# Usefullness of sparring



## watching

I feel like there's a big difference between point sparring and actual real world self defense. For example, in the real world you won't be wearing protection, fights probably won't last two minutes, and there are no rules or off limits areas.
With that in mind, is sparring supposed to be something that helps you prepare for real world self defense in some way, or is the purpose of sparring something else entirely?
Thanks everyone.


----------



## drop bear

Part of learning is about repetition.

So the pads and the rules allow you to fine tune your timing a lot more than say a minute of street fighting.

Otherwise I don't think not wearing protection or even your favourite fighting trousers makes that much of a difference. As opposed to say actually being able to fight.


----------



## CB Jones

watching said:


> I feel like there's a big difference between point sparring and actual real world self defense. For example, in the real world you won't be wearing protection, fights probably won't last two minutes, and there are no rules or off limits areas.
> With that in mind, is sparring supposed to be something that helps you prepare for real world self defense in some way, or is the purpose of sparring something else entirely?
> Thanks everyone.



Per one of the black belts in our org...

Point Sparring helps teach one aspect of a real fight.

It teaches the initial engagement or entry.  You use spacing, timing, movement to control the beginning of the fight and/or to strike or defend.  You land your shots and the ref stops you before you actually finish your opponent with more strikes or a takedown. Don't approach it as playing tag for points....but learning how to better engage your opponent.    He does a better job explaining it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

watching said:


> I feel like there's a big difference between point sparring and actual real world self defense. For example, in the real world you won't be wearing protection, fights probably won't last two minutes, and there are no rules or off limits areas.
> With that in mind, is sparring supposed to be something that helps you prepare for real world self defense in some way, or is the purpose of sparring something else entirely?
> Thanks everyone.


If you never spar (with or without gear), you'll probably develop some misconceptions about how people move, what strikes (same is true for grappling techniques) connect with which openings, and a few other areas. You'll probably also be surprised in a SD situation when you get hit - both by the fact of the hit (in SD training, we often get a misconception of how hard it is to avoid), and by the feel of it. Getting hit in sparring - even with pads - helps get you accustomed to it mentally, helps condition you for it physically (assuming there's any power in the sparring), and gives you a more realistic notion of your vulnerabilities.

It won't be much like many SD situations, but it can actually be a fair amount like some of them. Depending upon the style of your partner/opponent, they may even move like someone you could end up facing on the street. And there are situations where SD can end up looking a lot like a fight, which looks a bit like sparring.

It also gives you a lot of chance to practice movement, targeting, and strikes (and/or grappling), and that repetition is important.


----------



## Jaeimseu

gpseymour said:


> If you never spar (with or without gear), you'll probably develop some misconceptions about how people move, what strikes (same is true for grappling techniques) connect with which openings, and a few other areas. You'll probably also be surprised in a SD situation when you get hit - both by the fact of the hit (in SD training, we often get a misconception of how hard it is to avoid), and by the feel of it. Getting hit in sparring - even with pads - helps get you accustomed to it mentally, helps condition you for it physically (assuming there's any power in the sparring), and gives you a more realistic notion of your vulnerabilities.
> 
> It won't be much like many SD situations, but it can actually be a fair amount like some of them. Depending upon the style of your partner/opponent, they may even move like someone you could end up facing on the street. And there are situations where SD can end up looking a lot like a fight, which looks a bit like sparring.
> 
> It also gives you a lot of chance to practice movement, targeting, and strikes (and/or grappling), and that repetition is important.



At the very least, contact sparring of any kind will help you apply techniques against someone who is providing live resistance, meaning that they are actively engaged in defending against your attacks and attempting to apply their techniques against you. You also get to practice maybe the most important aspect of physical fighting/defense imo, controlling the distance. It’s up to the participants to determine how realistic things are. 

I try to always approach sparring of any kind with a “what if this were a real fight?” mentality, whether I’m rolling in BJJ, doing Olympic style tkd sparring, or stop point sparring. In any case, I can’t completely control what my partner does, but I can have a reasonable amount of control over what positions I put myself in (given fairly equal ability levels). If my partner is much better than me, I try to recognize what my partner does to me. Sometimes that’s a victory in itself. Being humbled can teach you a lot. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Anarax

watching said:


> I feel like there's a big difference between point sparring and actual real world self defense. For example, in the real world you won't be wearing protection, fights probably won't last two minutes, and there are no rules or off limits areas.
> With that in mind, is sparring supposed to be something that helps you prepare for real world self defense in some way, or is the purpose of sparring something else entirely?
> Thanks everyone.


Not all MA sparring is point sparring, from my experience very little of it is. All the MA schools I've been to have continuous sparring, the point sparring is usually only done if someone is training for a point competition.

CB covered all the technical aspects sparring trains. The psychological factors are also a major part of sparring that is crucial. Learning to deal with adrenaline and pressure from an opponent are things that you'll learn to control through sparring.


----------



## marques

watching said:


> I feel like there's a big difference between point sparring and actual real world self defense. For example, in the real world you won't be wearing protection, fights probably won't last two minutes, and there are no rules or off limits areas.
> With that in mind, is sparring supposed to be something that helps you prepare for real world self defense in some way, or is the purpose of sparring something else entirely?
> Thanks everyone.


Sparring prepares you “in some way”. For instance, improves timing, distance management and reading oponent’s intentions / possibilities. But nothing mimics a ‘real fight’, specially the emotive aspect (or the complexity of every possible scenario).

Then sparring doesn’t need to be point sparring. You make the rules. The ‘real fight’ lasts 5 sec? Sep up 5 sec rounds. Fights happens anywhere and without protections? Train this way... (if you are skilled enough and you think it is a necessary risk). 

You make the rules (if you can) according to your aims. It becomes more useful, but still does not solve (or even evaluates) everything.


----------



## JowGaWolf

watching said:


> I feel like there's a big difference between point sparring and actual real world self defense. For example, in the real world you won't be wearing protection, fights probably won't last two minutes, and there are no rules or off limits areas.
> With that in mind, is sparring supposed to be something that helps you prepare for real world self defense in some way, or is the purpose of sparring something else entirely?
> Thanks everyone.


My perspective about sparring is that it allows you to train for fighting without suffering the damage and injuries that come with an all out fight.  The purpose of sparring is to learn and not win.  Sparring gives you an opportunity to learn and train martial arts application with relative safety.  It's the only time you'll have to plan and develop your ability to create strategies.    It's the only time you can learn from mistakes.  It's the only time you can gain a familiarity for being grabbed, punched, and kick without paying a high cost for it.

There's no way anyone can train with the exact same ferocity and violence that they would use in a real fight without suffering severe damage.  Think of military and law enforcement paintball /paint bullet drills. It's the closest you can safely train for the real thing, without suffering the same damages and injuries that would come from a real bullet.

Training to fight by actually full on fighting will shorten your ability to train and in some cases will end your training all together.  The fix to this is sparring.  With all of this said, you still need to pay attention to the quality of your sparring. Sparring without quality and realism is useless.


----------



## DanT

For me, I've always found that in terms of my MARTIAL development:

50% came from physical fitness
25% came from hard sparring
25% came from all other drills


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Sparring is never an accurate simulation of self-defense, although it can be a reasonable effective simulation of fighting (not the same thing). More importantly, it can give you experience in executing technique under pressure against an opponent who is trying to defeat your goals and achieve his own.

_How_ you practice sparring matters a great deal. Some people practice sparring as a game of bouncy-bouncy tippy-tappy tag where they flick under-powered punches and kicks from out of range, with little or no contact, 80% of potential targets disallowed, no clinching or grappling, and stopping after each "hit." That sort of "sparring" has little combative value in my opinion. It might even make students worse in real fighting.

There are a lot of other ways to do sparring, though, and many of them are very useful in developing fighting skills.


----------



## Danny T

There are numerous ways to spar.
Each help a potential fight aspect. But only that one particular piece. It takes many aspects to develop a complete fighter so all should be utilized in sparring. I feel many spar simply to spar with no real development plan.


----------



## JR 137

If your sparring matches your desired goals, then it’s useful.  If it doesn’t, then it’s usefulness is minimal.

If your goal is to win the Kyokushin open, WKF style sparring is going to get you into trouble.  If your goal is to win the WKF championship, knockdown sparring is going to ingrain some contradictory habits.  I could go on an on, Judo, BJJ, TKD, etc.  Your sparring must be as close to what you’re looking for as possible.

Not everyone wants to fight or compete.  Some want the non-martial benefits of MA with a touch of fighting ability as a side effect.  Others think if it’s not preparing them for an all-out life or death brawl, it’s completely useless. Some want block-kick-punch, some want throw you on the ground, some want drag you down and choke you.  Some want it all.  Some want to go light, some want 100% resistance, and some want somewhere in between.

So long as your sparring is truly meeting your goals or at least progressing you there, it’s perfectly useful.  If it’s not, at least you’re getting some exercise


----------



## JR 137

A lot of people would think sparring like this is a waste of time.  I’m pretty sure the people in the video think it’s useful.  Im not sure how it’s useful, but hopefully they know.


----------



## pdg

JR 137 said:


> A lot of people would think sparring like this is a waste of time.  I’m pretty sure the people in the video think it’s useful.  Im not sure how it’s useful, but hopefully they know.



A bit more training and I reckon they'd be able to add a level or two to that hurticane at the end...


----------



## _Simon_

JowGaWolf said:


> My perspective about sparring is that it allows you to train for fighting without suffering the damage and injuries that come with an all out fight.  The purpose of sparring is to learn and not win.  Sparring gives you an opportunity to learn and train martial arts application with relative safety.  It's the only time you'll have to plan and develop your ability to create strategies.    It's the only time you can learn from mistakes.  It's the only time you can gain a familiarity for being grabbed, punched, and kick without paying a high cost for it.
> 
> There's no way anyone can train with the exact same ferocity and violence that they would use in a real fight without suffering severe damage.  Think of military and law enforcement paintball /paint bullet drills. It's the closest you can safely train for the real thing, without suffering the same damages and injuries that would come from a real bullet.
> 
> Training to fight by actually full on fighting will shorten your ability to train and in some cases will end your training all together.  The fix to this is sparring.  With all of this said, you still need to pay attention to the quality of your sparring. Sparring without quality and realism is useless.



Great post mate, well said. If you truly want '100% realistic' sparring, the only way is going out and fighting for real. No rules or anything. It gets to me a little when others say about certain types of sparring 'ah that's not realistic/self-defense based'. Of course it's not 100%. Other types of sparring develop other attributes, but of course none is really complete in itself (depending on what your designated goal for it was).

