# Does training and sparring semi contact teach bad habits for self defence?



## GU55 (May 29, 2013)

Hi, so Id like to discuss a topic which has already been covered countless times in arguments all over the internet. I would like to avoid this descending into yet another and instead discuss it with fellow sensible adults, so with that in mind let me start by saying I do not wish to offend anyone with my views, I will put across the reasons behind my arguments and that I have respect for anyone who studies any martial arts style.I also apologise for the length of this post.
So Id like to talk about the effectiveness of martial arts in real life self defence  situations, and especially martial arts who spar semi contact as to those fighting styles where full contact is practised. 
I am a former ITF tae Kwon Do Black Belt who 2 years ago switched to training and fighting in Muay Thai. I have also had a little experience in boxing and kick boxing. The ITF Tae Kwon Do I did was semi contact, all others full contact. Whilst I studied TKD I always thought I could defend myself pretty well in a real fight, trusting that my skills would be enough to overcome an attacker unless they were much bigger or simply a better fighter than me, but the past 2 years of full contact Muay Thai has made me reconsider, and here is why.


When you train and spar semi contact it becomes second nature to do so, and although you tell yourself that if ever you had to you could perform the moves and strikes full contact against a would be attacker, it is much easier said than done. When I first started Muay Thai and started sparring the guys there, although I was getting hit harder than I ever had in TKD it took me a good few months before I started hitting back properly. Although I knew I was allowed to spar and hit harder, years of semi contact sparring left me simply flicking my kicks and pulling my punches as it was second nature. Simply, my point is that in order to be able to throw an effective punch, kick, knee etc  that will truly stop your opponent/would be attacker in their tracks or put them down, one has to train and spar this way.  When you spar semi contact you are training yourself not to do this. Whereas in styles where fighting is done full contact such as boxing, muay thai, MMA etc, you do. At the gym in training obviously it is not full on, but as you are training for a full contact bout, it is still much more intense and as much like a real fight as it is possible to get somewhat safely.
I cant really comment on other semi contact styles, but in TKD when it came to defense it was more a case of dodging than blocking most strikes. We were trained to keep a guard up of sorts, but nothing like the tight upper body and head guard one MUST keep up in a full contact bout to avoid getting KOd. The simple reason is that obviously if you are not getting hit hard the need for a good tight defensive guard is not as important or necessary. Training and fighting full contact teaches you that a good guard is vital in a fight, and it also teaches you how to take a hit if a strike does get through, which they inevitably will. If you have never fought full contact before, let me tell you its a real wake up call the first time you do. When someone starts throwing shots a you with the intention of knocking you out instead of simply scoring a point its a real shock to the system and you need to know how to deal with it. The only way to do that is to train in a similar fashion. The self defence moves we learnt in TKD where you would grab someones arm or try and lock them up I now realise are a complete waste of time, youd have better luck waving a fly swatter at a would be attacker.
The general training and conditioning when one trains to fight full contact as appose to practicing a semi contact martial art is totally different. You train almost like a pro athlete even at low level fights, so your fitness and endurance, and also your mental strength puts you in a much better position if ever faced to defending yourself in a real situation.
 
Now I am by no means saying that to train in a semi contact style is useless, far from it. Any training in any form of martial art or fighting style will put you in a much better position than having no such training at all. But I do think there are a lot of people out there who train in these styles that have far too much faith and belief in their abilities when training in such a way. I know I did, and it was not until the guys at the muay thai gym walked right through my flicky TKD kicks and planted me right in the face several hundred times that I started to re-consider. In order to be able to fight and be effective in a real self defence situation, you need to be able to throw full contact techniques. You need to know what it feels like to get hit full contact and how to deal with it when faced with a situation where getting hit could very easily leave you unconscious. Thats the point Im trying to make I guess. Students of these semi contact styles are taught that these techniques and styles will be effective if ever they are required to put them to use with real force to stop an opponent, but from my first hand experience I can say they really arent. I believe you fight how you train, and so to learn how to truly stop an opponent or a would be attacker, one has to train in a similar fashion, full contact, with force and power behind your strikes and techniques. If anyone feels differently or has trained in both semi and full contact styles then please let me know.


----------



## RTKDCMB (May 29, 2013)

GU55 said:


> Although I knew I was allowed to spar and hit  harder, years of semi contact sparring left me simply flicking my kicks  and pulling my punches as it was second nature. Simply, my point is that  in order to be able to throw an effective punch, kick, knee etc  that  will truly stop your opponent/would be attacker in their tracks or put  them down, one has to train and spar this way.  When you spar semi  contact you are training yourself not to do this.



You  can train to strike effectively using semi-contact or non-contact  sparring without flicking your kicks out and pulling your punches if you  learn the appropriate amount of control and distancing. If you are  training for sport you can still score points with a flicking kick or  pulled punch and that can carry over to full contact sparring if that is  what you are used to.



GU55 said:


> I cant really comment  on other semi contact styles, but in TKD when it came to defense it was  more a case of dodging than blocking most strikes. We were trained to  keep a guard up of sorts, but nothing like the tight upper body and head  guard one MUST keep up in a full contact bout to avoid getting KO&#8217;d.  The simple reason is that obviously if you are not getting hit hard the  need for a good tight defensive guard is not as important or necessary.  Training and fighting full contact teaches you that a good guard is  vital in a fight, and it also teaches you how to take a hit if a strike  does get through, which they inevitably will. If you have never fought  full contact before, let me tell you it&#8217;s a real wake up call the first  time you do. When someone starts throwing shots a you with the intention  of knocking you out instead of simply scoring a point it&#8217;s a real shock  to the system and you need to know how to deal with it. The only way to  do that is to train in a similar fashion. The self defence moves we  learnt in TKD where you would grab someone&#8217;s arm or try and lock them up  I now realise are a complete waste of time, you&#8217;d have better luck  waving a fly swatter at a would be attacker.



I can't  speak to the sport aspect, but for self defence having a good guard is  VITAL no matter if you spar with contact or not. If you don't have a  good guard during sparring then how do you expect to have one in a real  self defence situation. If you are training semi-contact or non-contact  if you drop your guard you can still get hit (something I was reminded  of during my brown belt grading 24 years ago). The self defence moves  you learnt during you TKD training are not a waste of time, you just  have practice them diligently and keep in mind the context to determine  when each one is appropriate  for a given situation.




GU55 said:


> But I do think there are a lot of people out there who train in these  styles that have far too much faith and belief in their abilities when  training in such a way.


That's not just the domain of semi-contact martial artists.



GU55 said:


> In order to be able to fight and be effective in a  real self defence situation, you need to be able to throw full contact  techniques.


No doubt but pad work can go along way to that end.



GU55 said:


> You need to know what it feels like to get hit full  contact and how to deal with it when faced with a situation where  getting hit could very easily leave you unconscious.


Not necessarily but you do have to keep that in mind every time a strike is thrown.



GU55 said:


> That&#8217;s  the point I&#8217;m trying to make I guess. Students of these semi contact  styles are taught that these techniques and styles will be effective if  ever they are required to put them to use with real force to stop an  opponent, but from my first hand experience I can say they really  aren&#8217;t. I believe you fight how you train, and so to learn how to truly  stop an opponent or a would be attacker, one has to train in a similar  fashion, full contact, with force and power behind your strikes and  techniques. If anyone feels differently or has trained in both semi and  full contact styles then please let me know.


Full contact  sparring also introduces its fair share of bad habits such as stopping  when there is an illegal target hit (accidental groin strike, eye poke,  headbutt, cut etc), some Muay Thai fighters will only condition one leg,  some martial artists will overbalance and just about fall over when they miss the target, intentionally taking hits to  get one in and only conditioning certain areas and neglecting others  (the back for example because it is not a scoring area) and there are  some areas you can't condition. Some full contact martial artists  believe that just because they can take a hit from a glove wearing body  armor that they can flesh on flesh in a real situation and that's not always the case.

You  make some good points but whatever contact level you train you have to  be aware of it's limitations and try to overcome them as best as you  can, there is no way to completely simulate real violence in training  (there is really no such thing as full contact training) because  whatever method you use will always have some element missing.


