't what one stereotypically thinks of when they picture WC.  He applies practical stuff to WC that he gains from his instruction of US Spec Ops and LE organizations ( Keith Mazza ) as he sees learning as a two way street, even in his "paid" seminars (a rare guy that way in my experience.)
> 
> I also, just for personal gratification, would love to know the name of the WC guy to see if he really is a "master".  He does a lot of things wrong according to other lineages as well.



You know that old saying you walk in you are a black belt.  Then you get punched in the face and you become a white belt.  Wing chun guy was taken apart.  He was never going to apply any principles regardless whether it was angles or straight lines.  And was always going to look like a chump.

Just what happens when you get outclassed. His one method got shot down with that first left hook.  And from there his only method was to repeat his failed approach.

Just the joy of sparring sometimes.

I dont have an issue with old mates method. I cant really use it because it is too complicated but i can see the idea.  
It is the one tactic approach that will get you unstuck.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> You know that old saying you walk in you are a black belt.  Then you get punched in the face and you become a white belt.  Wing chun guy was taken apart.  He was never going to apply any principles regardless whether it was angles or straight lines.  And was always going to look like a chump.
> 
> Just what happens when you get outclassed. His one method got shot down with that first left hook.  And from there his only method was to repeat his failed approach.
> 
> Just the joy of sparring sometimes.
> 
> I dont have an issue with old mates method. I cant really use it because it is too complicated but i can see the idea.
> It is the one tactic approach that will get you unstuck.



My point was to say there is is not "one" type of WC, any more than there is one type of Karate, Jujutsu etc.  The idea the "old mate" is getting across is that...
1. if you go in like that you need to somehow jam up the initial attack and shut it down while
2. making sure your "jam" covers you from the inevitable follow up from the other hand.

There are a multitude of ways to do it, and he mentions others he doesn't demonstrate.  The main point I was doing was just trying to illustrate what I personally mean when I refer to "jamming", which is to tie up (and hopefully) set up one arm,while still covering the inevitable other hand which is coming.  Initially some thought I meant going straight for a take down rather than simply entering for either striking or takedowns/controls.  That was the point of the video.  

If you aren't confident you can jam the "first" you don't go in like that.  If you can jam the first but NOT while protecting your noodle from the other hand you also don't do it. The guy in your video hesitated more times than I could count and then went straight in like a shmoo when he bothered to go in over and over again regardless of success.  To me that didn't even say anything about his style of WC but rather his training method... no pressure testing.  

I think we will both agree that if he pressure tested during his training and got his bell rung a few times then (like we both do) he never would have done something so gosh darn silly.   Or at least I hope so.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> That cop example by the way was kind of tragic.


Unfortunately, it was the only video of a police officer defending against the takedown.  

Yep, the guy in the red had him figured out in less than 42 seconds. When he landed that left looping hook. It was the same type of punch that knocked the guy down.  It's clear to see the guy in the black shirt had no real strategy for someone that tall or with arms that long.


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> To me that would be a soft technique because the technique isn't trying to go force against force.  If you look closely you can see that the punch still comes out.  You can also see the Sifu there step off center.  The step off center is insurance because getting the timing down is always questionable.  So if you mess up then it's better to be out of the way than to get by the punch.  If this is what you already doing then you are using a "Soft technique"
> 
> In Jow Ga and I've seen in WC with Bong Sau, there is a jamming that goes force against force where the punch gets stuck.  For me the jam works better on those who hesitate and the soft technique version works better on those who overcommit.



Okey doke.  I can see that, I suppose it is semantics.  When I think "soft" I am likely reflecting my previous Aikido back ground where anything you "go in" on rather than receive and/or redirect is "hard."  Different perspective so different turn of phrase .


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> His one method got shot down with that first left hook. And from there his only method was to repeat his failed approach.


I should have red this first and it would have saved me some typing lol


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> Unfortunately, it was the only video of a police officer defending against the takedown.
> 
> Yep, the guy in the red had him figured out in less than 42 seconds. When he landed that left looping hook. It was the same type of punch that knocked the guy down.  It's clear to see the guy in the black shirt had no real strategy for someone that tall or with arms that long.



Sadly, you think TMA masters can be cagey about what they teach, the LE combative industry is such big business at this point videos get yanked for copyright infringement constantly so they can justify charging $1000.00 a head for 40 hours of training and then $750 for the annual recert.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> When I think "soft" I am likely reflecting my previous Aikido back ground where anything you "go in" on rather than receive and/or redirect is "hard." Different perspective so different turn of phrase


 CMA definition just means one is force vs force  and the other is yielding to force.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> Sadly, you think TMA masters can be cagey about what they teach, the LE combative industry is such big business at this point videos get yanked for copyright infringement constantly so they can justify charging $1000.00 a head for 40 hours of training and then $750 for the annual recert.


ouch.  Maybe I'm in the wrong business.  I'm surprised that anyone can sue being that most of what they can also be found in TMA systems as well.


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> CMA definition just means one is force vs force  and the other is yielding to force.



I suppose that's what I get for mixing Burbon with Scotch in my training over the years


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> I suppose that's what I get for mixing Burbon with Scotch in my training over the years


The other instructor at my school drinks Burbon and Scotch.  I wonder if anyone else in here drinks those 2 things.


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> ouch.  Maybe I'm in the wrong business.  I'm surprised that anyone can sue being that most of what they can also be found in TMA systems as well.