It's done in a safer way for a reason. Like the argument about 'no head punches in Kyokushin', I think Oyama wanted to still keep the bareknuckle aspect for a reason, and clearly constant bareknuckle head punches is not a good frequent practice.. although I think I heard they did have facepunches in the early days (hands wrapped with towels or something), but eventually phased it out (not 100% sure on that).



Danny T said:


> There are numerous ways to spar.
> Each help a potential fight aspect. But only that one particular piece. It takes many aspects to develop a complete fighter so all should be utilized in sparring. I feel many spar simply to spar with no real development plan.





JR 137 said:


> If your sparring matches your desired goals, then it’s useful.  If it doesn’t, then it’s usefulness is minimal.
> 
> If your goal is to win the Kyokushin open, WKF style sparring is going to get you into trouble.  If your goal is to win the WKF championship, knockdown sparring is going to ingrain some contradictory habits.  I could go on an on, Judo, BJJ, TKD, etc.  Your sparring must be as close to what you’re looking for as possible.
> 
> Not everyone wants to fight or compete.  Some want the non-martial benefits of MA with a touch of fighting ability as a side effect.  Others think if it’s not preparing them for an all-out life or death brawl, it’s completely useless. Some want block-kick-punch, some want throw you on the ground, some want drag you down and choke you.  Some want it all.  Some want to go light, some want 100% resistance, and some want somewhere in between.
> 
> So long as your sparring is truly meeting your goals or at least progressing you there, it’s perfectly useful.  If it’s not, at least you’re getting some exercise



Yeah that's it ay... I spent many years doing bareknuckle, full contact sparring in my old style. Never competed in it however, and wasn't interested at all. And last year I entered non-contact point-sparring tournaments. And I absolutely loved it. They're both very different styles and both develop different aspects.

I left my first style I reckon because I listened to other people too much saying 'it's not realistic enough', 'it's not legit'. It's good to listen to all and take everything onboard that's actually useful, but not every style of training suits everyone, and of course many have other reasons why they train.


----------



## _Simon_

JR 137 said:


> A lot of people would think sparring like this is a waste of time.  I’m pretty sure the people in the video think it’s useful.  Im not sure how it’s useful, but hopefully they know.


Oh WOWZA! Intense man! A kick for a kick! Yeah I don't understand it, but they're doing it for some reason I'm sure... Quick 20s bouts hey!


----------



## WaterGal

While sparring is never going to be 100% realistic self-defense training, it can have immense value in training distancing, endurance, dodging, speed, what it feels like to get hit, etc. I definitely prefer continuous sparring over the stop-and-start style of point sparring, though. My understanding is that point sparring comes from the "one hit one kill" school of thought in karate, and that that was itself derived from the same idea in kendo/kenjutsu (where it makes sense, because one good cut would, in fact, kill or incapacitate your opponent).


----------



## Kababayan

My view on sparring isn't always popular.  I don't feel that Black Belts above a certain level should spar frequently, as I feel that it creates bad self defense habits.  When I say "certain level"...maybe 1st or 2nd Dan. What tends to happen is that Black Belts sparring looks like really fast lower-rank sparring.  Like others have said, sparring helps develop proper timing, speed, reaction time, etc.  As a former Sport Karate competitor and kickboxer back-in-the-day, I understand how important all of those are.  I feel, though, that higher ranks should focus more on realistic scenario training.  I didn't have the belief about sparring until my friend and I were in a confrontation 25 years ago. Long story short, my friend (we were both 1st Dans) got into a sparring stance against the other guy and they both started fighting.  I don't know if the other guy had martial arts experience. Neither of them put their body weight into the punches, nor did they follow through with their kicks.  Everything was thrown to make "surface-level" impact.  It looked like a controlled sparring match.  Both got tagged a bit, but nothing too damaging. Needless to say they both stopped after a minute or so, talked **** to each other and then walked away. After that I began to examine the habits (some good, some bad) that frequent sparring can have on higher ranks, such as lack of follow-through, lack of quick reaction from a non-fighting stance, and the importance of escaping immediately.  Sparring is so important in the martial arts, but I think it should be replaced with scenario training (and more impact training) in higher ranks.  I think sparring should be done every so often, but people will "defend how they train" and I've found that many go into "sparring mode" if they spar too frequently in a dojo. Sparring has its place, just maybe done less frequently at higher ranks.


----------



## drop bear

Kababayan said:


> My view on sparring isn't always popular.  I don't feel that Black Belts above a certain level should spar frequently, as I feel that it creates bad self defense habits.  When I say "certain level"...maybe 1st or 2nd Dan. What tends to happen is that Black Belts sparring looks like really fast lower-rank sparring.  Like others have said, sparring helps develop proper timing, speed, reaction time, etc.  As a former Sport Karate competitor and kickboxer back-in-the-day, I understand how important all of those are.  I feel, though, that higher ranks should focus more on realistic scenario training.  I didn't have the belief about sparring until my friend and I were in a confrontation 25 years ago. Long story short, my friend (we were both 1st Dans) got into a sparring stance against the other guy and they both started fighting.  I don't know if the other guy had martial arts experience. Neither of them put their body weight into the punches, nor did they follow through with their kicks.  Everything was thrown to make "surface-level" impact.  It looked like a controlled sparring match.  Both got tagged a bit, but nothing too damaging. Needless to say they both stopped after a minute or so, talked **** to each other and then walked away. After that I began to examine the habits (some good, some bad) that frequent sparring can have on higher ranks, such as lack of follow-through, lack of quick reaction from a non-fighting stance, and the importance of escaping immediately.  Sparring is so important in the martial arts, but I think it should be replaced with scenario training (and more impact training) in higher ranks.  I think sparring should be done every so often, but people will "defend how they train" and I've found that many go into "sparring mode" if they spar too frequently in a dojo. Sparring has its place, just maybe done less frequently at higher ranks.



That is how fights generally work out. These Jack reacher syle confrontations where I knock this guy out and break that guys knee are the pipe dream.


----------



## wab25

I agree with most of what has been said already. But I did have some additional things to consider.

1. Study the rules you are using in your sparring. One of the important things they will tell you is: What you are *not* practicing. This is important. If you are doing stand up striking, you are not practicing take down defense and you are not practicing ground fighting. If you are doing Judo style randori, you are not practicing punches and kicks. Some places that do stand up striking, don't let you hit to the head, which means you are not practicing targeting the head, nor are you practicing protecting your head. Once you learn what you are not practicing in your form of sparring, you at least know the holes you need to work on. You can change your sparring rules, find outside sparring opportunities, work on drills... Further, when you find something that works for you in sparring, you need to find out if it works because of the rules. If you are not allowed to strike to the head... and you find a way to consistently land a combo on the other guys, you need to figure out if that same combo works when the other guy can snap your head back with a jab. Are you only able to get that choke, when the other guy has no gi on? Are you only able to break out of the clinch because the other guy is not allowed to use a double leg take down? This does not mean your sparring is bad. This means you need to understand what your sparring actually is.

2. This was already stated here before, but I want to reiterate. Sparring is not about winning. Sparring is about practice and learning. When it is about winning, you start relying only on your go to, tried and true techniques... because you want to win. But, if you can keep it about learning and practice... then you are free to work on the things you are not so good at, so that they become better. If a drill is taught that day before sparring... use that drill in your sparring. If the other guy gets you with something, try to get him with it. It might not work (probably won't) but you will get to see how they defend it, and you will have something new to work on... eventually you may get it. If you are bad at a certain aspect, put your self in a position to work on that. (maybe you have a hard time getting out of side control... get yourself in a position to practice your escapes over and over again)

3. What else can you work on while sparring? Its more than just the techniques. If you are in a ring... can you keep your opponent in the corner? Can you pick which corner? If there are multiple pairs sparring at the same time, can you be aware of where everyone else is on the floor? Are you the one bumping into the other pair or can you make it so that your partner is the one bumping into everyone else? Can you keep yourself closer to the weapons on the wall than your opponent? There are a lot of things you can work on while sparring, beyond just: Can I land this punch?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wab25 said:


> I agree with most of what has been said already. But I did have some additional things to consider.
> 
> 1. Study the rules you are using in your sparring. One of the important things they will tell you is: What you are *not* practicing. This is important. If you are doing stand up striking, you are not practicing take down defense and you are not practicing ground fighting. If you are doing Judo style randori, you are not practicing punches and kicks. Some places that do stand up striking, don't let you hit to the head, which means you are not practicing targeting the head, nor are you practicing protecting your head. Once you learn what you are not practicing in your form of sparring, you at least know the holes you need to work on. You can change your sparring rules, find outside sparring opportunities, work on drills... Further, when you find something that works for you in sparring, you need to find out if it works because of the rules. If you are not allowed to strike to the head... and you find a way to consistently land a combo on the other guys, you need to figure out if that same combo works when the other guy can snap your head back with a jab. Are you only able to get that choke, when the other guy has no gi on? Are you only able to break out of the clinch because the other guy is not allowed to use a double leg take down? This does not mean your sparring is bad. This means you need to understand what your sparring actually is.
> 
> 2. This was already stated here before, but I want to reiterate. Sparring is not about winning. Sparring is about practice and learning. When it is about winning, you start relying only on your go to, tried and true techniques... because you want to win. But, if you can keep it about learning and practice... then you are free to work on the things you are not so good at, so that they become better. If a drill is taught that day before sparring... use that drill in your sparring. If the other guy gets you with something, try to get him with it. It might not work (probably won't) but you will get to see how they defend it, and you will have something new to work on... eventually you may get it. If you are bad at a certain aspect, put your self in a position to work on that. (maybe you have a hard time getting out of side control... get yourself in a position to practice your escapes over and over again)
> 
> 3. What else can you work on while sparring? Its more than just the techniques. If you are in a ring... can you keep your opponent in the corner? Can you pick which corner? If there are multiple pairs sparring at the same time, can you be aware of where everyone else is on the floor? Are you the one bumping into the other pair or can you make it so that your partner is the one bumping into everyone else? Can you keep yourself closer to the weapons on the wall than your opponent? There are a lot of things you can work on while sparring, beyond just: Can I land this punch?


Just one adjustment I'd suggest to #2: sparring can be about winning, but it shouldn't always be about winning. Sometimes, the best benefit is when the other guy is using his best stuff to stop your best stuff, and vice-versa.


----------



## 13thhr

gpseymour said:


> Just one adjustment I'd suggest to #2: sparring can be about winning, but it shouldn't always be about winning. Sometimes, the best benefit is when the other guy is using his best stuff to stop your best stuff, and vice-versa.