----------



## WingChunIan (May 30, 2013)

Having made a similar journey from TKD to MT and then on to Wing Chun I would agree with the original poster. Too many people who train in arts where there is only semi to light contact have way too much faith in what they can do. Generating power against kick shields, pads and breaking boards and bricks is not the same as having to generate the same amount of power against a moving target that is also trying to hit back. As for the defence side, much of what is taught in martial arts schools re grabbing punches out of the air or blocking and countering falls apart when someone throws full power combinations at you rather than the nice single punch that is so often trained. The only way to know if your guard \ defence is any good is to have someone genuinely trying to hit you with multiple shots. My Wing Chun training incorporates more full contact work than many because of lessons learned during those early years following the transition from TKD to MT.


----------



## MJS (May 30, 2013)

GU55 said:


> Hi, so I&#8217;d like to discuss a topic which has already been covered countless times in arguments all over the internet. I would like to avoid this descending into yet another and instead discuss it with fellow sensible adults, so with that in mind let me start by saying I do not wish to offend anyone with my views, I will put across the reasons behind my arguments and that I have respect for anyone who studies any martial arts style&#8230;&#8230;.I also apologise for the length of this post.
> So I&#8217;d like to talk about the effectiveness of martial arts in real life self defence  situations, and especially martial arts who spar semi contact as to those fighting styles where full contact is practised.
> I am a former ITF tae Kwon Do Black Belt who 2 years ago switched to training and fighting in Muay Thai. I have also had a little experience in boxing and kick boxing. The ITF Tae Kwon Do I did was semi contact, all others full contact. Whilst I studied TKD I always thought I could defend myself pretty well in a real fight, trusting that my skills would be enough to overcome an attacker unless they were much bigger or simply a better fighter than me, but the past 2 years of full contact Muay Thai has made me reconsider, and here is why.
> 
> ...



IMHO, the martial arts are about contact.  Sadly, in todays world, there're people who want to train, but are too afraid of contact.  Its my opinion that those folks should look for something else to do, because they probably won't be happy.  I know of many schools in which the teacher has said that the training is hard and not for everyone.  

As for your questions on contact.  I feel that there always has to be contact.  Sorry, but when you're not making ANY contact, you'll never know whether or not what you just did, will actually work.  How can you, when you're not hitting?  Now, the levels of contact can and IMO should be changed up, depending on what the focus is.  For example: During sparring, if you're working on a specific drill or technique, nothing says that you have to pound away, but instead, slow the pace down, have lighter contact, etc.  Of course, you're going to have to put some pressure on yourself to see if what you did slow, can actually be done fast, so yeah, then the pace and contact will have to be picked up.

For the past 2 yrs, after leaving the Kenpo that I've done for over 20, I've been training Kyokushin.  That was a huge difference from the sparring that I was so used to.  The contact was much harder, and the target areas, ie: getting used to kicking the legs, getting hit in the legs, and learning how to properly block those leg kicks.  The majority of our sparring sessions are very hard contact.  Recently, and I wasn't there for this particular class, but the entire class paired up with someone, and did a lighter contact round, only lasting about a minute, before rotating to a new partner.  IMO, this is good, and I wish I was there, because by doing that, it takes less of a toll on the body, but also allows the people to work on specific things.

The same can apply to your empty hand self defense as well.  Start off slow, make sure you're targeting the correct areas, etc, and then pick up the pace.  How can someone possibly know if they can actually deliver a hard shot or take one for that matter, if they never experience it?


----------



## MJS (May 30, 2013)

WingChunIan said:


> Having made a similar journey from TKD to MT and then on to Wing Chun I would agree with the original poster. Too many people who train in arts where there is only semi to light contact have way too much faith in what they can do. Generating power against kick shields, pads and breaking boards and bricks is not the same as having to generate the same amount of power against a moving target that is also trying to hit back. As for the defence side, much of what is taught in martial arts schools re grabbing punches out of the air or blocking and countering falls apart when someone throws full power combinations at you rather than the nice single punch that is so often trained. The only way to know if your guard \ defence is any good is to have someone genuinely trying to hit you with multiple shots. My Wing Chun training incorporates more full contact work than many because of lessons learned during those early years following the transition from TKD to MT.


Couldn't agree more with this!  It's amazing how I'd have students tell me that they got the technique down and are ready for more.  Yet somehow, that technique they knew so well, seems to fall apart rapidly, when I'd really try to hit them.


----------



## Cyriacus (May 30, 2013)

Learning to miss and learning to tap people is okay if its used as a side dish to more useful training.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 30, 2013)

GU55 said:


> Hi, so I&#8217;d like to discuss a topic which has already been covered countless times in arguments all over the internet. I would like to avoid this descending into yet another and instead discuss it with fellow sensible adults, so with that in mind let me start by saying I do not wish to offend anyone with my views, I will put across the reasons behind my arguments and that I have respect for anyone who studies any martial arts style&#8230;&#8230;.I also apologise for the length of this post.
> So I&#8217;d like to talk about the effectiveness of martial arts in real life self defence  situations, and especially martial arts who spar semi contact as to those fighting styles where full contact is practised.
> I am a former ITF tae Kwon Do Black Belt who 2 years ago switched to training and fighting in Muay Thai. I have also had a little experience in boxing and kick boxing. The ITF Tae Kwon Do I did was semi contact, all others full contact. Whilst I studied TKD I always thought I could defend myself pretty well in a real fight, trusting that my skills would be enough to overcome an attacker unless they were much bigger or simply a better fighter than me, but the past 2 years of full contact Muay Thai has made me reconsider, and here is why.
> 
> ...



As you've put this in the Self Defence forum, I thought I'd answer in that vein... everything you're talking about is sports based. All sparring teaches bad habits for self defence. Can the skills transfer? Absolutely. But the reality is that sports training is great for sports applications, and self defence training is better for self defence... and confusing the two leads to many false assumptions and bad habits, regardless of the level of contact.

As to the question of light/semi-contact versus "full" contact (whatever that is in the context... I was teaching knife defence tonight, with quite a fair bit of pressure testing, but to do that with "full contact", especially with knives, would be a bit, well, unrealistic and foolhardy, to say the least...), honestly, I don't think that's the major defining factor. I'd say that what's more important is that skills are tested (under pressure) in the right context... that can get very serious even before we get to high levels of contact.


----------



## jks9199 (May 30, 2013)

One of the biggest dangers of sparring with regards to self defense, in my opinion, is that it teaches you a very bad habit of re-engaging.  In a self defense situation, you want to deal with the attack, and then deter further attack while you get away to safety.  For those like cops, who have a duty to arrest, it's modified to control the subject, and I'm not addressing legal issues of appropriate force with this -- just the general concept of self defense.  In sparring, especially light to medium contact -- you do the opposite.  You move in, score, move out, then repeat.  I'm not going to try to dig it up, but there's a YouTube video of a security guard fighting someone.  The guard looks great; good stance, nice movement, good kicks & strikes, etc., and the fight goes on for a couple of minutes.  Except he was in a real situation, not a sparring match.  He failed to effectively move in and control the subject because he was "fighting."


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 30, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> You  can train to strike effectively using semi-contact or non-contact  sparring without flicking your kicks out and pulling your punches *if you  learn the appropriate amount of control and distancing.* If you are  training for sport you can still score points with a flicking kick or  pulled punch and that can carry over to full contact sparring if that is  what you are used to.
> 
> ...
> 
> You  make some good points but whatever contact level you train you have to  be aware of it's limitations and try to overcome them as best as you  can, there is no way to completely simulate real violence in training  (there is really no such thing as full contact training) *because  whatever method you use will always have some element missing.*



1st bolded comment:  I think that is what is missing from the answers here: Control.  That implies distance as well.  As I was taught TKD, the reason for control was that if you were good enough to stop a full force move a fraction of an inch from a person, you could stop a couple of inches inside the person if you wished.  We were also taught to know what type of fight we were in.  

2nd bolded comment:  I think that goes back to the type of training and control.



Chris Parker said:


> As you've put this in the Self Defence forum, I thought I'd answer in that vein... everything you're talking about is sports based. All sparring teaches bad habits for self defence. Can the skills transfer? Absolutely. But the reality is that sports training is great for sports applications, and self defence training is better for self defence... and confusing the two leads to many false assumptions and bad habits, regardless of the level of contact.
> 
> As to the question of light/semi-contact versus "full" contact (whatever that is in the context... I was teaching knife defence tonight, with quite a fair bit of pressure testing, but to do that with "full contact", especially with knives, would be a bit, well, unrealistic and foolhardy, to say the least...), honestly, I don't think that's the major defining factor. I'd say that what's more important is that skills are tested (under pressure) in the right context... that can get very serious even before we get to high levels of contact.