I know right?  I pay my own dime because my PD won't pay for unarmed combatives training, even a couple guys for a "train the trainer" course". Welcome to the world of "I want them well trained BUT mind the budget."


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> The other instructor at my school drinks Burbon and Scotch.  I wonder if anyone else in here drinks those 2 things.



I figure you know this but...

I meant them as a metaphor (one being Aikido where most anything "direct" means "hard" and CMA, my only experience there is YM WC first WSLVT via Gary Lam and now TWC via a student of Sifu Keith) but in terms of honest to goodness liquor they are both tasty as a drink 

Aikido was my first TMA though, so as much as I try, what I learned there colors my language.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> To me that would be a soft technique because the technique isn't trying to go force against force.  If you look closely you can see that the punch still comes out.  You can also see the Sifu there step off center.  The step off center is insurance because getting the timing down is always questionable.  So if you mess up then it's better to be out of the way than to get by the punch.  If this is what you already doing then you are using a "Soft technique"
> 
> In Jow Ga and I've seen in WC with Bong Sau, there is a jamming that goes force against force where the punch gets stuck.  For me the jam works better on those who hesitate and the soft technique version works better on those who overcommit.


Your definition of "hard" pretty well matches mine, JGW. I think of "soft" as anything that doesn't clash force-on-force or use mostly strength to execute a takedown (the latter is more subjective).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The issue you get. And you get it in boxing as well. If you chase a guy to desperately close distance. You can get your face smashed into hamburger. So you need alternate strategies so that when you do chase and jam he is not waiting for it.
> 
> This guy exploited the hell out of that particular problem.


This is one of those cases where what's needed for competition is different than the field, IMO. The guys Juany is dealing with probably aren't that patient, waiting for a prime opening. Probably not that well-trained or controlled, either.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I know right?  I pay my own dime because my PD won't pay for unarmed combatives training, even a couple guys for a "train the trainer" course". Welcome to the world of "I want them well trained BUT mind the budget."


That, unfortunately, happens nearly everywhere. I talk to businesses all the time who are concerned their people don't have enough training, and then balk at paying more than a pittance for training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> The other instructor at my school drinks Burbon and Scotch.  I wonder if anyone else in here drinks those 2 things.


Never at the same time.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> This is one of those cases where what's needed for competition is different than the field, IMO. The guys Juany is dealing with probably aren't that patient, waiting for a prime opening. Probably not that well-trained or controlled, either.



Doesn't hurt to be able to deal with a quality fighter. It is not like it is a disadvantage in the street.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> This is one of those cases where what's needed for competition is different than the field, IMO. The guys Juany is dealing with probably aren't that patient, waiting for a prime opening. Probably not that well-trained or controlled, either.


This exactly.  They aren't "fencing".  

They are fighting hard and some are skilled, but the dynamics cause it to be all in out of the gate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Doesn't hurt to be able to deal with a quality fighter. It is not like it is a disadvantage in the street.


No, but it's a different strategy, and likely one that's going to take time away from training on things that are more likely to occur in his world. This is one of those areas where prep for competition has a significant difference from prep for dealing with an out-of-control person.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> No, but it's a different strategy, and likely one that's going to take time away from training on things that are more likely to occur in his world. This is one of those areas where prep for competition has a significant difference from prep for *dealing with an out-of-control person.*



Yeah, absolutely.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> No, but it's a different strategy, and likely one that's going to take time away from training on things that are more likely to occur in his world. This is one of those areas where prep for competition has a significant difference from prep for dealing with an out-of-control person.



Exactly.  The dynamics of the encounters simply result in you ending up all in at the gate.  The officer can be initiating it to end an assault or take someone into custody.  The bad guy doing an all out assault to make sure the officer can't access tools is another time you can run into a person who has some skill training.  In either case the bad guy is also going all in because they want it over ASAP so they can flee before other officers arrive and they have no chance.  The other general circumstance doesn't involve someone capable of skill but they are also incapable of self control so they are all in...High/intoxicated people or those suffering from a mental illness.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Exactly.  The dynamics of the encounters simply result in you ending up all in at the gate.  The officer can be initiating it to end an assault or take someone into custody.  The bad guy doing an all out assault to make sure the officer can't access tools is another time you can run into a person who has some skill training.  In either case the bad guy is also going all in because they want it over ASAP so they can flee before other officers arrive and they have no chance.  The other general circumstance doesn't involve someone capable of skill but they are also incapable of self control so they are all in...High/intoxicated people or those suffering from a mental illness.


The "all-in" aspect changes the dynamics considerably. When I teach, I often don't warn students of what I'm about to demonstrate on them, because their knowledge will force a change in my approach. If I tell someone to stop me from doing what I want (take them down), that's different than them trying to do what they want (hit me). In a competition, there's a split focus on doing those two things (that's how you win). An attacker, while not giving you your way, is essentially focused on their attack. It is their primary means of stopping you from doing what you want (in your case, you accessing your tools will likely be in their head). This brings new opportunities.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No, but it's a different strategy, and likely one that's going to take time away from training on things that are more likely to occur in his world. This is one of those areas where prep for competition has a significant difference from prep for dealing with an out-of-control person.



I haven't found this. I have seen some pretty classy strikers win street fights going backwards as much as they do going forwards.

3 dimentional fighting is the idea here. Where you can move through a lot of ranges well.