In addition to the great points that other people have already made, I’d jus reiterate it’s hard to recreate the adrenaline dump that happens in a real life deal scenario unless your personal safety is at least somewhat on the line.  At the very least, sparring continuously for 2-3 min bouts over the course of a class helps build cardiovascular fitness, which is going to help in a self defense scenario, even if it’s over in a few seconds (last thing you want to have happen then is for your body to betray you with a heart attack).  

As other people mentioned, learning that you’re not going to die if you take a hard shot is confidence building in itself.  In addition, while some techniques be fine in tournaments (e.g. jumping punches seen in NAASKA events, the WTF TKD strategy of falling to the mat after a kick so the opponent can’t counter, etc), you don’t have to engage in those tactics.  

In times when I did have to protect myself outside of the training hall, I did find sparring helpful, since the violence aspect of things wasn’t a problem.  But I have found that as I get older, I’ve become more concerned with the self defense aspect and less concerned with scoring points.  

One other thing to consider - I think it’s also important to think about how you would justify your defense in court, if it comes to that, which is an important thing to include in your training.  It may be hard to justify incapacitating your attacker to a jury if they know your training (I.e. when perhaps less force would have been necessary) - because, really, in a real life scenario, it really isn’t about winning or losing or looking good.  You winning means you walk out alive or with minimal injury and get to go home.


----------



## AngryHobbit

watching said:


> I feel like there's a big difference between point sparring and actual real world self defense. For example, in the real world you won't be wearing protection, fights probably won't last two minutes, and there are no rules or off limits areas.
> With that in mind, is sparring supposed to be something that helps you prepare for real world self defense in some way, or is the purpose of sparring something else entirely?
> Thanks everyone.


While it's true that sparring has protection gear and rules you can set and adjust, I think it's a good missing link between no self-defense training at all and real-world self-defense.

I realize everyone's experiences are probably very different. For myself, sparring taught me not to flinch at being hit. As someone who has been bullied through her childhood, I was very prone to just freezing on the spot or cowering when someone took a swing at me. So, sparring in a controlled environment, where I new with certainty no one intended to actually hurt me, and the only goal was education, really helped overcome that fear. 

I am still all for blocking and blending - if there's a way to avoid getting hit, let's avoid getting hit. But, having done defensive and offensive sparring, at least I know I won't pass out or vomit if someone does make contact.


----------



## IvanTheBrick

watching said:


> I feel like there's a big difference between point sparring and actual real world self defense. For example, in the real world you won't be wearing protection, fights probably won't last two minutes, and there are no rules or off limits areas.
> With that in mind, is sparring supposed to be something that helps you prepare for real world self defense in some way, or is the purpose of sparring something else entirely?
> Thanks everyone.


Sparring allows you to apply the movements you learn. As the guy said above it's about repetition, so that you can instinctively apply it to a real world situation even though sparring is nothing like so; street fights are dirty and unpredictable. However, it can teach you to take hits and such, because even if you're wearing gloves and so is your opponent, the hits can be brutal. That's what I know anyway, I could be wrong.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

watching said:


> is sparring supposed to be something that helps you prepare for real world self defense in some way, ...?


The sparring can only test the techniques that you have already developed. It will not help you to develop new technique. For example, if you have never trained "foot sweep" in partner drill, you will never be able to suddenly sweep your opponent down in sparring.

The opportunity is only given to those who has fully prepared.


----------



## JR 137

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The sparring can only test the techniques that you have already developed. It will not help you to develop new technique. For example, if you have never trained "foot sweep" in partner drill, you will never be able to suddenly sweep your opponent down in sparring.
> 
> The opportunity is only given to those who has fully prepared.


Yes, but it can help develop new strategies and fine tune the techniques you’ve learned.  Techniques always need to be fine tuned when training against a resisting opponent.  I can throw and land beautiful combos on a punching bag.  Once that bag starts to move and hit back, it ain’t so beautiful anymore.


----------



## wingchun100

When I think of point sparring, I think of a fight that is stopped by a referee after someone lands a hit. THAT type of sparring would not simulate a street fight, where your opponent will not stop...even once you are down.

However, you do need a game plan. As for me, I need sparring to develop (1) timing, (2) distance, (3) footwork, (4) stamina/cardio, (5) defenses against certain kinds of attacks that I don't know how to handle, and (6) to help overcome the FEAR of being hit.


----------



## marques

watching said:


> I feel like there's a big difference between point sparring and actual real world self defense. For example, in the real world you won't be wearing protection, fights probably won't last two minutes, and there are no rules or off limits areas.
> With that in mind, is sparring supposed to be something that helps you prepare for real world self defense in some way, or is the purpose of sparring something else entirely?
> Thanks everyone.


Well, sparring context is closer to combat sports than self-defence. It will help in self-defence to some extent.

But if you really want to train for self defence, you can recreate the scenario you want to train. Ex: what to do if you are on the ground being kicked by three guys? You recreate this scenario and you start doing/trying things. What if there is little space or the ground is not soft? Try it.

The issue is scenario-based training is not easy to do. Needs lots of resources and time, different places, safety issues, expensive protections... and then virtually everyone is forced to do not go beyong sparring as routine.

However, 1 vs 2 or 1 vs many is still quite easy. And sparring does not need to be point sparring. Who stops with a point? I like the light/slow sparring that ends up with a 'TKO'.

To finish, what is the purpose of sparring? For me it is me most peaceful moment in life.  Or I am 100% focusing on what I am doing, or I am just watching myself moving. What a feeling...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

marques said:


> To finish, what is the purpose of sparring? For me it is me most peaceful moment in life.


Is that right after you block a kick with your face? I'm usually peaceful for a moment when I do something like that.


----------



## Buka

marques said:


> Well, sparring context is closer to combat sports than self-defence. It will help in self-defence to some extent.
> 
> But if you really want to train for self defence, you can recreate the scenario you want to train. Ex: what to do if you are on the ground being kicked by three guys? You recreate this scenario and you start doing/trying things. What if there is little space or the ground is not soft? Try it.
> 
> The issue is scenario-based training is not easy to do. Needs lots of resources and time, different places, safety issues, expensive protections... and then virtually everyone is forced to do not go beyong sparring as routine.
> 
> However, 1 vs 2 or 1 vs many is still quite easy. And sparring does not need to be point sparring. Who stops with a point? I like the light/slow sparring that ends up with a 'TKO'.
> 
> To finish, what is the purpose of sparring? For me it is me most peaceful moment in life.  Or I am 100% focusing on what I am doing, or I am just watching myself moving. What a feeling...



Love it.


----------



## marques

gpseymour said:


> Is that right after you block a kick with your face? I'm usually peaceful for a moment when I do something like that.


The closest to that were some punches, but never enough for the 'peace'. So I just got angry (against guys that go beyond the rules) and worried about my mental health... :/


----------



## Hanshi

My opinion, such as it is, is that sparring is definitely a useful training tool.  Sparring teaches students distancing, movement, reading an opponent and using combinations.  It is important, IMHO, to include sparring in training.  Sparring is not fighting and is not even remotely related to street "justice".  So I'm for the inclusion of sparring in the dojo.  When I first started there was no such thing as safety gear; control had to be learned and there were still injuries; I'm ashamed to say I inflicted a few.  I've always been "hard core" in workouts and teaching students.

It must be understood, however, that the student DOES NOT and should not rely on the techniques used in sparring to use them on the street.  I see too many students including black belts practicing high kicks, aerial kicks and foolishly think they can use them in combat.  Many also are deluded into thinking they can fight backing up.  I teach angles and forward movement and teach that one can only prevail in combat that way.  Sparring is similar to kata in that they both train certain skills that are necessary for safety.  But is vitally important to train in attacks that are likely to actually happen.  A mat is the best for this type work.  Sudden grabs from behind, knowing when/what an attack is happening and have them learn NOT to rely on complicated moves or flashy moves.  I know too many black belts, some high ranking, that simply don't know how to react when grabbed by surprise.  I also know of many whom one would/should not even dream of doing that.  Sparring/kata are good but realistic training and instruction must accompany it.


----------



## Headhunter

Hanshi said:


> My opinion, such as it is, is that sparring is definitely a useful training tool.  Sparring teaches students distancing, movement, reading an opponent and using combinations.  It is important, IMHO, to include sparring in training.  Sparring is not fighting and is not even remotely related to street "justice".  So I'm for the inclusion of sparring in the dojo.  When I first started there was no such thing as safety gear; control had to be learned and there were still injuries; I'm ashamed to say I inflicted a few.  I've always been "hard core" in workouts and teaching students.
> 
> It must be understood, however, that the student DOES NOT and should not rely on the techniques used in sparring to use them on the street.  I see too many students including black belts practicing high kicks, aerial kicks and foolishly think they can use them in combat.  Many also are deluded into thinking they can fight backing up.  I teach angles and forward movement and teach that one can only prevail in combat that way.  Sparring is similar to kata in that they both train certain skills that are necessary for safety.  But is vitally important to train in attacks that are likely to actually happen.  A mat is the best for this type work.  Sudden grabs from behind, knowing when/what an attack is happening and have them learn NOT to rely on complicated moves or flashy moves.  I know too many black belts, some high ranking, that simply don't know how to react when grabbed by surprise.  I also know of many whom one would/should not even dream of doing that.  Sparring/kata are good but realistic training and instruction must accompany it.


Agreed another thing I'll add is the element of surprise. Sparring is an arranged thing you know it's happening you've got a while to prepare either a whole day if you know it's sparring class or at least a few minutes to get your gear on and set up. In a situation there's mostly no warning you're straight in and fighting.

One drill we do in my Krav Maga class that I like is at the end of a lesson after we've been taught 2 different self defence techniques he puts us in 2 groups one group stands on the floor with their eyes closed and the other group puts you in the attacks for the taught techniques and you have to react and do them. That way you don't know when you'll be attacked you don't know who you're attacked by or their strength and size etc and you don't know what attack they'll give you


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Headhunter said:


> Agreed another thing I'll add is the element of surprise. Sparring is an arranged thing you know it's happening you've got a while to prepare either a whole day if you know it's sparring class or at least a few minutes to get your gear on and set up. In a situation there's mostly no warning you're straight in and fighting.
> 
> One drill we do in my Krav Maga class that I like is at the end of a lesson after we've been taught 2 different self defence techniques he puts us in 2 groups one group stands on the floor with their eyes closed and the other group puts you in the attacks for the taught techniques and you have to react and do them. That way you don't know when you'll be attacked you don't know who you're attacked by or their strength and size etc and you don't know what attack they'll give you


We've used a similar drill. Line everyone up on both sides to make an alley (alternating sides). Target turns their back and instructor selects who the attackers will be. Then you walk the alley. Could be no attacks. Could be everyone. Could be anything between those two points.