Your point of context of a fight/contest is well taken by me.  One needs to know what type of fight they are in and respond to that type of fight.  You have to prepare yourself mentally for the differences and apply different responses.

Some use rubber knives.  The point is to avoid contact with the 'edged weapon,' not whether it is real or not.



jks9199 said:


> One of the biggest dangers of sparring with regards to self defense, in my opinion, is that it teaches you a very bad habit of re-engaging.  In a self defense situation, you want to deal with the attack, and then deter further attack while you get away to safety.  For those like cops, who have a duty to arrest, it's modified to control the subject, and I'm not addressing legal issues of appropriate force with this -- just the general concept of self defense.  In sparring, especially light to medium contact -- you do the opposite.  You move in, score, move out, then repeat.  I'm not going to try to dig it up, but there's a YouTube video of a security guard fighting someone.  The guard looks great; good stance, nice movement, good kicks & strikes, etc., and the fight goes on for a couple of minutes.  Except he was in a real situation, not a sparring match.  He failed to effectively move in and control the subject because he was "fighting."



Good comment.  I think you really bring out the point that one needs to know the kind of fight/contest one is in, and how to react to that type of fight/contest.  Training, sparing, self defense, subduing enough to effect an arrest, all are different and require different responses.  One needs to train oneself what is appropriate for each different one.  I would also say that imo, re-engaging is the forte of sports MA and dojang sparing.  SD usually teaches to end things as quickly as possible.  That might be totally incapacitating a person, or inflicting pain or injury that allows the victim to run safely away. 

As you said, you have to modify that in your job.


----------



## lklawson (May 30, 2013)

MJS said:


> IMHO, the martial arts are about contact.


Doesn't that kinda depend upon what *your goals* in training are?  Are you saying that a person who is old and frail or disabled in some way can't "do real martial arts" because they can't take a hit?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 30, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> One of the biggest dangers of sparring with regards to self defense, in my opinion, is that it teaches you a very bad habit of re-engaging.  In a self defense situation, you want to deal with the attack, and then deter further attack while you get away to safety.


What if you're interested in Self *Offense* instead of Self Defense?  You wouldn't be as interested in negating the attack and then disengaging with that strategy.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jks9199 (May 30, 2013)

lklawson said:


> What if you're interested in Self *Offense* instead of Self Defense?  You wouldn't be as interested in negating the attack and then disengaging with that strategy.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Different question, different situation.  Let's assume we're talking pre-emptive use of force.  Your goal there is still, in response to a perceived threat, to do sufficient damage to deter an attack, and enable you to escape safely.  If you're a cop or other person with similar duty to act, the difference is still that you want to do enough to control the person, and no more.

And if you're just looking to go kick some ***...  Well, that's a whole different kettle of fish!


----------



## RTKDCMB (May 30, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> I'm not going to try to dig it up, but there's a YouTube video of a security guard fighting someone.  The guard looks great; good stance, nice movement, good kicks & strikes, etc., and the fight goes on for a couple of minutes.  Except he was in a real situation, not a sparring match.  He failed to effectively move in and control the subject because he was "fighting."



I saw that video and I agree with you, the guard's 'fighting' was not very efficient.


----------



## Zero (May 31, 2013)

A lot of the orig author's post and responding comments are about the ability to actually take a hit and dish out a full contact, effective hit.  I have to agree that being experienced in full contact does better prepare you for a "real" fight or on the street physical confrontation and that a lot of sport/point fighters or MAs that do not pressure test their style (I would be inclined to say this applies to many, many clubs) are living in a dream.  But this is only half (or less) the equation of good SD skills and what SD is really about.  When I have trained on SD aspects, and not just tournament fighting to rules of that MA/sport, this has ranged from situational awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, physical action and beyond any actual physical action taken.  The "fight" is only a small part of many SD situations and (while you better get it right if this happens) this is actually the part you want to avoid the most.    

In a full on fight I would agree that a full contact fighter is going to generally be in a better position to acquit themselves and hopefully end things quicker.  Unfortunately many of the full contact skills or "mind sets" can get you in trouble.  Too much eagerness to engage without scoping the situation or surroundings or the weapons which may be on hand or in the possession of your assailent just for one.  There have been very unfortunate occurrences in the recent past where very highly ranked/able full contact sport fighters have met with untimely death or injury due to actually engaging in what was a life and death situation (and not realising it) where a lesser fighter but more "SD aware" practitioner would have not engaged or descalated/avoided.

My TKD and judo training never touched on SD or "real world". Interestingly, in the two years I took WC, the club I was at never really touched on SD either - much to my surprise. I have also trained at muay thai clubs and SD is non-existent.  It was only when I started goju ryu where the training curriculum included SD and weapons defence.  Also one of the sensei was a LEO and worked extensively in the court cells and we had a high level jujitsu practitioner who had a company that taught SD and trained security guards etc and these guys were genuinely interested in "on the street" skills. I am so glad I got to know these guys and had my eyes opened.


----------



## MJS (May 31, 2013)

lklawson said:


> Doesn't that kinda depend upon what *your goals* in training are?  Are you saying that a person who is old and frail or disabled in some way can't "do real martial arts" because they can't take a hit?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



This implies that the arts should be molded to what the student wants.  Stories that I've read and heard from people, I get the impression that the training was nothing like it is today, which in many cases, is watered down.  As for the goals...well, sure, some people use the arts for other things, ie: to meet new people, make friends, weight loss, etc.  IMO, those are side benefits.  I dont use the MAs to lose weight, I use a gym.  Sure, weight loss is a side benefit, but thats not my goal.  

As for the other...did old, frail people train years ago?  I dont know, however, if they train today, perhaps they should look for something that suits them best.  I mean, would you expect the MMA gym, Kyokushin dojo, to modify their training for 1 person?  This is why things needed to change, because some schools are more concerned with the $$, rather than quality.  Can't have too much contact because little Joey might get hurt.


----------



## MJS (May 31, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> As you've put this in the Self Defence forum, I thought I'd answer in that vein... everything you're talking about is sports based. All sparring teaches bad habits for self defence. Can the skills transfer? Absolutely. But the reality is that sports training is great for sports applications, and self defence training is better for self defence... and confusing the two leads to many false assumptions and bad habits, regardless of the level of contact.
> 
> As to the question of light/semi-contact versus "full" contact (whatever that is in the context... I was teaching knife defence tonight, with quite a fair bit of pressure testing, but to do that with "full contact", especially with knives, would be a bit, well, unrealistic and foolhardy, to say the least...), honestly, I don't think that's the major defining factor. I'd say that what's more important is that skills are tested (under pressure) in the right context... that can get very serious even before we get to high levels of contact.



One thing that I'd do with my SD techs is have the attacker do more than 1 thing, and resist a bit.  IE: A preset tech against a rt. hand lapel grab.  While the defender is defending, the attacker does something to offset the defense, ie: grab with his other hand, punch, etc.  This can, unless its watched carefully, can turn into somewhat of a sparring match.  

IMO though, while I do see your point, as we've had these discussions before, I feel that the sparring offers some things that just working techs, doesn't, some of those things being stamina and the ability to take a shot as well as give one, with movement.


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 31, 2013)

To train self-defense you need your partners to simulate real attacking energy and not try to box you or spar with you. That&#8217;s a competitive mentality. In self-defense  it is different and you have someone attacking someone else the whole time until it is over.
When the attack stops the self-defense stops, if you keep going you get into mutual fighting territory which I would still say sparring is not the best option for. Sparring in all its forms is about proving you are better. Combat is about seriously damaging or capturing somebody, and self-defense is about escape.
Personally, I think the best tool for training self-defense realistically is to emotionally charge your training.In a real confrontation there are going to be a lot of feelings of anxiety,anger, fear, indignation, the list goes on. Practicing in those states of mind will be beneficial  when you enter them for real if such a thing ever happens to you.


----------



## RTKDCMB (May 31, 2013)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Sparring in all its forms is about proving you are better.


Competition sparring maybe. For me sparring is about learning and practicing attack and defence physically and mentally.