It is precisely what I mean when I bang on about better basics. The ability to fight through a range of environments by having the ability to solve problems rather than trying to predict which environment you will be engaged in and set up a system for that.

This is one of the skills sparring aims to teach.

Otherwise If I go all in in training I will wind up getting knocked out. Which sucks.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Your definition of "hard" pretty well matches mine, JGW. I think of "soft" as anything that doesn't clash force-on-force or use mostly strength to execute a takedown (the latter is more subjective).



I dont make the distinction. I just do stuff.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> I haven't found this. I have seen some pretty classy strikers win street fights going backwards as much as they do going forwards.
> 
> 3 dimentional fighting is the idea here. Where you can move through a lot of ranges well.
> 
> It is precisely what I mean when I bang on about better basics. The ability to fight through a range of environments by having the ability to solve problems rather than trying to predict which environment you will be engaged in and set up a system for that.
> 
> This is one of the skills sparring aims to teach.
> 
> Otherwise If I go all in in training I will wind up getting knocked out. Which sucks.



What @gpseymour and I are talking about though is an undisputed legal requirement I have to deal with and so train to deal with.

A competitive fighter has unfettered access to all three dimensions a police officer, in the US, doesn't.  They need to not just say "they won" but be able to objectively justify the force they used to win. That means, if I am going to take a guy into custody by simply beating him down via striking I need to be able to justify why I didn't use control methods.

Additionally striking while backing up is rarely an option.  99% of the time a sane and sober subject is fighting me, even fighting me HARD, they are doing it to create an avenue of escape.  A striking fight while backing up provides them with that avenue of escape which I am charged to prevent and unless I am told the rules of engagement forbid it I spar like I will fight at work.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> What @gpseymour and I are talking about though is an undisputed legal requirement I have to deal with and so train to deal with.
> 
> A competitive fighter has unfettered access to all three dimensions a police officer, in the US, doesn't.  They need to not just say "they won" but be able to objectively justify the force they used to win. That means, if I am going to take a guy into custody by simply beating him down via striking I need to be able to justify why I didn't use control methods.
> 
> Additionally striking while backing up is rarely an option.  99% of the time a sane and sober subject is fighting me, even fighting me HARD, they are doing it to create an avenue of escape.  A striking fight while backing up provides them with that avenue of escape which I am charged to prevent and unless I am told the rules of engagement forbid it I spar like I will fight at work.



Yeah. but that is why police work is less related to self defence than a lot of other environments.

And you get a tazer.

For the rest of us. Three dimensions is a pretty handy skill to have.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Yeah. but that is why police work is less related to self defence than a lot of other environments.
> 
> And you get a tazer.
> 
> For the rest of us. Three dimensions is a pretty handy skill to have.



First tasers are far from infallible of the times I have deployed them they have failed 30 % of the time.  

-A simple baggy sweat shirt making it so the probes never got close enough to effect, until we went hands on and dump him so he was lying on them with his body weight.
-the guy who just reached up and ripped the wires out of the taser.
-The guy who in his struggle against the voltage tore one of the delicate wires making it purely pain compliance that can be fought through are just three examples.

That aside 2 things.  The two of us were talking about how if you are training for a purpose your training needs to reflect it.  Competition, self defense, law enforcement whatever.

Also I would argue backing up striking isn't going to work for self defense.  The person doing a street assault, robbery, rape whatever, isn't going to be doing the probing strikes, dancing in and out where backwards striking really comes into its own.  They are going to "all in".

This isn't an indictment of competition training btw.  Such training can be awesome for self defense because you learn to take a hit.  However you need to keep in mind, and do some training, with a very focused self defense mind set, verses a competition mindset.  The same techniques work for both but the strategy and tactics are different.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> First tasers are far from infallible of the times I have deployed them they have failed 30 % of the time.
> 
> -A simple baggy sweat shirt making it so the probes never got close enough to effect, until we went hands on and dump him so he was lying on them with his body weight.
> -the guy who just reached up and ripped the wires out of the taser.
> -The guy who in his struggle against the voltage tore one of the delicate wires making it purely pain compliance that can be fought through are just three examples.
> 
> That aside 2 things.  The two of us were talking about how if you are training for a purpose your training needs to reflect it.  Competition, self defense, law enforcement whatever.
> 
> Also I would argue backing up striking isn't going to work for self defense.  The person doing a street assault, robbery, rape whatever, isn't going to be doing the probing strikes, dancing in and out where backwards striking really comes into its own.  They are going to "all in".
> 
> This isn't an indictment of competition training btw.  Such training can be awesome for self defense because you learn to take a hit.  However you need to keep in mind, and do some training, with a very focused self defense mind set, verses a competition mindset.  The same techniques work for both but the strategy and tactics are different.



Yours is a police mindset not a self defense one. 

The people you face have one or two pre determined tactics due to the context in which you work. 

Now the context in which i worked the tactics and context was much more diverse. So the training i sought out needed to reflect that.

Street assaults and robberies i have encountered absolutely engaged in probing attacks. Which of course wont work if the other guy can just shoot you. 

This isnt an indictment on police focused training they do a wonderful job.However you need to keep in mind, and do some training, with a very focused self defense mind set, verses a law enforcement mindset.  The same techniques work for both but the strategy and tactics are different.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Yours is a police mindset not a self defense one.
> 
> The people you face have one or two pre determined tactics due to the context in which you work.
> 
> Now the context in which i worked the tactics and context was much more diverse. So the training i sought out needed to reflect that.
> 
> Street assaults and robberies i have encountered absolutely engaged in probing attacks. Which of course wont work if the other guy can just shoot you.
> 
> This isnt an indictment on police focused training they do a wonderful job.However you need to keep in mind, and do some training, with a very focused self defense mind set, verses a law enforcement mindset.  The same techniques work for both but the strategy and tactics are different.