----------



## sinthetik_mistik

Headhunter said:


> Agreed another thing I'll add is the element of surprise. Sparring is an arranged thing you know it's happening you've got a while to prepare either a whole day if you know it's sparring class or at least a few minutes to get your gear on and set up. In a situation there's mostly no warning you're straight in and fighting.
> 
> One drill we do in my Krav Maga class that I like is at the end of a lesson after we've been taught 2 different self defence techniques he puts us in 2 groups one group stands on the floor with their eyes closed and the other group puts you in the attacks for the taught techniques and you have to react and do them. That way you don't know when you'll be attacked you don't know who you're attacked by or their strength and size etc and you don't know what attack they'll give you



yeah my Krav class has the exact same drill


----------



## dvcochran

watching said:


> I feel like there's a big difference between point sparring and actual real world self defense. For example, in the real world you won't be wearing protection, fights probably won't last two minutes, and there are no rules or off limits areas.
> With that in mind, is sparring supposed to be something that helps you prepare for real world self defense in some way, or is the purpose of sparring something else entirely?
> Thanks everyone.


By definition, sparring and self defense training are two very different things. In the latter, both words are literal, self defense. In class, SD practice should always be done with the right tone and attitude. That does not mean fear. As with any learning, there will be a period of time where trying to go full power is counter-productive and is often where bad habits are formed. For practical purposes when the techniques are understood and performed correctly, pads should be used so the counter-striker can go full speed/full power. Yes, that is hard to do with locks and bars. It is a learning process for both sides, how to give and take a hit. 
As many have mentioned, sparring is most often style or system specific. There aren't many general sparring rules that I can think of that are universal for all styles/systems.
As far as class time, the same rules apply. I can think of many times where the new guy was really excited and trying really hard but not very effective at sparring. I do agree that too often the wrong tone and attitude is taken during sparring and it does become more of a give and take dance. For me, this is on the instructor. However, somewhere in that is a big part of the social aspect of most schools. There are times that it is appropriate, e.g. an 18 year old red/brown belt sparring with a 45 year old yellow belt. Patience training for the 18 year old; over coming fear for the 45 year old. I encourage anyone who is wanting more out of class time sparring to respectfully talk to their instructor about more sparring time. Somewhere in the process you will learn there is more to it than you think.


----------



## jobo

Headhunter said:


> Agreed another thing I'll add is the element of surprise. Sparring is an arranged thing you know it's happening you've got a while to prepare either a whole day if you know it's sparring class or at least a few minutes to get your gear on and set up. In a situation there's mostly no warning you're straight in and fighting.
> 
> One drill we do in my Krav Maga class that I like is at the end of a lesson after we've been taught 2 different self defence techniques he puts us in 2 groups one group stands on the floor with their eyes closed and the other group puts you in the attacks for the taught techniques and you have to react and do them. That way you don't know when you'll be attacked you don't know who you're attacked by or their strength and size etc and you don't know what attack they'll give you


If they punch you very hard on the nose whilst your eyes are closed, what do you learn from that, apart from don't stand there with your eyes closed!


----------



## Headhunter

jobo said:


> If they punch you very hard on the nose whilst your eyes are closed, what do you learn from that, apart from don't stand there with your eyes closed!


Obviously not for punch defences....it's for things like chokes or grabs


----------



## jobo

marques said:


> Well, sparring context is closer to combat sports than self-defence. It will help in self-defence to some extent.
> 
> But if you really want to train for self defence, you can recreate the scenario you want to train. Ex: what to do if you are on the ground being kicked by three guys? You recreate this scenario and you start doing/trying things. What if there is little space or the ground is not soft? Try it.
> 
> The issue is scenario-based training is not easy to do. Needs lots of resources and time, different places, safety issues, expensive protections... and then virtually everyone is forced to do not go beyong sparring as routine.
> 
> However, 1 vs 2 or 1 vs many is still quite easy. And sparring does not need to be point sparring. Who stops with a point? I like the light/slow sparring that ends up with a 'TKO'.
> 
> To finish, what is the purpose of sparring? For me it is me most peaceful moment in life.  Or I am 100% focusing on what I am doing, or I am just watching myself moving. What a feeling...


I'm not a big fan of scenarios, that always lack authenticity, as they are closer to flow drIlls than combat, as the scenario defines the mode of attack. 

If I have an opponent on the floor to be kicked, never mind if I have tWo mates with me, then they are not getting up, it's as simple as that, if they do then it's because I was a compliment attacker so that's just a flow drill, practising not going on the floor, particularly if your out numbered would be a useful thing to do, practising getting up very quickly before they get in position is also useful, but lying on you back whilst the people pretend to kick you very hard in the kidneys is just silly, if you get up its because they aren't kicking you in the kidneys


----------



## jobo

Headhunter said:


> Obviously not for punch defences....it's for things like chokes or grabs


So it's no use at all for dealing with punch attacks, which unless you have super spider senses require eye sight?


----------



## Headhunter

jobo said:


> So it's no use at all for dealing with punch attacks, which unless you have super spider senses require eye sight?


My god do you have to try and argue with every little thing it's very tedious you know....for punch attacks guess what... we do a different drill


----------



## jobo

Headhunter said:


> My god do you have to try and argue with every little thing it's very tedious you know....for punch attacks guess what... we do a different drill


So aPart from not having your eyes closed what differenCe, your putting this blindness bluff game forward as a serious training aid, I'm debating it's usefulness,


----------



## Headhunter

jobo said:


> So aPart from not having your eyes closed what differenCe, your putting this blindness bluff game forward as a serious training aid, I'm debating it's usefulness,


Sigh.....eyes are closed so you don't see an attack coming so when the attack comes on you react instantly but you don't know when the attack will come which is what will happen in a real situation which I already explained in the first post. Don't know why I bother explaining you'll just say it's stupid and a waste of time  and ineffective like you do with everything else so whatever


----------



## jobo

Headhunter said:


> Sigh.....eyes are closed so you don't see an attack coming so when the attack comes on you react instantly but you don't know when the attack will come which is what will happen in a real situation which I already explained in the first post. Don't know why I bother explaining you'll just say it's stupid and a waste of time  and ineffective like you do with everything else so whatever


Well it has some merit if it's an attack from behind, but then it doesn't matter if your eyes are closed or not, I'm wondering what common situation would result in someone coming at you from the front and you not seeing them, a very dark alley I su p osr, but then they can't see you, perhaps if your wearing very dark Sun glasses inside a dark club, it could come in handy


----------



## marques

jobo said:


> I'm not a big fan of scenarios, that always lack authenticity, as they are closer to flow drIlls than combat, as the scenario defines the mode of attack.
> 
> If I have an opponent on the floor to be kicked, never mind if I have tWo mates with me, then they are not getting up, it's as simple as that, if they do then it's because I was a compliment attacker so that's just a flow drill, practising not going on the floor, particularly if your out numbered would be a useful thing to do, practising getting up very quickly before they get in position is also useful, but lying on you back whilst the people pretend to kick you very hard in the kidneys is just silly, if you get up its because they aren't kicking you in the kidneys


Everything as flaws. But I have no doubt scenarions are far less predictable than sparring.

Once, we runned a scenario for each participant. The "victim" didn't know much about their future...  I was not even attacked, so it was unpredictable enough. It was an intense emotional experience for everyone. One of us, even knowing it was a scenario, was shaking due to adrenaline long time after his scenario. It was also an evaluation of decision making under stress.

What you say at the end is a good point and these things can be analysed and discussed after the scenario. Somehow minimising this flaw.

Well planned scenarios are labourious and a bit risky. This is the dowside, imo. But for self-defence training, it is an excelent complement that should be done at least some time(s).


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> Well it has some merit if it's an attack from behind, but then it doesn't matter if your eyes are closed or not, I'm wondering what common situation would result in someone coming at you from the front and you not seeing them, a very dark alley I su p osr, but then they can't see you, perhaps if your wearing very dark Sun glasses inside a dark club, it could come in handy



The idea is that you develop timing without using sight. So that you can take advantage of non visual cues.

Eg. If Iam getting pummeled and you are shelled up I can can feel for a rhythm of attack and break the momentum. Rather than having to pop my head up and heve a look.

If I am clinched up my head is generally buried in to their face somewhere. Which restricts vision somewhat. And will need to rely on clues from touch rather than sight.


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> If they punch you very hard on the nose whilst your eyes are closed, what do you learn from that, apart from don't stand there with your eyes closed!


Some people actually need to learn that lesson, unfortunately.  Watch newbies spar; when you put some pressure on them, they back up, flail, go into the fetal position and close their eyes.

Natural response for some people who’ve never been physically pressured.  Not everyone, but I’ve seen quite a few.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> I'm not a big fan of scenarios, that always lack authenticity, as they are closer to flow drIlls than combat, as the scenario defines the mode of attack.
> 
> If I have an opponent on the floor to be kicked, never mind if I have tWo mates with me, then they are not getting up, it's as simple as that, if they do then it's because I was a compliment attacker so that's just a flow drill, practising not going on the floor, particularly if your out numbered would be a useful thing to do, practising getting up very quickly before they get in position is also useful, but lying on you back whilst the people pretend to kick you very hard in the kidneys is just silly, if you get up its because they aren't kicking you in the kidneys


Scenarios are like other drills. When you learn a single-leg, your instructor assigns the set-up (what the other guy is doing that positions him for the single-leg). Scenarios just take that a step further, and give a set-up without an assigned finish.

And I'll just ignore the strawman (sort of).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Well it has some merit if it's an attack from behind, but then it doesn't matter if your eyes are closed or not, I'm wondering what common situation would result in someone coming at you from the front and you not seeing them, a very dark alley I su p osr, but then they can't see you, perhaps if your wearing very dark Sun glasses inside a dark club, it could come in handy


It also helps develop responses that might be useful if you just don't notice (as opposed to don't see) the attack. If someone walks up in a bar and grabs, that might not look like an attack until quite late. Part of the point of blind responses is to learn to feel the attack and give a useful initial response (something that counters the attack before it finishes your structure off).


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> It also helps develop responses that might be useful if you just don't notice (as opposed to don't see) the attack. If someone walks up in a bar and grabs, that might not look like an attack until quite late. Part of the point of blind responses is to learn to feel the attack and give a useful initial response (something that counters the attack before it finishes your structure off).