----------



## Cyriacus (May 31, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> For me sparring is about learning and practicing attack and defence physically and mentally.



So when you spar with one another, you gang up on one person and beat his or her head against the floor?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 31, 2013)

Light-contact sparring is a valid training tool, but it works a lot better when the participants have experience sparring/fighting full-contact.  When I do light-contact sparring with training partners who are used to hard-contact sparring, they understand how to keep the distancing and the body mechanics realistic.  When I do light-contact sparring with training partners who aren't used to hard contact, they have a tendency to play "tag" from out of range with unrealistic/ineffective strikes.

Light contact sparring is useful because you can only do so many rounds of hard-contact sparring in a week before your body starts to break down.  Adding light-contact sparring allows you to spend extra time developing your reflexes and timing without tearing your body down.  However, that only works if you understand realistic distance and body mechanics.

As others have noted, sparring in general is not an accurate simulation of most self-defense situations.  Sparring can be (if you do it right) a pretty good simulation of a certain type of fighting - a one on one "duel" or "challenge match."  That is very different from most self-defense situations where the goals and skills of the different participants are asymmetric. Still, a foundation in hard-contact sparring can build attributes and skills which are very useful in a self-defense situation.  The trick is to not bring over certain aspects of the sparring tactical mindset to a self-defense situation where they may be counterproductive.


----------



## RTKDCMB (May 31, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> So when you spar with one another, you gang up on one person and beat his or her head against the floor?



Only on Tuesdays.


----------



## Cyriacus (May 31, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> Only on Tuesdays.



Oh, you


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 1, 2013)

MJS said:


> One thing that I'd do with my SD techs is have the attacker do more than 1 thing, and resist a bit.  IE: A preset tech against a rt. hand lapel grab.  While the defender is defending, the attacker does something to offset the defense, ie: grab with his other hand, punch, etc.  This can, unless its watched carefully, can turn into somewhat of a sparring match.


 
And do you think that such methods (adding the unscripted) can only be seen in sparring? Or that it's not present in (well done) self defence training...? My biggest caveat, though, is that the "added actions" need to be realistic... I see, rather frequently, unrealistic additions, usually what people "think" might be possible, rather than what is realistically going to be encountered... so without taking that into account, there's really little point adding the extra aspects. 



MJS said:


> IMO though, while I do see your point, as we've had these discussions before, I feel that the sparring offers some things that just working techs, doesn't, some of those things being stamina and the ability to take a shot as well as give one, with movement.



Again, I'd say that such things are also present in properly addressed self defence training... with the exception that the way they are addressed is specific to the needs of self defence itself, rather than having them there as a by-product of training designed with a different emphasis, and hope they transfer without the less-desirable traits. Personally, I'd rather do something that's 100% geared towards my aims, rather than something that is geared towards something else, with, say, 20% (being generous) that can transfer across.

Oh, and I might have something to send to you soon....


----------



## MJS (Jun 1, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> And do you think that such methods (adding the unscripted) can only be seen in sparring? Or that it's not present in (well done) self defence training...? My biggest caveat, though, is that the "added actions" need to be realistic... I see, rather frequently, unrealistic additions, usually what people "think" might be possible, rather than what is realistically going to be encountered... so without taking that into account, there's really little point adding the extra aspects.



Hey Chris,

No, I do not believe that unscripted methods can only be done in sparring.  I've personally said many times, that I'm a huge fan of spontaneous training, and that when I was teaching, I'd openly say to the students, not to fall back on the preset techniques, but instead to train your basics, get damn good at them, and be prepared to respond accordingly.  

As for the need for the added things to be realistic...agreed 100%.  IMHO, I think that grabbing someone and punching with the other hand, or grabbing and trying to slam them into the nearest wall, is more realistic than the badguy just grabbing and standing there like a statue, like we see in many cases.  





> Again, I'd say that such things are also present in properly addressed self defence training... with the exception that the way they are addressed is specific to the needs of self defence itself, rather than having them there as a by-product of training designed with a different emphasis, and hope they transfer without the less-desirable traits. Personally, I'd rather do something that's 100% geared towards my aims, rather than something that is geared towards something else, with, say, 20% (being generous) that can transfer across.



Good points.  So basically, in your opinion, sparring as we typically know it, is not good for anything?



> Oh, and I might have something to send to you soon....



Looking forward to it.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 1, 2013)

MJS said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> No, I do not believe that unscripted methods can only be done in sparring.  I've personally said many times, that I'm a huge fan of spontaneous training, and that when I was teaching, I'd openly say to the students, not to fall back on the preset techniques, but instead to train your basics, get damn good at them, and be prepared to respond accordingly.


 
Sure... but that's not quite what I was meaning. Good scenario training can be completely unscripted... really, all that's needed there is a clear understanding of the aims (different for different people; attackers/aggressors will have a different aim to the defending student, for example)... but no need for anything to be set. No need for sparring at all, when self defence is the aim. 



MJS said:


> As for the need for the added things to be realistic...agreed 100%.  IMHO, I think that grabbing someone and punching with the other hand, or grabbing and trying to slam them into the nearest wall, is more realistic than the badguy just grabbing and standing there like a statue, like we see in many cases.



Sure... but you need to take into account what "realistic" actually is... what's often seen as "resistance" is just plainly unrealistic. Looking at the idea of "grabbing and punching" being more realistic than just "grabbing and standing like a statue", that really needs a lot more context. And it's up to the instructor to both understand what that context is, and how to ensure that the students understand it. There's a clip doing the rounds (you would have seen it on a facebook page we're both on....) of a Judo guy having a "bad day"... and, honestly, the "Judo" guy doesn't really get how what he's trying to show really works, and the BJJ guy is just being a jerk (and, well, it's obviously a set-up anyway). With both participants, there's a real disconnect of the context, which is why it goes so badly.

Within our arts, there are Kihon (basics) for a particular wrist lock/control, which is initially taught against someone "just grabbing and standing there"... and the context is learning the basic mechanics and principles. Then it gets trained against a grab-and-punch attack... and teaches another series of principles based on a different context. Often, when it's just "grab and stand", it's teaching methods of distracting and unbalancing, as well as teaching a timing (almost pre-emptive) of moving before any continuation of the attack can occur.... and, when it's "grab and hit", it's teaching to take advantage of the opening the attacker has provided, with less need of a distraction, and a different timing (between the attack, rather than before it). And, really, both are as realistic as each other.... but neither are really "realistic" representations of violence... more "symbolic" representations of it. Which is fine, provided the context is understood, and one isn't mistaken for the other.

Once these contexts, and reasons for such methods and the way they're designed, are understood, then you can move onto more "realistic" representations of violence... but it needs to be realized what is actually realistic in the first place. And grabbing and slamming you into a wall is... sometimes... but at other times, it's just not. Standing like a statue, though, just isn't.



MJS said:


> Good points.  So basically, in your opinion, sparring as we typically know it, is not good for anything?



For self defence? No, it's not. Bluntly.



MJS said:


> Looking forward to it.



Give me a bit on that... gotta get my head around some technology a bit more advanced than a stick or sword... hmm....


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 1, 2013)

Sparring is a means of practicing the learned techniques against an opponent.  It does teach some things (timing, distance, continuing an attack or response in an unscripted manner situation for example), and it exposes the practitioner to some sorts of pressure.  But it's NOT the only way to practice those things.  And it is fun... 

Sparring also encourages unrealistic ideas, based on the rules agreed on.  Sometimes, things that work well in sparring are not practical or smart in responding to real violence.  As I said previously, one of the biggest examples of this, in my opinion, is the idea of repeatedly re-engaging with the opponent.

Other ways to practice many of these things include partner drills done with appropriate intensity and increasing randomness, scenario training, slow training, and I'm quite certain there are others.


----------



## MJS (Jun 1, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Sure... but that's not quite what I was meaning. Good scenario training can be completely unscripted... really, all that's needed there is a clear understanding of the aims (different for different people; attackers/aggressors will have a different aim to the defending student, for example)... but no need for anything to be set. No need for sparring at all, when self defence is the aim.



Agreed, and I didn't mean to imply anything when I was talking about the preset SD techs.  My point in mentioning that, was simply that many times, people don't do any scenario/spontaneous training, instead, only relying on the set techs that're requred for each belt level.  IMO, only doing that, is limiting the students ability to think outside of the box.  