The ones I have investigated didn't.  They start with posturing and threats sure, especially the robberies, but if the suspect feels you called their bluff it's all in for the bad guy.  Not only do they want your stuff but you "disrespected them" so they are doubly pissed.

One clarification, with assaults I do not mean "fights" say at a bar over some imagined slight, girl whatever.  I mean the "Bob pissed me off earlier and I am lying in wait, or stalking him, to kick his ***" kinda assaults.  Hell we have freaking middle school students who do that, no lie, and it's not an exaggeration. On the flip side we also have "fights" where people agree to meet someone where.  That is still technically an assault and fits your experience but it's not what I mean.

Now I also work in a town with a per capita crime rate equal to cities like Philadelphia and Chicago.  The County DA actually ponied up the money for us to have CCTV cameras all over town because it is basically wild westesque at this point.  That kind of system is almost unheard of in the US, though there are pushes to make it more common.  The only reason our homicide rate isn't crazy high is because they can't shoot, thank God.  I won't assume however that the nature of street crime here is universal outside the US, but my experience is consistent other US Officers.  This article explains a bit about it in terms of the dynamics.  Violent Crime: The US and Abroad - Criminal Justice Degree Hub

What makes it bad is that even though we have had steady declines in violence since the 1990s crack "boom" we are still basically the most violent nation per capita in the Developed West.


----------



## KangTsai

gpseymour said:


> No, but it's a different strategy, and likely one that's going to take time away from training on things that are more likely to occur in his world. This is one of those areas where prep for competition has a significant difference from prep for dealing with an out-of-control person.


Not really. It's the same strategy alright, but this time my opponent is just way worse. Against the average John, all you really need to do is cut out the complex things from your arsenal and go back to the first few techniques. Armed assaults are a different story.


----------



## KangTsai

Juany118 said:


> My point was to say there is is not "one" type of WC, any more than there is one type of Karate, Jujutsu etc.  The idea the "old mate" is getting across is that...
> 1. if you go in like that you need to somehow jam up the initial attack and shut it down while
> 2. making sure your "jam" covers you from the inevitable follow up from the other hand.
> 
> There are a multitude of ways to do it, and he mentions others he doesn't demonstrate.  The main point I was doing was just trying to illustrate what I personally mean when I refer to "jamming", which is to tie up (and hopefully) set up one arm,while still covering the inevitable other hand which is coming.  Initially some thought I meant going straight for a take down rather than simply entering for either striking or takedowns/controls.  That was the point of the video.
> 
> If you aren't confident you can jam the "first" you don't go in like that.  If you can jam the first but NOT while protecting your noodle from the other hand you also don't do it. The guy in your video hesitated more times than I could count and then went straight in like a shmoo when he bothered to go in over and over again regardless of success.  To me that didn't even say anything about his style of WC but rather his training method... no pressure testing.
> 
> I think we will both agree that if he pressure tested during his training and got his bell rung a few times then (like we both do) he never would have done something so gosh darn silly.   Or at least I hope so.





drop bear said:


> You know that old saying you walk in you are a black belt.  Then you get punched in the face and you become a white belt.  Wing chun guy was taken apart.  He was never going to apply any principles regardless whether it was angles or straight lines.  And was always going to look like a chump.
> 
> Just what happens when you get outclassed. His one method got shot down with that first left hook.  And from there his only method was to repeat his failed approach.
> 
> Just the joy of sparring sometimes.
> 
> I dont have an issue with old mates method. I cant really use it because it is too complicated but i can see the idea.
> It is the one tactic approach that will get you unstuck.


The thing is that, I knew for the most part what I was going to receive against me in sparring. The whole range of punches and kicks. So even though I had never done proper full-contact prior, I didn't get absolutely destroyed like in the video.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I haven't found this. I have seen some pretty classy strikers win street fights going backwards as much as they do going forwards.
> 
> 3 dimentional fighting is the idea here. Where you can move through a lot of ranges well.
> 
> It is precisely what I mean when I bang on about better basics. The ability to fight through a range of environments by having the ability to solve problems rather than trying to predict which environment you will be engaged in and set up a system for that.
> 
> This is one of the skills sparring aims to teach.
> 
> Otherwise If I go all in in training I will wind up getting knocked out. Which sucks.


You're reading my point backwards. I'm not saying a competitive fighter can't handle someone going all-in. I'm saying it's easier in some ways to handle the all-in guy. He's less in control, and in some ways more predictable. Someone who is pissed off at me will give me far more openings than you would if we were sparring.

My point was that there are things that are necessary when training for competition that aren't as necessary for a defensive situation. In effect, it's like if I trained to defend against a sword. Those defensive skills may be useful in defending against a stick, but I'll be training to an unnecessary standard: sticks don't cut.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I dont make the distinction. I just do stuff.


And I didn't refer to you making any distinction.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KangTsai said:


> Not really. It's the same strategy alright, but this time my opponent is just way worse. Against the average John, all you really need to do is cut out the complex things from your arsenal and go back to the first few techniques. Armed assaults are a different story.