This is a high level ability that comes with a lot of sparring to help create the feel of something familiar.  Attacks from the front are often seen but not processed as an attacked and are almost never expected by those who aren't familiar with "the feel" of a situation.

Happens all the time.  The failure to process what's going on and to make an accurate analysis of one's current safety status.  Straight from the front.  What our eyes see and what we process are 2 different things.  Hence, my statement about sensing being a high level ability.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Scenarios are like other drills. When you learn a single-leg, your instructor assigns the set-up (what the other guy is doing that positions him for the single-leg). Scenarios just take that a step further, and give a set-up without an assigned finish.
> 
> And I'll just ignore the strawman (sort of).



If scenarios are done in that manner. For us wrestling is scenario training.

But the straw man is kind of relevant because it is what poses this moral dilemma for instructors.

So if little johnny is put on his back and tasked with getting up. And nobody actually let's him up.

Then you either have to reevaluate your life or change the scenario so that little Johnny gets up.

And then this is when we see scenario training take a bit of a turn towards fantasy.

If your training hinges on say multiple attackers and you can't deal with multiple attackers. Do you start the rationalisation game?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If scenarios are done in that manner. For us wrestling is scenario training.
> 
> But the straw man is kind of relevant because it is what poses this moral dilemma for instructors.
> 
> So if little johnny is put on his back and tasked with getting up. And nobody actually let's him up.
> 
> Then you either have to reevaluate your life or change the scenario so that little Johnny gets up.
> 
> And then this is when we see scenario training take a bit of a turn towards fantasy.
> 
> If your training hinges on say multiple attackers and you can't deal with multiple attackers. Do you start the rationalisation game?


There is an issue with scenario training - the same issue as with most drills. The problem is when participants think it’s like full sparring (both sides doing their best to come out in top). That leads to a false sense of ability. 

Mostly, I think that false sense is banished by having some decent resistive components in the training. Without them, we can easily develop this odd and illogical notion that we can pretty much always defend against that guy who also can pretty much always defend against us. Failing against each other proves the falsehood.


----------



## Buka

JowGaWolf said:


> This is a high level ability that comes with a lot of sparring to help create the feel of something familiar.  Attacks from the front are often seen but not processed as an attacked and are almost never expected by those who aren't familiar with "the feel" of a situation.
> 
> Happens all the time.  The failure to process what's going on and to make an accurate analysis of one's current safety status.  Straight from the front.  What our eyes see and what we process are 2 different things.  Hence, my statement about sensing being a high level ability.



No need for any of that here.


----------



## JR 137

gpseymour said:


> There is an issue with scenario training - the same issue as with most drills. The problem is when participants think it’s like full sparring (both sides doing their best to come out in top). That leads to a false sense of ability.
> 
> Mostly, I think that false sense is banished by having some decent resistive components in the training. Without them, we can easily develop this odd and illogical notion that we can pretty much always defend against that guy who also can pretty much always defend against us. Failing against each other proves the falsehood.


IMO a problem that scenario training tends to fall into is that both parties know at least how and when it’s going to start.  It’s easy to counter something you know is coming.  And it’s easy to ease up when you know the counter is going to be more painful if you resist harder.  

Example - teacher tells attacker to bear hug from behind.  Defender drops his weight and shifts, while striking the attacker in the nuts.  Attacker doesn’t hold on for dear life and continue to take more shots; attacker thinks “yeah, that’s good enough.”  A real life attacker might drive the defender into a wall, slam him down, hold him for his buddies to tee off on him, etc.

Very simplistic scenario, but I think you get where I’m coming from.

Or my idea of scenario training is different than yours.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> IMO a problem that scenario training tends to fall into is that both parties know at least how and when it’s going to start.  It’s easy to counter something you know is coming.  And it’s easy to ease up when you know the counter is going to be more painful if you resist harder.
> 
> Example - teacher tells attacker to bear hug from behind.  Defender drops his weight and shifts, while striking the attacker in the nuts.  Attacker doesn’t hold on for dear life and continue to take more shots; attacker thinks “yeah, that’s good enough.”  A real life attacker might drive the defender into a wall, slam him down, hold him for his buddies to tee off on him, etc.
> 
> Very simplistic scenario, but I think you get where I’m coming from.
> 
> Or my idea of scenario training is different than yours.


That is one level of scenario training. That’s analogous to a basic drill for learning single-leg: clean feed and no folllow-up resistance. Moving beyond that, there are two ways Togo next. One is to stop telling the defender what’s coming, which lets them focus on stymying the initial attack and getting some control. The other is to allow some follow-up resistance, which has to be limited, because it often turns into a “hurticane”.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Buka said:


> No need for any of that here.


I didn't have any sound so I don't know what was actually said in the video.  So I apologize for any of the audio content and not listening to it first.


----------



## JowGaWolf

JR 137 said:


> IMO a problem that scenario training tends to fall into is that both parties know at least how and when it’s going to start. It’s easy to counter something you know is coming. And it’s easy to ease up when you know the counter is going to be more painful if you resist harder.


Scenario training still valuable.  This situation unfolds like many multi-attacker scenarios I've seen.   Scenarios help bring a level of familiarity of an event so that you aren't going in completely clueless.  It should be as real as possible without putting the participants in grave danger.  You don't want scenario training to traumatize the participants.  If it's too aggressive then people start to dread the training


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> IMO a problem that scenario training tends to fall into is that both parties know at least how and when it’s going to start.  It’s easy to counter something you know is coming.  And it’s easy to ease up when you know the counter is going to be more painful if you resist harder.
> 
> Example - teacher tells attacker to bear hug from behind.  Defender drops his weight and shifts, while striking the attacker in the nuts.  Attacker doesn’t hold on for dear life and continue to take more shots; attacker thinks “yeah, that’s good enough.”  A real life attacker might drive the defender into a wall, slam him down, hold him for his buddies to tee off on him, etc.
> 
> Very simplistic scenario, but I think you get where I’m coming from.
> 
> Or my idea of scenario training is different than yours.



Different.


You change the start point or change the victory conditions. And that is about it.

Then say go. And see what happens.

So rear bear hug is done when one guy is on the deck. Or one guy is free. And If you hit me in the nuts. I will suplex you.


----------



## _Simon_

drop bear said:


> So rear bear hug is done when one guy is on the deck. Or one guy is free. And If you hit me in the nuts. I will suplex you.



Hahaha ah that brings me back... i was always Ryu or Ken fan ;D


----------



## JR 137

JowGaWolf said:


> Scenario training still valuable.  This situation unfolds like many multi-attacker scenarios I've seen.   Scenarios help bring a level of familiarity of an event so that you aren't going in completely clueless.  It should be as real as possible without putting the participants in grave danger.  You don't want scenario training to traumatize the participants.  If it's too aggressive then people start to dread the training


I agree it’s still valuable.  Just pointing out it’s limitations.  Every training method has got its limitations.  Maybe if the teacher sent someone to attack a student at a random time and place without the student knowing the teacher was sending someone.  I think that would probably be assault rather than consentual training though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Scenario training still valuable.  This situation unfolds like many multi-attacker scenarios I've seen.   Scenarios help bring a level of familiarity of an event so that you aren't going in completely clueless.  It should be as real as possible without putting the participants in grave danger.  You don't want scenario training to traumatize the participants.  If it's too aggressive then people start to dread the training


And every now and then, the scenario training should bring up a bit of reality. Multiple-attacker training (the way I do it) often is done very soft - it's about building a habit of movement that helps regain some control. But if I only ever do that, people tend to get a feeling of superhuman ability dealing with multiples. So every now and then, I open up the rules a bit (keeping safeguards in place), to let people lose more often. Over time, they learn to win a bit more often even under that set of rules - and they learn not to give up when they start to feel overwhelmed (which most folks seem to do early in their training).


----------



## JR 137

drop bear said:


> Different.
> 
> 
> You change the start point or change the victory conditions. And that is about it.
> 
> Then say go. And see what happens.
> 
> So rear bear hug is done when one guy is on the deck. Or one guy is free. And If you hit me in the nuts. I will suplex you.


It wasn’t different, really.  Teacher set the start point - rear bear hug - and said go.  Defender did what I described, unscripted.  Attacker gave up rather than keep going like an attacker would’ve in the heat of the moment.

And I never really got into Street Fighter.  Tekken holds my interest far more


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> I agree it’s still valuable.  Just pointing out it’s limitations.  Every training method has got its limitations.  Maybe if the teacher sent someone to attack a student at a random time and place without the student knowing the teacher was sending someone.  I think that would probably be assault rather than consentual training though.


Movies and books often include that as part of training. And nobody ever actually gets hurt, and nobody calls the cops on them. Sometimes I wish I lived in movie-world, at least for training time.


----------



## JR 137

gpseymour said:


> Movies and books often include that as part of training. And nobody ever actually gets hurt, and nobody calls the cops on them. Sometimes I wish I lived in movie-world, at least for training time.


I saw a 20/20 or Nightline or similar episode a while back where there were teachers sending people to attack students from a women’s self defense course.  The students knew it was coming and agreed; they just didn’t know when and where.  And the attackers wore those red man suits. 

They filmed one guy hiding in a student’s garage and attacked her as she got out of the car.  The woman was successful.  Gee, I wonder why?  How did the camera crew and the attacker get in there without her previously knowing?  He came up behind her, but I’d imagine the squishiness of the red man suit probably subconsciously told her she’s it’s not real.

Staged for tv?  Absolutely.  She probably wouldn’t have done as well if she genuinely didn’t know it was coming.  I mean, who let the camera, lights and sound crew in?  But the principle is better than simulating it in the dojo if the student genuinely didn’t know when nor where.

Edit:  Then again, maybe her husband or someone else let them in unbeknownst to her.  Doubt it; TV isn’t the most honest thing out there.


----------



## _Simon_

JR 137 said:


> It wasn’t different, really.  Teacher set the start point - rear bear hug - and said go.  Defender did what I described, unscripted.  Attacker gave up rather than keep going like an attacker would’ve in the heat of the moment.
> 
> And I never really got into Street Fighter.  Tekken holds my interest far more
> 
> View attachment 21483


Ah yep Tekken too... always chose Hwoarang or Jin Kazama, some of their combinations were really cool, I even practiced one of Jin's five-hit combos on the bag a bit (I think it was oi tsuki, left jodan mawashi, gyaku tsuki, oi tsuki, right gedan mawashi)


----------



## JowGaWolf

JR 137 said:


> Just pointing out it’s limitations. Every training method has got its limitations.


yep.  some more than others.  While this is a black belt test, the chances that a gang of tkd students are going to attack you in the streets is very small.  For self-defense this should have contained some of the things that one would expect to see in the streets, like punches lol.