> Sure... but you need to take into account what "realistic" actually is... what's often seen as "resistance" is just plainly unrealistic. Looking at the idea of "grabbing and punching" being more realistic than just "grabbing and standing like a statue", that really needs a lot more context. And it's up to the instructor to both understand what that context is, and how to ensure that the students understand it. There's a clip doing the rounds (you would have seen it on a facebook page we're both on....) of a Judo guy having a "bad day"... and, honestly, the "Judo" guy doesn't really get how what he's trying to show really works, and the BJJ guy is just being a jerk (and, well, it's obviously a set-up anyway). With both participants, there's a real disconnect of the context, which is why it goes so badly.



LOL, yeah, I've seen the clip posted but havent watched it.  I'm going to have to do that now.  But yes, I agree...the resistance needs to be realistic.  



> Within our arts, there are Kihon (basics) for a particular wrist lock/control, which is initially taught against someone "just grabbing and standing there"... and the context is learning the basic mechanics and principles. Then it gets trained against a grab-and-punch attack... and teaches another series of principles based on a different context. Often, when it's just "grab and stand", it's teaching methods of distracting and unbalancing, as well as teaching a timing (almost pre-emptive) of moving before any continuation of the attack can occur.... and, when it's "grab and hit", it's teaching to take advantage of the opening the attacker has provided, with less need of a distraction, and a different timing (between the attack, rather than before it). And, really, both are as realistic as each other.... but neither are really "realistic" representations of violence... more "symbolic" representations of it. Which is fine, provided the context is understood, and one isn't mistaken for the other.
> 
> Once these contexts, and reasons for such methods and the way they're designed, are understood, then you can move onto more "realistic" representations of violence... but it needs to be realized what is actually realistic in the first place. And grabbing and slamming you into a wall is... sometimes... but at other times, it's just not. Standing like a statue, though, just isn't.



Yeah, we have the same type of set up in Kenpo.  The problem that I"ve seen, is that all that we ever see, is the statue.  This is why, (and don't hit me on the head when you read this...lol) Ras was such an advocate of his training.  Now, I may not agree with all of this methods, ideas, etc, but I think you see where I'm trying to go with this.  Now, I'm not against the statue training.  IMHO, that is needed in the beginning.  But afterwards, it needs to expand.  





> For self defence? No, it's not. Bluntly.



Ok, thanks. 





> Give me a bit on that... gotta get my head around some technology a bit more advanced than a stick or sword... hmm....



LOL..you got it.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 2, 2013)

MJS said:


> Agreed, and I didn't mean to imply anything when I was talking about the preset SD techs.  My point in mentioning that, was simply that many times, people don't do any scenario/spontaneous training, instead, only relying on the set techs that're requred for each belt level.  IMO, only doing that, is limiting the students ability to think outside of the box.



Ha, yeah. To me, that's not self defence training, though... that's just learning by rote.



MJS said:


> LOL, yeah, I've seen the clip posted but havent watched it.  I'm going to have to do that now.  But yes, I agree...the resistance needs to be realistic.



Just to let everyone else see what we're talking about, here it is:






But, more to the point, resistance itself actually isn't realistic. Reaction and response is. Resistance is something you get in a sporting competition and context.



MJS said:


> Yeah, we have the same type of set up in Kenpo.  The problem that I"ve seen, is that all that we ever see, is the statue.  This is why, (and don't hit me on the head when you read this...lol) Ras was such an advocate of his training.  Now, I may not agree with all of this methods, ideas, etc, but I think you see where I'm trying to go with this.  Now, I'm not against the statue training.  IMHO, that is needed in the beginning.  But afterwards, it needs to expand.



I think I was on record a number of times telling Ras that he had some of the right ideas, but didn't have the education/ability to genuinely apply it. I liked his approach (frankly, I took it as more "standard", certainly not as rare as he made it out to be...), but his execution of it was lacking in many respects. That's where we had our issues, really. When it comes to the "statue" training, I think the biggest issue is that it's taken as "the way things are done", without any real understanding of the reasons it's done that way... such as the fact that it's not actually meant to be done "like a statue", when all's said and done.



MJS said:


> Ok, thanks.



Ha, maybe a little more clarification....

Sparring does have a lot of benefits, a number of which have been listed... but it's a specific training method designed for a particular context, which makes it suited to some things, but not others. For example, it's a method of training against a similarly skilled person (or at least, one with a similar skill set), with both working towards the same aim. As such, it encourages constant engagement (and re-engagement), as well as engendering an (unconscious) expectation that the opponent will have a particular set of skills and tactics, employ a similar distancing, and so on. These aspects are actually the exact opposite of what is needed for realistic self defence training, when it comes down to it.

When it comes to the benefits that can be transferred from sparring to self defence (such as handling a less-predictable attack), stamina training (although I'd say that's less important than dealing with the "gassing" effect of adrenaline... related, but different), ability to apply techniques under pressure etc, they can all be achieved in properly done scenario training, which is a method that gives all of the benefits of sparring, but better suited to self defence, and removes all of the drawbacks. Again, though, it all comes down to context.... and, in the context of self defence training, sparring is just as harmful as beneficial. Possibly more so.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Jun 2, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> Competition sparring maybe. For mesparring is about learning and practicing attack and defence physically andmentally.


Sparring to me always elicits a sense of back and forth exchanges which is not condusive to self-defense training as that is not realistic. Having a committed attacker with some unpredictability fits more along the lines of randori to me. 
We may actually be thinking of the same thing, I just find it necessary to differentiate the two because of how sparring is commonly used.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Jun 2, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> But, more to the point, resistance itself actually isn't realistic. Reaction and response is. Resistance is something you get in a sporting competition and context.



Dude. What an *******. Of course you can resist things when you know exactly what is happening. That is the best example of being a horrible uke that I've ever seen.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 2, 2013)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Sparring to me always elicits a sense of back and forth exchanges which is not condusive to self-defense training as that is not realistic. Having a committed attacker with some unpredictability fits more along the lines of randori to me.
> We may actually be thinking of the same thing, I just find it necessary to differentiate the two because of how sparring is commonly used.


  There are back and forth exchanges during sparring because it is a bit more drawn out than actual self defence where it is necessary to try to eliminate the physical threat on the first engagement, assuming of course you have not had the opportunity to avoid the conflict by other means in the first place. What sparring does for self defence is gives you experience at dealing with punches, strikes and kicks coming at you in an unstaged manner.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 2, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> There are back and forth exchanges during sparring because it is a bit more drawn out than actual self defence where it is necessary to try to eliminate the physical threat on the first engagement, assuming of course you have not had the opportunity to avoid the conflict by other means in the first place. What sparring does for self defence is gives you experience at dealing with punches, strikes and kicks coming at you in an unstaged manner.



Which can just be done as its own exercise, with benefits rather than expenses.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 2, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Which can just be done as its own exercise, with benefits rather than expenses.



Sparring doesn't cost anything - that's why it is called "free sparring".


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 2, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> Sparring doesn't cost anything - that's why it is called "free sparring".



That isnt what i was talking about, but hey. Free sparring costs whatever youre paying the instructor, if youre doing it in an outlet.


----------



## martial sparrer (Jun 2, 2013)

I was just thinking this today.....I agree yes it can effect self defense.....with self defense....YOU DONT STOP UNTIL!  when my training partner is bent over clutching himself....I always remember....that if this was self defense I would keep on going with a thai plum and knees to his head....and then maybe ground and pound


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 3, 2013)

martial sparrer said:


> I was just thinking this today.....I agree yes it can effect self defense.....with self defense....YOU DONT STOP UNTIL!  when my training partner is bent over clutching himself....I always remember....that if this was self defense I would keep on going with a thai plum and knees to his head....and then maybe ground and pound



A position you put him in during an exchange of favorable conditions. *claps*


----------



## Aiki Lee (Jun 3, 2013)

martial sparrer said:


> I was just thinking this today.....I agre eyes it can effect self defense.....with self defense....YOU DONT STOP UNTIL!when my training partner is bent over clutching himself....I alwaysremember....that if this was self defense I would keep on going with a thaiplum and knees to his head....and then maybe ground and pound



If you end with a ground and pound it will no longer be self defense. It will be battery and you are now the attacker.