Actually, that's my point. There's a level of complexity necessary when training for a skilled and controlled opponent (competition). That doesn't apply the same way for self-defense training. And part of what I can use for self-defense is easily limited by someone who is both skilled and willing to be patient and wait until late in the round for a good opening.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And I didn't refer to you making any distinction.



Yeah i know


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You're reading my point backwards. I'm not saying a competitive fighter can't handle someone going all-in. I'm saying it's easier in some ways to handle the all-in guy. He's less in control, and in some ways more predictable. Someone who is pissed off at me will give me far more openings than you would if we were sparring.
> 
> My point was that there are things that are necessary when training for competition that aren't as necessary for a defensive situation. In effect, it's like if I trained to defend against a sword. Those defensive skills may be useful in defending against a stick, but I'll be training to an unnecessary standard: sticks don't cut.



Training for more than one style of attack is pretty important.

What if they attack you wrong? 

Who raised competition by the way?

Because i don't think i did.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Training for more than one style of attack is pretty important.
> 
> What if they attack you wrong?
> 
> Who raised competition by the way?
> 
> Because i don't think i did.


I referred to competition because that's where one is most likely to meet a quality fighter and actually have to fight them.

And what do you mean by "attack you wrong"? I never said I train for only one kind of attack. We've been over this before, and you seem to forget the points we've covered in the past.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I referred to competition because that's where one is most likely to meet a quality fighter and actually have to fight them.
> 
> And what do you mean by "attack you wrong"? I never said I train for only one kind of attack. We've been over this before, and you seem to forget the points we've covered in the past.



Self defense that only incorporates the all in attack?


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> The ones I have investigated didn't.  They start with posturing and threats sure, especially the robberies, but if the suspect feels you called their bluff it's all in for the bad guy.  Not only do they want your stuff but you "disrespected them" so they are doubly pissed.
> 
> One clarification, with assaults I do not mean "fights" say at a bar over some imagined slight, girl whatever.  I mean the "Bob pissed me off earlier and I am lying in wait, or stalking him, to kick his ***" kinda assaults.  Hell we have freaking middle school students who do that, no lie, and it's not an exaggeration. On the flip side we also have "fights" where people agree to meet someone where.  That is still technically an assault and fits your experience but it's not what I mean.
> 
> Now I also work in a town with a per capita crime rate equal to cities like Philadelphia and Chicago.  The County DA actually ponied up the money for us to have CCTV cameras all over town because it is basically wild westesque at this point.  That kind of system is almost unheard of in the US, though there are pushes to make it more common.  The only reason our homicide rate isn't crazy high is because they can't shoot, thank God.  I won't assume however that the nature of street crime here is universal outside the US, but my experience is consistent other US Officers.  This article explains a bit about it in terms of the dynamics.  Violent Crime: The US and Abroad - Criminal Justice Degree Hub
> 
> What makes it bad is that even though we have had steady declines in violence since the 1990s crack "boom" we are still basically the most violent nation per capita in the Developed West.



Which is fine.  But it is still you suggesting that the violent encounters you experience follow a specific script.

Ant that was explained by you as due to your nature as a police officer.

That is not my experience. My experience is that violence can be unpredictable in nature. 

And violent assaults of any kind can't be dismissed because people do the same in middle school.  That is silly.  People die from violent assaults.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> Self defense that only incorporates the all in attack?



I look at it that way. I always expect the smother move. Especially from big guys as their means of attack. For me that is all in, and pretty much the riposte I would expect.


----------



## drop bear

Transk53 said:


> I look at it that way. I always expect the smother move. Especially from big guys as their means of attack. For me that is all in, and pretty much the riposte I would expect.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


>



That would be an exception for me. Most don't do that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Self defense that only incorporates the all in attack?


At no point did I say I only incorporate that.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Which is fine.  But it is still you suggesting that the violent encounters you experience follow a specific script.
> 
> Ant that was explained by you as due to your nature as a police officer.
> 
> That is not my experience. My experience is that violence can be unpredictable in nature.
> 
> And violent assaults of any kind can't be dismissed because people do the same in middle school.  That is silly.  People die from violent assaults.



A few things.

When I speak of it from an officer perspective it is not just from the description of encounters of myself or fellow officers but from the crimes I have actually investigated. 

Second, as for a script there is a general one on the larger scale, just like there is in life in general.  Psychology is what it is and there is a psychology to violence.  Because of this, depending on the circumstances surrounding an incident, you will have a lot of consistency in various factors of an encounter.  If this wasn't the case Forensic Behavioral Analysis wouldn't be a thing.  Now this doesn't mean you can predict the robbery suspect will have a knife, gun etc.  It doesn't mean you can predict exactly when and where they will strike.  But you can actually make a flow chart of sorts in a general sense.  A mind the to following...

Robber approaches victim.  Does Robber know victim?  If not does victim give in immediately and give up wallet?  If yes robber flees with booty.  If no robber goes all in to get booty.

Now what results from "the all" in is indeed unpredictable.  One person's definition of all in (if the victim doesn't get the upper hand) may be "they are stunned, take wallet and leave", where as another may be so violent they just stomp the victim into the pavement.

Also note I am talking about an out of the gate robbery.  There are also robberies that I think of as crimes of opportunity which as a bouncer I am sure you have dealt with.  Two people engage in a "bar fight", maybe in the parking lot.  When the fight is over the "winner" decided to take the "losers" wallet, watch, whatever.  Thing is that wasn't a robbery out of the gate, it was a fight between two people out of the gate that turned into a robbery at the end.  The motive behind the violence informs the nature of the violence.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> At no point did I say I only incorporate that.