JR 137 said:


> Maybe if the teacher sent someone to attack a student at a random time and place without the student knowing the teacher was sending someone.


lol  that would a butt kicking because only the attacker would know that it's training.  The victim would think it was real and do things they may not have normally done in a scenario.

Sort of like how pranks go bad, where one guy jumps out to scare another and gets punched in the face.

but like you stated there is always limitations.  There's no getting around that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> And every now and then, the scenario training should bring up a bit of reality. Multiple-attacker training (the way I do it) often is done very soft - it's about building a habit of movement that helps regain some control. But if I only ever do that, people tend to get a feeling of superhuman ability dealing with multiples. So every now and then, I open up the rules a bit (keeping safeguards in place), to let people lose more often. Over time, they learn to win a bit more often even under that set of rules - and they learn not to give up when they start to feel overwhelmed (which most folks seem to do early in their training).


It's a difficult thing to do while remaining safe.


----------



## JR 137

JowGaWolf said:


> yep.  some more than others.  While this is a black belt test, the chances that a gang of tkd students are going to attack you in the streets is very small.  For self-defense this should have contained some of the things that one would expect to see in the streets, like punches lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol  that would a butt kicking because only the attacker would know that it's training.  The victim would think it was real and do things they may not have normally done in a scenario.
> 
> Sort of like how pranks go bad, where one guy jumps out to scare another and gets punched in the face.
> 
> but like you stated there is always limitations.  There's no getting around that.


I read about a “gang” of judo players attacking a guy, sort of...

There was a time when stealing people’s cars once they got done getting gas was fashionable.  So a guy tried to steal a passenger van (one of those big ones full of seats), and timed it so he jumped in once the guy took the gas pump out of the tank filler.  Unfortunately, he didn’t realize it was full of a bunch of black belt judo players on their way to a competition. 

Reportedly, they didn’t have much trouble subduing the guy.  Jacking a van full of about 12 black belt judo players isn’t the best idea.  Especially unarmed.


----------



## JR 137

JowGaWolf said:


> lol  that would a butt kicking because only the attacker would know that it's training.  The victim would think it was real and do things they may not have normally done in a scenario.


That’s kind of the point, though; doing things and being in situations you wouldn’t be in in the dojo.

Yeah, recipe for disaster.  I could see the 6 o’colck news reporting about a local SD instructor accidentally getting shot because he jumped one of his students unexpectedly as part of the training.

And it screams of the movie Fight Club to me... “His name is Robert Paulson.”


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> I read about a “gang” of judo players attacking a guy, sort of...
> 
> There was a time when stealing people’s cars once they got done getting gas was fashionable.  So a guy tried to steal a passenger van (one of those big ones full of seats), and timed it so he jumped in once the guy took the gas pump out of the tank filler.  Unfortunately, he didn’t realize it was full of a bunch of black belt judo players on their way to a competition.
> 
> Reportedly, they didn’t have much trouble subduing the guy.  Jacking a van full of about 12 black belt judo players isn’t the best idea.  Especially unarmed.


I remember that story, too. Still one of my favorite to view in my head (since I don't think there was any video).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> That’s kind of the point, though; doing things and being in situations you wouldn’t be in in the dojo.
> 
> Yeah, recipe for disaster.  I could see the 6 o’colck news reporting about a local SD instructor accidentally getting shot because he jumped on of his students unexpectedly as part of the training.
> 
> And it screams of the movie Fight Club to me... “His name is Robert Paulson.”


I always picture Clouseau and Kato.


----------



## JowGaWolf

JR 137 said:


> I read about a “gang” of judo players attacking a guy, sort of...
> 
> There was a time when stealing people’s cars once they got done getting gas was fashionable.  So a guy tried to steal a passenger van (one of those big ones full of seats), and timed it so he jumped in once the guy took the gas pump out of the tank filler.  Unfortunately, he didn’t realize it was full of a bunch of black belt judo players on their way to a competition.
> 
> Reportedly, they didn’t have much trouble subduing the guy.  Jacking a van full of about 12 black belt judo players isn’t the best idea.  Especially unarmed.


I think I know the story that you are talking about.  I had a good laugh about that, especially with how did the group end up looking like targets lol. Or was this guy just bad at picking targets.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I think I know the story that you are talking about.  I had a good laugh about that, especially with how did the group end up looking like targets lol. Or was this guy just bad at picking targets.


What? You don't think a vanload of athletic 20-somethings seems like a good target for a lone carjacker??

EDIT: As I recall, it was a college Judo club.


----------



## JR 137

JowGaWolf said:


> I think I know the story that you are talking about.  I had a good laugh about that, especially with how did the group end up looking like targets lol. Or was this guy just bad at picking targets.


Rule number 1 should be make sure no one’s in the car.  Because then you possibly get kidnapping or someone you don’t want in the car.  

Edit: actually, rule number one is no police cars.  Rule number 2 is no one in the car.  Both shouldn’t need to be rules, but I’m sure the level of intelligence of these guys makes it necessary.


----------



## JR 137

gpseymour said:


> What? You don't think a vanload of athletic 20-somethings seems like a good target for a lone carjacker??
> 
> EDIT: As I recall, it was a college Judo club.


I think you’re right about it being a college judo team.


----------



## JR 137

Here’s the judo team story...

Thief Runs Out of Luck Trying to Carjack Van Full of Judo Team Members - 2002-08-20

It’s more detailed than what I read previously.  And it’s better.


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> It wasn’t different, really.  Teacher set the start point - rear bear hug - and said go.  Defender did what I described, unscripted.  Attacker gave up rather than keep going like an attacker would’ve in the heat of the moment.
> 
> And I never really got into Street Fighter.  Tekken holds my interest far more
> 
> View attachment 21483



Poor mans Sagat right there.

We will run five or six guys one after the other. So even if you get one easy out, or even if it is easy when you start. It just gets consistently harder. 

You also get jumped more surprisingly as the minutes wear down. Because you just loose focus.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> What? You don't think a vanload of athletic 20-somethings seems like a good target for a lone carjacker??
> 
> EDIT: As I recall, it was a college Judo club.



We had a rebel sports store that used to be the same with shoplifters.

We would just pick them up in the car park after they were done.


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> IMO a problem that scenario training tends to fall into is that both parties know at least how and when it’s going to start.  It’s easy to counter something you know is coming.  And it’s easy to ease up when you know the counter is going to be more painful if you resist harder.
> 
> Example - teacher tells attacker to bear hug from behind.  Defender drops his weight and shifts, while striking the attacker in the nuts.  Attacker doesn’t hold on for dear life and continue to take more shots; attacker thinks “yeah, that’s good enough.”  A real life attacker might drive the defender into a wall, slam him down, hold him for his buddies to tee off on him, etc.
> 
> Very simplistic scenario, but I think you get where I’m coming from.
> 
> Or my idea of scenario training is different than yours.


Yes indeed, but no one attacks with a bear hug, well not unless they are built like a bear and just want to restrain you, far more likely is a flyIng knee in the back, a good punch in the ear, or my all time favourite, a stamp to the back of the knee, giving you the choice of smashing head first in to the floor or some serious knee damage, they won't run scenarios for them as there is no defen ce,so they just do bear hugs


----------



## drop bear

I attack with a bear hug. Most of the defences don't work against it.






And turtle in a ground and pound position.


----------



## JowGaWolf

JR 137 said:


> Here’s the judo team story...
> 
> Thief Runs Out of Luck Trying to Carjack Van Full of Judo Team Members - 2002-08-20
> 
> It’s more detailed than what I read previously.  And it’s better.


 and it's still funny.  The guy jumped into a "hornets nest" to escape the single hornet chasing him.


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> Yes indeed, but no one attacks with a bear hug, well not unless they are built like a bear and just want to restrain you, far more likely is a flyIng knee in the back, a good punch in the ear, or my all time favourite, a stamp to the back of the knee, giving you the choice of smashing head first in to the floor or some serious knee damage, they won't run scenarios for them as there is no defen ce,so they just do bear hugs


I saw plenty of bear hug type stuff in my days of bartending and frequenting such establishments.  True, it was mostly used a restraint or used as a grab and throw them out of the way.  But often enough it was used as a way to hold someone for their buddies to tee off on.  If you’re holding someone there so your friend can get some free shots in, it’s an attack.

And as I said to Drop Bear, the bear hug is just an example.  Use any scenario, and the same stuff tends to happen.


----------



## JR 137

drop bear said:


> I attack with a bear hug. Most of the defences don't work against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And turtle in a ground and pound position.


I’ve seen very, very few defenses work against it.  Then again, most often, the person using the bear hug came up blindly from behind and was significantly larger than the person being held.

But the bear hug scenario training was just an example. Actually, it was the first and most basic example I thought of.  Drill other scenarios that way, and the same things apply.


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> I saw plenty of bear hug type stuff in my days of bartending and frequenting such establishments.  True, it was mostly used a restraint or used as a grab and throw them out of the way.  But often enough it was used as a way to hold someone for their buddies to tee off on.  If you’re holding someone there so your friend can get some free shots in, it’s an attack.
> 
> And as I said to Drop Bear, the bear hug is just an example.  Use any scenario, and the same stuff tends to happen.


I've never seen a Bear hug,whilst your buddies hit thing anywhere out side of a movie, maybe it's an American thing.

I'm not. Disagreeing with your point, rather using it to illustrate mine.
Which is,

Scenarios, only include attacks for which there is some( at least theoretical) viable defence, attacks from behind tend toFall into the no viable defence category,Other than don't let people sneak up behind you. So get left out,

Those that do get included bearhugs( unlikely really) and choke holds are indefensible if the person has greater strength body weight that you and some idea of what they are doing, I got out of a choke hold once by kicking hard against a wall and knocking is both to the floor, he let go, if he hadn't I would still have been in a choke.