RTKDCMB said:


> There are back and forth exchanges during sparring because it is a bit more drawn out than actual self defence where it is necessary to try to eliminate the physical threat on the first engagement,assuming of course you have not had the opportunity to avoid the conflict byother means in the first place. What sparring does for self defence is gives you experience at dealing with punches, strikes and kicks coming at you in an unstaged manner.


What I was getting at is that in self-defense the attacker should not be defending at any point. He may react to attempts to stop him, but he will not be thinking of defending. Self-defense is very one sided with the attacker focused only on what he wants to do to his victim. If the plan does not workout for him he will leave. Randori training is more appropriate for this than sparring in my opinion.
Situations that start as self-defense can change to mutual combat, and can look a bit like sparring as now both peoples egos refuse to let them leave. Thats where you get slug fests.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 3, 2013)

martial sparrer said:


> I was just thinking this today.....I agree yes it can effect self defense.....with self defense....YOU DONT STOP UNTIL!  when my training partner is bent over clutching himself....I always remember....that if this was self defense I would keep on going with a thai plum and knees to his head....and then maybe ground and pound



Yeah... as Himura said, that's not self defence. It's jail time here. Knees to the head can generate some major damage, and can easily be seen as disproportionate, ground and pound shows that you are already on top (dominant), and in control, in which case, you have moved from being the defender to the aggressor... again, that's jail time. Oh, and if your training partner is "bent over clutching himself".... you might need to reconsider the training methodology you're using. Finally, no matter what you consciously think you'd do (or what you "always remember"), that's very different to what you'd actually do. Such imaginings, which can be useful, are more about macho posturing and fantasy than any reality, I gotta say.



Himura Kenshin said:


> What I was getting at is that in self-defense the attacker should not be defending at any point. He may react to attempts to stop him, but he will not be thinking of defending. Self-defense is very one sided with the attacker focused only on what he wants to do to his victim. If the plan does not workout for him he will leave. Randori training is more appropriate for this than sparring in my opinion.
> Situations that start as self-defense can change to mutual combat, and can look a bit like sparring as now both people&#8217;s egos refuse to let them leave. That&#8217;s where you get slug fests.



Just to clarify, randori can also mean different things... including the more usual "sparring".... so you know...


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 3, 2013)

Himura Kenshin said:


> If you end with a ground and pound it will no longer be self defense. It will be battery and you are now the attacker.
> 
> 
> What I was getting at is that in self-defense the attacker should not be defending at any point. He may react to attempts to stop him, but he will not be thinking of defending. Self-defense is very one sided with the attacker focused only on what he wants to do to his victim. If the plan does not workout for him he will leave. Randori training is more appropriate for this than sparring in my opinion.
> Situations that start as self-defense can change to mutual combat, and can look a bit like sparring as now both people&#8217;s egos refuse to let them leave. That&#8217;s where you get slug fests.



I won't categorically state that shifting to a ground & pound mode would move into assault -- but you'd have to be able to justify continuing your offense as being necessary to safely resolve the situation.  Justifying use of force is a big topic, and it's covered in several other threads, so I'm not digressing too deeply into it here.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 3, 2013)

Sure... I can think of a few circumstances... but, as a "standard" go to as a self defence mentality, I feel it's quite a dangerous one to get towards.....


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 3, 2013)

martial sparrer said:


> I was just thinking this today.....I agree yes it can effect self defense.....with self defense....YOU DONT STOP UNTIL!  when my training partner is bent over clutching himself....I always remember....that if this was self defense I would keep on going with a thai plum and knees to his head....and then maybe ground and pound



For self defence the last place you want to be is on the ground as it would severely limit your mobility and ability to escape or deal with his friend who sees you on top of his mate pounding away. If you have to keep going with knees to the head and then ground and pound then you would not be very efficient in defending yourself


----------



## lklawson (Jun 4, 2013)

MJS said:


> This implies that the arts should be molded to what the student wants.   Stories that I've read and heard from people, I get the impression that  the training was nothing like it is today, which in many cases, is  watered down.  As for the goals...well, sure, some people use the arts  for other things, ie: to meet new people, make friends, weight loss,  etc.  IMO, those are side benefits.  I dont use the MAs to lose weight, I  use a gym.  Sure, weight loss is a side benefit, but thats not my goal.


Not really.  The OP *assumes* martial arts are about "Self Defense."  Martial arts aren't always about Self Defense.  Sometimes they're about Dueling.  Spanish rapier, Destreza, is about dueling against another rapier, not "Self Defense" against random, poorly defined attackers.   Sometimes, they're about melee combat.  Naval Cutlas was about boarding ships, repelling boarders, and occasionally storming beaches or naval forts with all your buddies beside you.  Sometimes they're about group tactics.  The greek Dory was designed for tightly packed Phalanxes.  Sometimes, they're about any number of things.  There's the Horse Saber, the Lance, all kinds of stuff.  According to legend, Siddhartha taught martial arts so that his students would have better health and wouldn't be such wusses.

When you say, "martial arts are about contact," that's an assumption that is, honestly, not right and far, far too narrow.  Like I said, context is everything.  First, define the context, then you can decide if getting punched hard in the face regularly really helps you be a better rapier fencer.



> As for the other...did old, frail people train years ago?  I dont know, however, if they train today, perhaps they should look for something that suits them best.  I mean, would you expect the MMA gym, Kyokushin dojo, to modify their training for 1 person?  This is why things needed to change, because some schools are more concerned with the $$, rather than quality.  Can't have too much contact because little Joey might get hurt.


So old or frail people should just go do slow motion Tai Chi and skip self defense martial arts because they can't take a hit and if a school tries to accommodate a student's needs that is the equivalent of a "Little Dragons" McDojo.

Perhaps you should end with a speech that goes, "We do not train to be merciful here. Mercy is for the weak. Here, in the  streets, in competition: A man confronts you, he is the enemy. An enemy  deserves no mercy."  

Obviously, my point is that there is some sort of middle ground.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 4, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> For self defence the last place you want to be is on the ground as it would severely limit your mobility and ability to escape or deal with his friend who sees you on top of his mate pounding away. If you have to keep going with knees to the head and then ground and pound then you would not be very efficient in defending yourself


Multiple actual incidents indicate that this fear ranges from "over-hyped" to "not much of problem."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Zero (Jun 4, 2013)

lklawson said:


> Multiple actual incidents indicate that this fear ranges from "over-hyped" to "not much of problem."
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


What fear?  That if you take a ground position, if there are other friends of the assailent nearby they will not start kicking or stomping you or try to swamp you?  Is that what you mean?
I don't have a handle on any stats and am by no means an SD expert but I would have thought if you went to the ground and there were other ne'er do wells in close proximity your mellon might appear attractive for a well placed boot or five? If I were so inclined this may well be my reaction.

Or are you focusing on the mobility point and that in reality if others wade in, you should be able to get back into stand-up without issue?


----------



## lklawson (Jun 4, 2013)

Zero said:


> What fear?  That if you take a ground position, if there are other friends of the assailent nearby they will not start kicking or stomping you or try to swamp you?  Is that what you mean?
> I don't have a handle on any stats and am by no means an SD expert but I would have thought if you went to the ground and there were other ne'er do wells in close proximity your mellon might appear attractive for a well placed boot or five? If I were so inclined this may well be my reaction.
> 
> Or are you focusing on the mobility point and that in reality if others wade in, you should be able to get back into stand-up without issue?


I know of many incidents where there were "buddies" of the guy silly enough to think he could take the "ground fighter" who did absolutely nothing to help their friend.  I also know of incidents where there were two attackers against one "ground fighter" who did not fair particularly well.

This and other data points have lead me to conclude that fears of "ground fighters" being "kicked in the head by the attackers buddies" are far over rated.