Yeah, I don't think anybody did.  You train for different types of encounters.  An out of the gate robbery or sexual assault will have a different kind of violence behind it than someone looking to regain pride in a bar over an imagined slight after too much beer and they have to addressed differently in a civilian self defense context.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Yeah, I don't think anybody did.  You train for different types of encounters.  An out of the gate robbery or sexual assault will have a different kind of violence behind it than someone looking to regain pride in a bar over an imagined slight after too much beer and they have to addressed differently in a civilian self defense context.


An most of those (not all, but the extreme majority) will have far less self-control than a skilled fighter has during sparring.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> An most of those (not all, but the extreme majority) will have far less self-control than a skilled fighter has during sparring.



Definitely on the last bit.  Often in sparring you are going full speed using all your skill, but maybe only putting 50-75% force behind the techniques.  You don't want to "break" classmates.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> At no point did I say I only incorporate that.



*"This is one of those cases where what's needed for competition is different than the field, IMO. The guys Juany is dealing with probably aren't that patient, waiting for a prime opening. Probably not that well-trained or controlled, either."*

Now this whole conversation is based on the idea that juanny does not need to have a depth of fighting ability to handle more than one style of attack. That is not self defence but police work.

you certainly havent mentioned you have disagreed with that idea. And that reads like you are supporting it.

You haven't mentioned what you incorporate. instead trying to make a street sport distinction that isnt there.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Yeah, I don't think anybody did.  You train for different types of encounters.  An out of the gate robbery or sexual assault will have a different kind of violence behind it than someone looking to regain pride in a bar over an imagined slight after too much beer and they have to addressed differently in a civilian self defense context.



You addressed it specifically to non civilian use of force. 


. 
_* range I tend to "jam" the opponent up because if I am going from striking to "control" at work I find "jamming" up makes it easier to establish control. On the other hand a soft defense, while it creates an opening for for faster counter strike, doesn't permit for as easy a transition for control.

The visiting Master is WC only, and I want to make him happy of course doing what he sees as proper WC. At the same time thinking "will it make things difficult at work since you fight the way your train."*_


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> A few things.
> 
> When I speak of it from an officer perspective it is not just from the description of encounters of myself or fellow officers but from the crimes I have actually investigated.
> 
> Second, as for a script there is a general one on the larger scale, just like there is in life in general.  Psychology is what it is and there is a psychology to violence.  Because of this, depending on the circumstances surrounding an incident, you will have a lot of consistency in various factors of an encounter.  If this wasn't the case Forensic Behavioral Analysis wouldn't be a thing.  Now this doesn't mean you can predict the robbery suspect will have a knife, gun etc.  It doesn't mean you can predict exactly when and where they will strike.  But you can actually make a flow chart of sorts in a general sense.  A mind the to following...
> 
> Robber approaches victim.  Does Robber know victim?  If not does victim give in immediately and give up wallet?  If yes robber flees with booty.  If no robber goes all in to get booty.
> 
> Now what results from "the all" in is indeed unpredictable.  One person's definition of all in (if the victim doesn't get the upper hand) may be "they are stunned, take wallet and leave", where as another may be so violent they just stomp the victim into the pavement.
> 
> Also note I am talking about an out of the gate robbery.  There are also robberies that I think of as crimes of opportunity which as a bouncer I am sure you have dealt with.  Two people engage in a "bar fight", maybe in the parking lot.  When the fight is over the "winner" decided to take the "losers" wallet, watch, whatever.  Thing is that wasn't a robbery out of the gate, it was a fight between two people out of the gate that turned into a robbery at the end.  The motive behind the violence informs the nature of the violence.



You are cherry picking. There is more to self defence than bar fights and a specific mugging.

If you train for self defence rather than police work. You should train to address a range of threats. If you wanted to defend yourself say when not a police officer. Same idea applies.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> An most of those (not all, but the extreme majority) will have far less self-control than a skilled fighter has during sparring.



Why does that make a difference?

Your training should be able to incorporate skilled and unskilled fighters.

It would be silly to be taken apart by a guy because he didn't know how to fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> *"This is one of those cases where what's needed for competition is different than the field, IMO. The guys Juany is dealing with probably aren't that patient, waiting for a prime opening. Probably not that well-trained or controlled, either."*
> 
> Now this whole conversation is based on the idea that juanny does not need to have a depth of fighting ability to handle more than one style of attack. That is not self defence but police work.
> 
> you certainly havent mentioned you have disagreed with that idea. And that reads like you are supporting it.
> 
> You haven't mentioned what you incorporate. instead trying to make a street sport distinction that isnt there.


And nothing in my statement claims that anyone should ONLY prepare for "all-in". I made a statement about people involved in those situations are typically not well controlled. That's not "one style of attack", but a common characteristic of those attacks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Why does that make a difference?
> 
> Your training should be able to incorporate skilled and unskilled fighters.
> 
> It would be silly to be taken apart by a guy because he didn't know how to fight.


Sigh.

We've discussed this before. I'm not dragging the thread back through it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Sigh.
> 
> We've discussed this before. I'm not dragging the thread back through it.



Ok. new tact.