Scenarios that are included tend to be fantasy movies that are not realistically like life and give people false expectations of their abilities. but the running a self defense program and telling people there's no defence are not mutually compatable


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> I've never seen a Bear hug,whilst your buddies hit thing anywhere out side of a movie, maybe it's an American thing.
> 
> I'm not. Disagreeing with your point, rather using it to illustrate mine.
> Which is,
> 
> Scenarios, only include attacks for which there is some( at least theoretical) viable defence, attacks from behind tend toFall into the no viable defence category,Other than don't let people sneak up behind you. So get left out,
> 
> Those that do get included bearhugs( unlikely really) and choke holds are indefensible if the person has greater strength body weight that you and some idea of what they are doing, I got out of a choke hold once by kicking hard against a wall and knocking is both to the floor, he let go, if he hadn't I would still have been in a choke.
> 
> Scenarios that are included tend to be fantasy movies that are not realistically like life and give people false expectations of their abilities. but the running a self defense program and telling people there's no defence are not mutually compatable


Actually, it's pretty common to say, "Then your day is going to end badly." Students often ask about attacks that don't have good answers (some of them are even viable attacks). Sometimes we'll get into damage mitigation (if someone picks me up in a bearhug, what are my options for reducing the damage when they slam me), and other times we simply acknowledge that there's not a good answer if the attack gets that far. The best defense to most of that is being able to recognize it the instant it starts, and keep them from getting complete control. That's certainly the best answer once a choke hold attack starts. Of course, that doesn't apply to getting whacked from behind - you can't defend against something you don't know is coming and completes the moment contact is made.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Actually, it's pretty common to say, "Then your day is going to end badly." Students often ask about attacks that don't have good answers (some of them are even viable attacks). Sometimes we'll get into damage mitigation (if someone picks me up in a bearhug, what are my options for reducing the damage when they slam me), and other times we simply acknowledge that there's not a good answer if the attack gets that far. The best defense to most of that is being able to recognize it the instant it starts, and keep them from getting complete control. That's certainly the best answer once a choke hold attack starts. Of course, that doesn't apply to getting whacked from behind - you can't defend against something you don't know is coming and completes the moment contact is made.


Common for you or common for the ultimate self defense system, 

For a lot of people their day is going to end badly no matter what they do, take three to one atttacks, that almost always ends badly, yet they are still practised along with a lot of other fantasy


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Common for you or common for the ultimate self defense system,
> 
> For a lot of people their day is going to end badly no matter what they do, take three to one atttacks, that almost always ends badly, yet they are still practised along with a lot of other fantasy


I've heard other instructors say variations of the same thing. Some are a bit too cautious about saying it, others perhaps a bit to cavalier with it. I'd be surprised if there weren't instructors who never said it.

Training for multiples, like training for a surprise choke hold, is first about learning to retain what control can be had and improve your odds of survival and escape. It is possible to survive - and even to "win", if they aren't very skilled nor coordinated as a group. If it's just some angry blokes ganging up, you've got a better chance than a couple of guys deciding to hem you in and take you apart.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I've heard other instructors say variations of the same thing. Some are a bit too cautious about saying it, others perhaps a bit to cavalier with it. I'd be surprised if there weren't instructors who never said it.
> 
> Training for multiples, like training for a surprise choke hold, is first about learning to retain what control can be had and improve your odds of survival and escape. It is possible to survive - and even to "win", if they aren't very skilled nor coordinated as a group. If it's just some angry blokes ganging up, you've got a better chance than a couple of guys deciding to hem you in and take you apart.


You know it's possible to win, because A) you've done it a number of times against attacker a variety of size abilities or B) you think it might be possible to win bAsed on a vivid imagination and watching Kung,to movies ?

A local doorman was kicked to death by three attackers his ma training and black belt didn't seem to help, perhaps he would have died quicker if he was untrained, it's fantasy you peddling, if you break free and run you have a chance, but as to winning?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> You know it's possible to win, because A) you've done it a number of times against attacker a variety of size abilities or B) you think it might be possible to win bAsed on a vivid imagination and watching Kung,to movies ?


I know because folks have survived those situations, and even won. It has happened, and is thus possible.



> A local doorman was kicked to death by three attackers his ma training and black belt didn't seem to help, perhaps he would have died quicker if he was untrained, it's fantasy you peddling, if you break free and run you have a chance, but as to winning?


Yeah, I said it's possible. Not guaranteed. And that description doesn't tell us whether they were the uncoordinated lot I spoke of, or a group that worked together well.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> You know it's possible to win, because A) you've done it a number of times against attacker a variety of size abilities or B) you think it might be possible to win bAsed on a vivid imagination and watching Kung,to movies ?
> 
> A local doorman was kicked to death by three attackers his ma training and black belt didn't seem to help, perhaps he would have died quicker if he was untrained, it's fantasy you peddling, if you break free and run you have a chance, but as to winning?



If you are going to train it. You need to train it realistically.

My whole game plan was the advantage of numbers. And you are right it rarely failed.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I know because folks have survived those situations, and even won. It has happened, and is thus possible.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I said it's possible. Not guaranteed. And that description doesn't tell us whether they were the uncoordinated lot I spoke of, or a group that worked together well.


So you've not done it then, even once? Even against an uncoordinated group, ? Just heAr say


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> So you've not done it then, even once? Even against an uncoordinated group, ? Just heAr say


Nope, never needed it. Not sure what my chances would be.

And it's not "hearsay" when there's actual evidence of someone surviving such a thing. Or is it your contention there's no evidence anyone ever came out on top in a multiple-attacker situation?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you are going to train it. You need to train it realistically.
> 
> My whole game plan was the advantage of numbers. And you are right it rarely failed.


The odds are definitely always going to favor the side with greater numbers, all else being even remotely equal.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Nope, never needed it. Not sure what my chances would be.
> 
> And it's not "hearsay" when there's actual evidence of someone surviving such a thing. Or is it your contention there's no evidence anyone ever came out on top in a multiple-attacker situation?


Lots of people survive in that their not actually dead, yes lots of evidence for that, so are you teaching how to deal with multi attackers with no actual experience of how to deal with multi attackers


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Lots of people survive in that their not actually dead, yes lots of evidence for that, so are you teaching how to deal with multi attackers with no actual experience of how to deal with multi attackers


More than survive. Some actually manage to win. 

And yes, the only personal experience I have is in training. I use what I can learn from video evidence and folks who have experience succeeding against multiples.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> More than survive. Some actually manage to win.
> 
> And yes, the only personal experience I have is in training. I use what I can learn from video evidence and folks who have experience succeeding against multiples.


That's like having a driving instructor that has never driven but has watched you tube and talk to a few drivers,


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> That's like having a driving instructor that has never driven but has watched you tube and talk to a few drivers,


A bit more like having a driving instructor who has analyzed wrecks and found what works to avoid them in the moment and teaches those skills. That, of course, assuming there weren't very many people who actually drove, which is where your head is all tangled up. Not a bunch of people have both survived a multiple-opponent fight AND done the analysis to find out what seems to make a difference. Some bloke who happened to survive and doesn't really know why - nor whether that same strategy tends to be effective in other cases - isn't much help. If there were a bunch of folks with real-life experience teaching evidence-based multiple defense, I wouldn't bother. But there aren't, so I do what I can.


----------



## oftheherd1

gpseymour said:


> Actually, it's pretty common to say, "Then your day is going to end badly." Students often ask about attacks that don't have good answers (some of them are even viable attacks). Sometimes we'll get into damage mitigation (if someone picks me up in a bearhug, what are my options for reducing the damage when they slam me), and other times we simply acknowledge that there's not a good answer if the attack gets that far. *The best defense to most of that is being able to recognize it the instant it starts, and keep them from getting complete control*. That's certainly the best answer once a choke hold attack starts. Of course, that doesn't apply to getting whacked from behind - you can't defend against something you don't know is coming and completes the moment contact is made.



Yep, that is one of the things not always drilled in my experience.  You may know a defense, and it may be good if employed quickly enough, but who drills being able to recognize an attack and the defense needed?


----------



## oftheherd1

jobo said:


> You know it's possible to win, because A) you've done it a number of times against attacker a variety of size abilities or B) you think it might be possible to win bAsed on a vivid imagination and watching Kung,to movies ?
> 
> *A local doorman was kicked to death by three attackers his ma training and black belt didn't seem to help, perhaps he would have died quicker if he was untrained, it's fantasy you peddling, if you break free and run you have a chance, but as to winning?*



Sad.  Any chance he was trying to stay within the rules too long?


----------



## jobo

oftheherd1 said:


> Sad.  Any chance he was trying to stay within the rules too long?


No I think he was just out gunned, three big lads with a minor grudge, I think the fact he was waCKing back only served to turn what would have been a bit of a beating in to a death. One of the attackers was Found floating in the canal,Sometimes later, some One else with a grudge it seems


----------



## TMA17

I'd add that it depends on how you spar too.  Going at it hard is bad for the brain.  Sparring gives timing, distance control and some sense of what it's like to be hit.


----------



## jobo

TMA17 said:


> I'd add that it depends on how you spar too.  Going at it hard is bad for the brain.  Sparring gives timing, distance control and some sense of what it's like to be hit.


No, getting hit a lot is bad for the brain, but Hitting others does you no Harm e at all, well maybe a bruised thumb, but you can live with that


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> A bit more like having a driving instructor who has analyzed wrecks and found what works to avoid them in the moment and teaches those skills. That, of course, assuming there weren't very many people who actually drove, which is where your head is all tangled up. Not a bunch of people have both survived a multiple-opponent fight AND done the analysis to find out what seems to make a difference. Some bloke who happened to survive and doesn't really know why - nor whether that same strategy tends to be effective in other cases - isn't much help. If there were a bunch of folks with real-life experience teaching evidence-based multiple defense, I wouldn't bother. But there aren't, so I do what I can.


You always turn the discussion into a discussion about you, I'm sure your are diligent and realistic about what you teach, but that is not universally true, fighting multiple attacker on the times I've done it, is dependent on not stopping moving, it's a significant advantage to attack rather than defend, and it's a great help if you can put paid to the guy in a few seconds, once you engage in a wrestling match with one, your finished


----------



## TMA17

jobo said:


> No, getting hit a lot is bad for the brain, but Hitting others does you no Harm e at all, well maybe a bruised thumb, but you can live with that



Yeah and when you spar hard you get hit a lot unless it's very one sided.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> You always turn the discussion into a discussion about you, I'm sure your are diligent and realistic about what you teach, but that is not universally true, fighting multiple attacker on the times I've done it, is dependent on not stopping moving, it's a significant advantage to attack rather than defend, and it's a great help if you can put paid to the guy in a few seconds, once you engage in a wrestling match with one, your finished


Um, the discussion WAS about me - you asked a question about my teaching. Was I supposed to reply with a reference to someone else? How would that address your question?

I agree not everyone teaches multiples well. Some seem to actually believe they and their students become invincible badasses who cannot be touched by fewer than 5 people. Of course, if they did some homework - even just an honest review of Youtube videos - they'd quickly learn that's not quite true.