While there may be reasons you, personally, may not wish to engage in ground fighting, you can probably safely let go of the "kicked in head by buddies" reason.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## RodUpward (Jun 4, 2013)

I never got a belt. The way I learned as a young bloke was someone either 'punched my lights out' or they didn't 

Attitude is Everything:
Later on, when I trained in China I had a mix of soft full contact, combined with hard full contact training. However, equally important, the training I did with my teachers included a type of etiquette which seems to be missing in many schools these days. (I met a nice young bloke recently who had a black belt and yet he was hopeless unprepared to deal with some animal that wanted to attack him on the street for egoistic reasons or simply to vent his spleen.) Perhaps it is because these days there is a 'McDonald mentality' towards all types of boxing or martial arts that is prevalent. However, in my experience, the best teachers build the attitude, in their students, that even in full, (hard or soft), contact training with each other - there is a degree of control and respect - for the other person - that constrains them from seriously injuring each other. With such teachers ego was never as important as learning and in fact 'investing in loss' was fundamental to progressing and gaining the teachers respect. (I suppose the logic of this was that if a student was not able to give up their ego then s/he was not someone who deserved to learn the 'real juice'. Now, soft full contact training is far easier to handle than hard full contact training, particularly when you are just starting out in your boxing or martial arts training. So, as well as a whole set of complimentary skills it is simply easier for someone to handle. This is particularly relevant for a whole bunch of students who want to learn self defense but are not too excited about walking away with a cut lip or black eye!

Not "semi vs full contact" Rather Soft & Hard Full Contact:
I don't like the term, "semi contact" because it implies not contacting your training partner and that is simply setting up a person for bad habits in fighting, boxing and self defense more generally. I believe that the question should relate to soft and hard full contact training because they both have different contributions to your overall skills as a boxer or martial artist. It is surprising to me that many good teachers are not aware of this distinction. Why?

Full Contact Soft & Hard Training = Superior Outcomes:
The best training I have had has always included full contact hard training, however, the best teacher I studied with only included full contact soft training, although his information was profoundly superior ... Life is full of contradictions and paradoxes. I learned boxing mostly from people in China and Australia who were 'old school' so I was mostly stung often and hurt occasionally. Most of the training was bare knuckle training so it was over relatively quickly, albeit generally with clear evidence of some form of injury. 

These days, my main fear now relates to how the inevitable hits to my head that I have had could impact on my ability to cognate as I grow older. If you research recent information about the link between some rather nasty ailments such as early onset Parkinson's, and other forms of dementia, and re-occuring mild concussions you will understand this statement. Consider the remarkable Mohammed Ali, (a great human being and a great boxer), and you will see an example of someone who it is likely in my opinion, suffers from a tragic disability, most likely because of the persistent small concussions he sustained due to punches to the head. Consider the quality of some of the boxers the great man had to fight and you can appreciate why I say this. (And to be fair, back in those days, there was simply not the level of information related to sports medicine etc that there is today.) I should also note that the great man himself has rejected this proposition, although the evidence seems pretty overwhelming in my mind.

The seemingly voyeuristic fascination for boxers in our modern world is often not reflected in the reality that a boxer lives, notwithstanding that these noble arts some times provide an individual with a range of insights and unexpected positive experiences too. It is perhaps wise for most boxers / martial artists to consider that we don't live to train or fight, rather that we train or fight to live. Perhaps this is why their is a seeming machismo obsession with just hard full contact training and a greater general ignorance of the value of soft full contact training in these noble arts. I find that ironical. I also don't know the answer to this issue, however, if you teach consider this. How much of your full contact training includes soft training that drills students in the manner that the real Push Hands or Chi Sao does? (I partly describe why this should happen below.)

Also;

It Depends on the Student:
Not everyone wants to learn how to fight or focus on martial arts for the sake of self defense so the issue of or sparring becomes less relevant. Arguably, the 'bread & butter' of many schools are the people who come along because they want to maintain a level of health and fitness and get a couple of ideas about how to protect themselves. This is as true for Western boxing gyms as it is for any martial arts school. (Consider the plethora of 'box fit' type courses.) I don't think a good teacher or school has to compromise on the pragmatic reality of making $s to simply maintain the 'so called' purity of the system. A good teacher of any system can teach all types of motivations and ages so they all benefit. It is really a matter of responding to your students needs and that is fundamental to teaching anything ...

There are a whole range of motives for anyone wanting to study any type of boxing or martial art and if a teacher does not respond to them there is less chance that s/he will be able to continue teaching. This is simply the way it is.

For Boxers/Martial Artists:
The problem with not doing soft and/or hard full contact training - particularly as a beginning martial artist - is that you learn to pull punches and/or miss the target. Simply put, it is not real. 

Okay. I know that this might be controversial for some readers. All I can say is that I believe the following paragraph to be generally true ... not always though.

These days, if I was going to start out learning how to fight again, I would probably sign up to a good Western boxing trainer first, because not that many traditional martial arts schools teach their students how to punch or train key fighting skills properly - based on the most recent research and best practice models. It is not the fault of the system, but rather the teacher. That being said, if you consider the Chi Sao of Wing Chun or the Push Hands of Tai Chi Chuan the point is to slow things down, not worry about being hit, and therefore give your mind the time to focus on useful skills like control, distancing, positioning, protecting, countering, rhythm and so on ... The other point I would make is that  a good Western boxing teacher deploys the latest information on physiology and anatomy as well as sports psychology combined with the latest information on developing an elite athlete. Often, traditional systems simply don't avail themselves of this information.

The Benefit of Soft Full Contact Training / Drilling:
At the end of the day, understanding your body mechanics is key to understanding any type of boxing or martial art, however, the 'rubber hits the road' only when a martial artist or boxer is in a full contact situation. The point is that there is a balance between full and soft contact training even for a budding martial artist.

One of the things I really liked about the Push Hands training of the Tai Chi Chuan is that fixed step, (ding bu), push hands trains you how to stick, follow, protect and neutralise, from the distance of your finger tips to your torso. Movable step (hwor bu), push hands trains you how to do the above, but also to move in and out from your training partner from around three to five metres away. This is great for learning how to position and engage with someone over these types of distances as well as drilling appropriate distancing. 

The main problem with full contact San Shou, (free fighting vital point or pressure point strikes), in the Tai Chi Chuan and other systems is as someone said about pressure point or vital point strikes by accident, "it strikes sensitive points of the body." Much of this can be addressed with appropriate body armour, however, some of it cannot. Nevertheless, any vital point or pressure point training can be effectively trained with soft full contact training or against a dummy etcetera.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Jun 4, 2013)

lklawson said:


> I know of many incidents where there were "buddies" of the guy silly enough to think he could take the "ground fighter" who did absolutely nothing to help their friend. I also know of incidents where there were two attackers against one "ground fighter" who did not fair particularly well.
> 
> This and other data points have lead me to conclude that fears of "ground fighters" being "kicked in the head by the attackers buddies" are far over rated.
> 
> While there may be reasons you, personally, may not wish to engage in ground fighting, you can probably safely let go of the "kicked in head by buddies" reason.


I don&#8217;t know if I&#8217;d totally agree with you here. Obviously just because someone goes to the ground doesn&#8217;t mean they are going to get completely overwhelmed, but do to the lack of mobility and the risk that the aggressor&#8217;s friends may help him out pushes fighting from the ground to the bottom of my strategies list.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 4, 2013)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I don&#8217;t know if I&#8217;d totally agree with you here. Obviously just because someone goes to the ground doesn&#8217;t mean they are going to get completely overwhelmed, but do to the lack of mobility and the risk that the aggressor&#8217;s friends may help him out pushes fighting from the ground to the bottom of my strategies list.



Also, dude laying on his back could pull a knife.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jun 5, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Also, dude laying on his back could pull a knife.



Equally true of any dude, including dude standing up. 

Gnarlie


----------



## Gnarlie (Jun 5, 2013)

I agree though, I would avoid grounded grappling unless unavoidable. Too difficult to scan your surroundings as your head only turns about 180 degrees unless you are an owl.

Gnarlie


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 5, 2013)

Gnarlie said:


> I agree though, I would avoid grounded grappling unless unavoidable. Too difficult to scan your surroundings as your head only turns about 180 degrees unless you are an owl.
> 
> Gnarlie



Plus, it only turns in one direction at a time. Plus, turning your head can have a way of... Words fail me. You turn your head to the right, then you get hit by the guy on the ground by his right hand, turning your head further to the right, where the head aint quite meant to go.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 5, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Plus, it only turns in one direction at a time. Plus, turning your head can have a way of... Words fail me. You turn your head to the right, then you get hit by the guy on the ground by his right hand, turning your head further to the right, where the head aint quite meant to go.