Why do you encourage people to be mediocre?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And nothing in my statement claims that anyone should ONLY prepare for "all-in". I made a statement about people involved in those situations are typically not well controlled. That's not "one style of attack", but a common characteristic of those attacks.



You are making the statement that you will only need to train for one style of attack in the field. Because people will probably attack in a certain manner.

see in response to me saying that you need to train for different attacks

Drop bear *The issue you get. And you get it in boxing as well. If you chase a guy to desperately close distance. You can get your face smashed into hamburger. So you need alternate strategies so that when you do chase and jam he is not waiting for it.

This guy exploited the hell out of that particular problem.
*
you responded with this.

Gpseymor. *This is one of those cases where what's needed for competition is different than the field, IMO. The guys Juany is dealing with probably aren't that patient, waiting for a prime opening. Probably not that well-trained or controlled, either.*

If you are making a different staement please clarify.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> Sigh.
> 
> We've discussed this before. I'm not dragging the thread back through it.



I agree with Bear. It would be very embarrassing to be taken apart by an amateur.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> Ok. new tact.
> 
> Why do you encourage people to be mediocre?



Fight or flight, most choose the latter irrespective of training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. new tact.
> 
> Why do you encourage people to be mediocre?


Why do you insist I do? You have made it quite clear in the last month that you REALLY don't like what you think it is that I do. You've made it equally clear that you REALLY don't know what I do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> I agree with Bear. It would be very embarrassing to be taken apart by an amateur.


And What have I said that implies I think otherwise?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Fight or flight, most choose the latter irrespective of training.


Evidence?


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> And What have I said that implies I think otherwise?



Well, good on you. A fight is a fight. You been in the mix?


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> Evidence?



Evidence. Take it this way. I don't care what you know. I don't care how care how you have trained. I don't care what you know.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Well, good on you. A fight is a fight. You been in the mix?


Was that meant to be a response to my question?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Evidence. Take it this way. I don't care what you know. I don't care how care how you have trained. I don't care what you know.


Was that supposed to be in support of your prior claim?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Why do you insist I do? You have made it quite clear in the last month that you REALLY don't like what you think it is that I do. You've made it equally clear that you REALLY don't know what I do.



It is a trend I have noticed with your posts. I will bring it up the next time you do it.

Because it kind of mystifies me a bit why you would. I mean I understand why some people would not take, or cant take the extra steps. But you argue against the existance of those extra steps.

For example here I have basically been arguing that you need a multi layered approach to fighting to adress a multi layered defence. I would assume it is pretty standard stuff.  So far you have suggested that in the street you will probably get a pretty predictable response.

Ok. Lets suggest that is minimum standard. Enough skill to get over some craptasic rage fighter. And that will probably get you further than doing nothing.

But why wouldn't you then take that training further and develop a game that handles a quality fighter who is intentionally trying to pick you apart?

They are stil a threat in the everywhere you could engage them.
*
You're reading my point backwards. I'm not saying a competitive fighter can't handle someone going all-in. I'm saying it's easier in some ways to handle the all-in guy. He's less in control, and in some ways more predictable. Someone who is pissed off at me will give me far more openings than you would if we were sparring.

My point was that there are things that are necessary when training for competition that aren't as necessary for a defensive situation. In effect, it's like if I trained to defend against a sword. Those defensive skills may be useful in defending against a stick, but I'll be training to an unnecessary standard: sticks don't cut.*

Training to an unnecessary standard?

You keep trying to suggest being a quality well developed fighter is some sort of competition specific skill?

And that is just not the case.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is a trend I have noticed with your posts. I will bring it up the next time you do it.
> 
> Because it kind of mystifies me a bit why you would. I mean I understand why some people would not take, or cant take the extra steps. But you argue against the existance of those extra steps.
> 
> For example here I have basically been arguing that you need a multi layered approach to fighting to adress a multi layered defence. I would assume it is pretty standard stuff.  So far you have suggested that in the street you will probably get a pretty predictable response.
> 
> Ok. Lets suggest that is minimum standard. Enough skill to get over some craptasic rage fighter. And that will probably get you further than doing nothing.
> 
> But why wouldn't you then take that training further and develop a game that handles a quality fighter who is intentionally trying to pick you apart?
> 
> They are stil a threat in the everywhere you could engage them.
> *
> You're reading my point backwards. I'm not saying a competitive fighter can't handle someone going all-in. I'm saying it's easier in some ways to handle the all-in guy. He's less in control, and in some ways more predictable. Someone who is pissed off at me will give me far more openings than you would if we were sparring.
> 
> My point was that there are things that are necessary when training for competition that aren't as necessary for a defensive situation. In effect, it's like if I trained to defend against a sword. Those defensive skills may be useful in defending against a stick, but I'll be training to an unnecessary standard: sticks don't cut.*
> 
> Training to an unnecessary standard?
> 
> You keep trying to suggest being a quality well developed fighter is some sort of competition specific skill?
> 
> And that is just not the case.


This is, once again, going back over material we've covered in the past. You pick up one thing I say we do, and ignore all the things I've said in the past. I'm not here to defend my practices against someone who doesn't bother to remember past discussions.

I do not take a one-layered approach. That much should be obvious from our prior discussions. I'll just leave it at that and let this thread return to its OT.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> Was that supposed to be in support of your prior claim?