Also not much of a problem.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 5, 2013)

Gnarlie said:


> Equally true of any dude, including dude standing up.
> 
> Gnarlie


I'm a bowie knife guy.  Anybody could deploy any more-or-less concealable weapon at any time including the ground fighter or the attacker.  I have one friend in particular who cross trains and likes to keep one or two training knives about his person when teaching newaza.  He likes to deploy them when a new student starts assuming that "ground fighters" are somehow required to be one-dimensional fighters with extremely limited strategies.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 5, 2013)

lklawson said:


> Also not much of a problem.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Your head being forced past its natural range of motion isnt a problem, by a strike you cannot see? Okey dokey.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 5, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Plus, it only turns in one direction at a time. Plus, turning your head can have a way of... Words fail me. You turn your head to the right, then you get hit by the guy on the ground by his right hand, turning your head further to the right, where the head aint quite meant to go.


You expecting the Mongol Hoards to ride over the horizon?    Seriously, it's really not particularly hard to keep tabs of the general area.  The physical restrictions of how your head and neck moves are not what is the limiting factor in that regard.

What *IS* the limiting factor is something that those of us who cross train in firearms have known about for a long time and keeps being forgotten about by martial artists: The "Fight or Flight" adrenalin dump.  It frequently creates "Tunnel Vision" and "Aural Occlusion."  This equally affects people who are standing, crouching, crawling, whatever.  It is a serious impediment for people who do not know to expect it and do not train for it.  "Tunnel Vision" makes you focus down on a very narrow field of vision.  The brain, quite literally, ignores and filters out everything except an extremely narrow cone, and usually one, and only one, specific perceived "threat."

The most recommended technique for overcoming "Tunnel Vision" due to adrenalin dump is "scanning" with the whole head, not just the eyes.  This forces you to take your eyes off of the person offering the threat and forces you to turn your head; the very same thing you are noting as a "problem" for ground fighting.  Due to Fight or Flight, if you want to "scan your surroundings" you absolutely *must* take your eyes off of the attacker and turn your head in profile to your attacker.  This is a simple fact of human biology and people "standing up" are no less vulnerable to the effects or the dangers of it than anyone else.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 5, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Your head being forced past its natural range of motion isnt a problem, by a strike you cannot see? Okey dokey.


No, I'm saying that it doesn't really happen that much.  It's a "low percentage" danger.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 5, 2013)

lklawson said:


> You expecting the Mongol Hoards to ride over the horizon?    Seriously, it's really not particularly hard to keep tabs of the general area.  The physical restrictions of how your head and neck moves are not what is the limiting factor in that regard.
> 
> What *IS* the limiting factor is something that those of us who cross train in firearms have known about for a long time and keeps being forgotten about by martial artists: The "Fight or Flight" adrenalin dump.  It frequently creates "Tunnel Vision" and "Aural Occlusion."  This equally affects people who are standing, crouching, crawling, whatever.  It is a serious impediment for people who do not know to expect it and do not train for it.  "Tunnel Vision" makes you focus down on a very narrow field of vision.  The brain, quite literally, ignores and filters out everything except an extremely narrow cone, and usually one, and only one, specific perceived "threat."
> 
> ...



No, i expect the guy on the ground to see me not looking at him if hes still aware enough. I know all about tunnel vision, mate. I wasnt noting it as a problem for ground fighting at all. Im saying that theres a time and a place for situational awareness, and its not while the other guys still actively trying to hurt you. 

That one perceived threat may not be the only one, im fully aware of that mate. But theres one thing you should know for sure, and thats that there IS a threat in front of you, and that that threat isnt going to give you a break just so that you can be situationally aware in the middle of a violent engagement. If you have the clarity of mind in such a situation to be thinking about whether or not there are other threats, and looking around to find out, chances are you could be using your brain power to do something more productive than taking your eyes off the threat that definitely exists, and which is still an immediate danger. How do i know its still an immediate danger? Because by now you should have left, if it isnt.



lklawson said:


> No, I'm saying that it doesn't really happen that much. It's a "low percentage" danger.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Well, if the guy on the ground is no longer able to hit you, im unsure why youre still on top of him without an immobilization.
From a self defense perspective.

I get the feeling weve spoken past each other a bit here - I wasnt picking on ground fighting. Just that as useful as being aware is, you cant afford to concentrate what little brain power you get under pressure on being aware moreso then keeping yourself safe.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 5, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> I get the feeling weve spoken past each other a bit here


I think you're right but I'm not quite sure where it tracks back to so I think I'll let this particular sub-thread wither on the vine.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## thefightersheart (Jul 18, 2013)

I have been thinking a lot recently about how training can create bad habbits when it comes to a real confrontation, and I don't think we can escape the fact that the more we practice anything that is not the real thing, this will create habits of movement that are not effective. But, as already stated, we can't just keep pounding each other as the inevitable injuries will lead to us being unable to train. One thing I have been training with that I would welcome feedback on is the below by Richard Grannon.






It seems to me that getting the reel feel of human contact will always beat hitting a bag, but hitting a bag is the only wy we can generate the force needed to be effective without harming our partner. I will continue to train both and hope that the need to use my training will not present it's self again in the future.

Cheers


----------



## Balrog (Jul 19, 2013)

I don't think so.  No matter whether you spar points, light contact or full contact, your training should include many hours on the heavy bags, executing with full force.  That is where you are going to learn the control, timing, focus, etc. to maximize the power in your techniques.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 19, 2013)

Balrog said:


> I don't think so.  No matter whether you spar points, light contact or full contact, your training should include many hours on the heavy bags, executing with full force.  That is where you are going to learn the control, timing, focus, etc. to maximize the power in your techniques.



That doesnt really help if you cant give yourself permission to batter another human like theyre a heavy bag.


----------



## Balrog (Aug 2, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> That doesnt really help if you cant give yourself permission to batter another human like theyre a heavy bag.


IMNSHO, in a self-defense situation, I don't think that problem will arise, especially if you have done scenario training specifically for defense.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Aug 2, 2013)

I think that depends on the type of self-defense scenario. If a stranger attacks you or your loved one then Balrog I hope and condone for what you are saying. If the attacker is an angry loved one who can't control their temper, then Cyriacus has a point about people not wanting to resort to striking and will limit themselves on their responses.


----------



## Drose427 (Aug 8, 2013)

Personally, I can see the problem there, but I think it really comes down to how hard or easy the contact really is. In my dojang, we're taught to pull a little so we don't kill each other. That said, when you put two able bodied young or old men who aren't afraid to get roughed up that semi contact sparring gets fairly rough. I've had a black eyes and busted lips because I dropped an arm. I've been kicked wall to wall and knocked down. I've also knocked some of the bigger guys down and back with side kicks. I don't mean to say we're going at it like its full contact Kumite to the death,  but I just think you might not be giving semi contact sparring enough credit. Even if there is supposed to be control some people just have a problem with the concept, I know I've been on the receiving end of that and I know I'm not the only one. Obviously, full contact sparring would prepare you the most for a streetfight, i wouldnt say how we free spar would hinder me. But our SD is set up so that if we dont react properly we literally get punched in the face...so it would be a little easier to distinct an attacker punching me in the face as opposed to coming at me with some kick like in free sparring....just my two cents.


----------



## Balrog (Aug 9, 2013)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I think that depends on the type of self-defense scenario. If a stranger attacks you or your loved one then Balrog I hope and condone for what you are saying. If the attacker is an angry loved one who can't control their temper, then Cyriacus has a point about people not wanting to resort to striking and will limit themselves on their responses.


Agreed, which is why there is no "one-size-fits-all" scenario.  Every encounter is unique.  The situation and scenario have to be evaluated and a defense decided on.  Unfortunately, we don't usually have a whole lot of time to do that in.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Aug 10, 2013)

Allow me to repost my observations on this topic:



> There has been much discussion on the differences between self-defense training methodology vs. sport training methodology. It isn't necessarily a this vs. that since an individual is free to pursue either as the focus of their personal training. The purpose of this thread is to go into the differences in training methodology. It isnt' to say one is better or superior to the other as each has a different focus and a different goal. So from the very beginning I want to make it clear that this isnt' an 'us' vs. 'them' thread. It isn't a we're great and you suck thread. It is only to discuss the SD training methodology in and of itself and how it differs from the sport model.
> 
> For the sport-only instructor/practitioner that has only the focus or goal of sport competition, this thread will probably be of little value. And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front.
> 
> ...


----------