Oh bugger forgot to reply. No, most will choose flight. Just a natural human condition. As for evidence for those stupid enough to go toe to toe, I can't supply that. However, I would say that no amount of training can mitigate the unsolicited amount of violence that can be wrought.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> This is, once again, going back over material we've covered in the past. You pick up one thing I say we do, and ignore all the things I've said in the past. I'm not here to defend my practices against someone who doesn't bother to remember past discussions.
> 
> I do not take a one-layered approach. That much should be obvious from our prior discussions. I'll just leave it at that and let this thread return to its OT.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Oh bugger forgot to reply. No, most will choose flight. Just a natural human condition. As for evidence for those stupid enough to go toe to toe, I can't supply that. However, I would say that no amount of training can mitigate the unsolicited amount of violence that can be wrought.


You said they would choose flight, regardless of training. Law enforcement experience seems to show the opposite. Very few law enforcement officers bolt when they experience danger the first time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


>


Once again, I'm not here to win. Yet another point you've forgotten.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> Once again, I'm not here to win. Yet another point you've forgotten.



Win on a forum. Whatever floats your boat. Bit sad really.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Win on a forum. Whatever floats your boat. Bit sad really.


Agreed. Forums are a chance to discuss, learn, gain understanding. Win? Not sure what the prize would be.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> You said they would choose flight, regardless of training. Law enforcement experience seems to show the opposite. Very few law enforcement officers bolt when they experience danger the first time.



Oh for crying out loud. I am not talking about LEO's. Climb down from you're pedestal from a moment and just listen.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> You said they would choose flight, regardless of training. Law enforcement experience seems to show the opposite. Very few law enforcement officers bolt when they experience danger the first time.



The prise is something that is not relevant. Unless of course you want to big yourself up on a forum.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Oh for crying out loud. I am not talking about LEO's. Climb down from you're pedestal from a moment and just listen.


What pedestal? I'm simply referring to a comment you made. Did I misunderstand the comment?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> The prise is something that is not relevant. Unless of course you want to big yourself up on a forum.


I'm not sure what the point of that would be, either.


----------



## Kickboxer101

gpseymour said:


> You said they would choose flight, regardless of training. Law enforcement experience seems to show the opposite. Very few law enforcement officers bolt when they experience danger the first time.


Thing is there though a police officer of course wouldn't bolt as its their job that's what they're being paid to do deal with dangerous situations and also while not bolting they'd still first try and talk down a dangerous situation rather than getting straight in and fighting with the guy.

I feel it works differently because if you or got into a dangerous situation fight or flight would just be instinct whatever our natural reaction is since we're not prepared for it to happen at that time so instinct will kick in. But police know what they're getting into they can get themselves into the correct mind frame when they get on duty or if they get called to a dangerous situation they have time to get themselves ready and focused for what they need to do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kickboxer101 said:


> Thing is there though a police officer of course wouldn't bolt as its their job that's what they're being paid to do deal with dangerous situations and also while not bolting they'd still first try and talk down a dangerous situation rather than getting straight in and fighting with the guy.
> 
> I feel it works differently because if you or got into a dangerous situation fight or flight would just be instinct whatever our natural reaction is since we're not prepared for it to happen at that time so instinct will kick in. But police know what they're getting into they can get themselves into the correct mind frame when they get on duty or if they get called to a dangerous situation they have time to get themselves ready and focused for what they need to do.


The original comment was that people would choose flight, regardless of training. I assumed that was a statement based on some evidence, so I asked. My point is that if it were true that people run, regardless of their training, there would be a large number of LEO's who bolted on their first dangerous call. The same would be true of bouncers, security guards, people entering competitions, etc. Now, if what was meant was that most people would choose to avoid a conflict rather than fighting, then I misunderstood the original comment.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> The original comment was that people would choose flight, regardless of training. I assumed that was a statement based on some evidence, so I asked. My point is that if it were true that people run, regardless of their training, there would be a large number of LEO's who bolted on their first dangerous call. The same would be true of bouncers, security guards, people entering competitions, etc. Now, if what was meant was that most people would choose to avoid a conflict rather than fighting, then I misunderstood the original comment.



Avoid a conflict yeah sure. Some of us don't share that. Avoid a fight yes, actually have some dick who actually thinks he can take you, that's different.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Avoid a conflict yeah sure. Some of us don't share that. Avoid a fight yes, actually have some dick who actually thinks he can take you, that's different.


Ah, if that was what you meant, then I'm with you. I didn't get that from the original post.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The original comment was that people would choose flight, regardless of training. I assumed that was a statement based on some evidence, so I asked. My point is that if it were true that people run, regardless of their training, there would be a large number of LEO's who bolted on their first dangerous call. The same would be true of bouncers, security guards, people entering competitions, etc. Now, if what was meant was that most people would choose to avoid a conflict rather than fighting, then I misunderstood the original comment.



Happens with bouncers a fair bit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Happens with bouncers a fair bit.


I'm guessing running away is not the predominant response, which was how I read his initial response.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm guessing running away is not the predominant response, which was how I read his initial response.



It depends. Fight and flight are not clear cut things.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It depends. Fight and flight are not clear cut things.


Agreed. They draw on the same physiological responses, for the most part.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. They draw on the same physiological responses, for the most part.



In that they are kind of running and fighting at the same time.


----------



## Buka

Seems like a thread of somewhat similar misinterprets. 

You guys need a group hug.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> Seems like a thread of somewhat similar misinterprets.
> 
> You guys need a group hug.


Aww...buncha pitties!


----------