And thanks for the input. Those are the tenets I try to hold to. As someone who is primarily a grappler, I had to learn that most grappling isn't useful there. If I get a great opening to put them down, I'll take it, but most of those openings seem to be for punches (not kicks so much, because gotta keep moving). The real focus of the training is your first point: keep moving. That's the part that gives you a chance. Without it, you'll only survive if they are lazy or just nice blokes.


----------



## jobo

TMA17 said:


> Yeah and when you spar hard you get hit a lot unless it's very one sided.


Well that's bad technique, then, the idea is NOT to get hit, anybody can gets punched repeatedly on the nose, it takes no skill at all


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Well that's bad technique, then, the idea is NOT to get hit, anybody can gets punched repeatedly on the nose, it takes no skill at all


Depends the size of the nose, really, and whether your opponent is capable of consistently hitting a target that size.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Depends the size of the nose, really, and whether your opponent is capable of consistently hitting a target that size.


It's takes skill to punch a nose, but non at all to get punched.

People talking like getting punched in the head repeatedly, is an inevitable part of sparring The very first skill you need to learn, is not getting punched, at all preferably , but only to land a much hardEr shot of you are


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> It's takes skill to punch a nose, but non at all to get punched.
> 
> People talking like getting punched in the head repeatedly, is an inevitable part of sparring The very first skill you need to learn, is not getting punched, at all preferably , but only to land a much hardEr shot of you are


It takes skill in finding someone who can punch you.

And I agree that not all hard sparring will result in head trauma. In fact, if both people are good at protecting their heads, it could be counter-productive to keep banging at each others' guards. Of course, much of the time, at least one of you is going to get his bell rung if you are both going hard.


----------



## _Simon_

jobo said:


> It's takes skill to punch a nose, but non at all to get punched.
> 
> People talking like getting punched in the head repeatedly, is an inevitable part of sparring The very first skill you need to learn, is not getting punched, at all preferably , but only to land a much hardEr shot of you are



I would say actually that there is something about getting hit, mentally it's pretty important getting used to that, and it almost is a skill in a sense, moreso a learned adaption. Obviously not constantly getting hit to the head in your training, but being able to get used to the shock of being hit (which in a fight may very well happen) can help override the need to curl up in fetal position and keep moving etc.

But absolutely it's important training to not get hit as a first rule!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

_Simon_ said:


> I would say actually that there is something about getting hit, mentally it's pretty important getting used to that, and it almost is a skill in a sense, moreso a learned adaption. Obviously not constantly getting hit to the head in your training, but being able to get used to the shock of being hit (which in a fight may very well happen) can help override the need to curl up in fetal position and keep moving etc.
> 
> But absolutely it's important training to not get hit as a first rule!


From a self-defense perspective, getting past the shock of getting hit might actually be the most valuable part of sparring. Second to that is getting over the shock of an unending attack (so it doesn't become an overwhelming attack). Third is learning to apply some of your techniques under some variation of full resistance.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> From a self-defense perspective, getting past the shock of getting hit might actually be the most valuable part of sparring. Second to that is getting over the shock of an unending attack (so it doesn't become an overwhelming attack). Third is learning to apply some of your techniques under some variation of full resistance.


Hmm, not sure if go that far, certainly being hit if your not used to being hit might have you freeze, and that's not really a good thing, but to take it further and Sugest that you should be punched In the head to trigger an adaption) as the guy above did) is taking it to far, there No adaption caused by being punched, you don't get better at being punched by being punched. NoR does getting over the shock of being punched require you to be punched in the head, the chest will do just fine and the chest with a pad in place works well.

That said, spirited Sparringg or even flow drills with real punched will inevitably lead to you being hit, That's good only in respect that it out a degree of jeopardy in the drill, and really all Drills should have a degree of jeopardy involved to encourage quick learning/ enfort. I do Push ups over a muddy puddle, it great at encouraging you not to give up and fall to the ground, just as practising balance on a 8 ft fence is much better than doing so on a 3ft fence. but that's no where near as good as practising on a fallen tree across a 5foot deep freezing cold stream, that really focusess the mind

Learning though discomfort is good, but what you are Learning is to avoid the discomforT. The discomfort isn't the learning, unless you like lying in a muddy puddle it being punched


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Hmm, not sure if go that far, certainly being hit if your not used to being hit might have you freeze, and that's not really a good thing, but to take it further and Sugest that you should be punched In the head to trigger an adaption) as the guy above did) is taking it to far, there No adaption caused by being punched, you don't get better at being punched by being punched. NoR does getting over the shock of being punched require you to be punched in the head, the chest will do just fine and the chest with a pad in place works well.


I'm not sure getting punched in the chest works for overcoming fear of being hit in the head. Note that I'm not talking about getting clobbered. Regular moderate sparring will end up with everyone eventually taking the occasional shot to the head, and that's plenty for getting past that shock reaction.



> That said, spirited Sparringg or even flow drills with real punched will inevitably lead to you being hit, That's good only in respect that it out a degree of jeopardy in the drill, and really all Drills should have a degree of jeopardy involved to encourage quick learning/ enfort. I do Push ups over a muddy puddle, it great at encouraging you not to give up and fall to the ground, just as practising balance on a 8 ft fence is much better than doing so on a 3ft fence. but that's no where near as good as practising on a fallen tree across a 5foot deep freezing cold stream, that really focusess the mind


I shoulda read that before I started typing my reply. That was basically my point.



> Learning though discomfort is good, but what you are Learning is to avoid the discomforT. The discomfort isn't the learning, unless you like lying in a muddy puddle it being punched


Yes.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> From a self-defense perspective, getting past the shock of getting hit might actually be the most valuable part of sparring. Second to that is getting over the shock of an unending attack (so it doesn't become an overwhelming attack). Third is learning to apply some of your techniques under some variation of full resistance.



Getting past the shock of the dynamics being different to drills factor in there pretty heavily.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> Hmm, not sure if go that far, certainly being hit if your not used to being hit might have you freeze, and that's not really a good thing, but to take it further and Sugest that you should be punched In the head to trigger an adaption) as the guy above did) is taking it to far, there No adaption caused by being punched, you don't get better at being punched by being punched. NoR does getting over the shock of being punched require you to be punched in the head, the chest will do just fine and the chest with a pad in place works well.



Have you ever face punched a kuyokashin guy?


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> Learning though discomfort is good, but what you are Learning is to avoid the discomforT. The discomfort isn't the learning, unless you like lying in a m



Not really. 
Good punching defence is not the same as avoiding punches at all cost.

Which is a reaction that generally screws people up.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Not really.
> Good punching defence is not the same as avoiding punches at all cost.
> 
> Which is a reaction that generally screws people up.


What is the cost of not getting punched at all, it's sounds like a good out come to me, if I can also avoid getting kicked throttled or thrown through the air, it sounds like a A good night out to me


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> What is the cost of not getting punched at all, it's sounds like a good out come to me, if I can also avoid getting kicked throttled or thrown through the air, it sounds like a A good night out to me



You get punched more. Because your structure goes to pot. 

And the punches do more damage.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> You get punched more. Because your structure goes to pot.
> 
> And the punches do more damage.


No if I avoid punches (at all cost,) I don't get punched, if I get punched I clearly haven't managed to avoid them


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> That's like having a driving instructor that has never driven but has watched you tube and talk to a few drivers,


I was a CPR instructor for quite a few years.  Never had to perform it other than on a mannequin.  Does that mean I shouldn’t have taught the class?

I had two students successfully use the skills I taught them afterwards.

Edit:  I’ve also had people in my class who’ve performed CPR before taking my class - recertifying lifeguards, EMS, etc.


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> I was a CPR instructor for quite a few years.  Never had to perform it other than on a mannequin.  Does that mean I shouldn’t have taught the class?
> 
> I had two students successfully use the skills I taught them afterwards.
> 
> Edit:  I’ve also had people in my class who’ve performed CPR before taking my class - recertifying lifeguards, EMS, etc.


Yes  you shouldNt have been able to teach it till you had used it at least once , For real,


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Yes  you shouldNt have been able to teach it till you had used it at least once , For real,


So, nobody gets to learn CPR until someone actually uses it in their area, and then only that person can teach it? Any idea how long it would take to get even first-world countries reasonably trained using that approach?


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> Yes  you shouldNt have been able to teach it till you had used it at least once , For real,


I’m pretty sure I taught it right.  Seeing as how my students did it correctly when they needed to, people who’ve performed it many times taught me, and people who’ve been in my class who’ve previously performed it correctly verified that I was correct in my teaching.

Yeah, you’re right.  I should’ve never been allowed to teach it.  What the hell was I thinking.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> So, nobody gets to learn CPR until someone actually uses it in their area, and then only that person can teach it? Any idea how long it would take to get even first-world countries reasonably trained using that approach?


Quality, quality, quality, there's plenty of people who have used cpr, just Pay them to teach it,


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Quality, quality, quality, there's plenty of people who have used cpr, just Pay them to teach it,


Yeah, but they aren't teaching it now. That's kinda the point. I'd love it if CPR could always be taught by EMTs. But they actually already have jobs.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, nobody gets to learn CPR until someone actually uses it in their area, and then only that person can teach it? Any idea how long it would take to get even first-world countries reasonably trained using that approach?



Did you make up CPR based on your own research?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Did you make up CPR based on your own research?


Somebody did.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Somebody did.



It was not really one guy who watched a bit of youtube.

Google dr fredrich Maass. And you will see the evolution of cpr.(It is a pdf so I have no idea how to link it.

But it was basically generations of people trying slightly less and less ridiculous methods like tying people to horses and blood letting, untill they boiled it down to what we have now.


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> I’m pretty sure I taught it right.  Seeing as how my students did it correctly when they needed to, people who’ve performed it many times taught me, and people who’ve been in my class who’ve previously performed it correctly verified that I was correct in my teaching.
> 
> Yeah, you’re right.  I should’ve never been allowed to teach it.  What the hell was I thinking.





gpseymour said:


> Yeah, but they aren't teaching it now. That's kinda the point. I'd love it if CPR could always be taught by EMTs. But they actually already have jobs.


I'm sure some of them are, I can order an experienced professionAL medical traiNET to teach cpr, QUIte easily, I know coz I've ordered dozens of them over the years.  nurses , paramedics etc

Having novice trainerS training novice trainer who go on to train more novice trainers is just cost cutting by organisations, Pay the going rate and get someone who knows what they Re doing , because they have medical qualifications and have done it many many times for real


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> I'm sure some of them are, I can order an experienced professionAL medical traiNET to teach cpr, QUIte easily, I know coz I've ordered dozens of them over the years.  nurses , paramedics etc
> 
> Having novice trainerS training novice trainer who go on to train more novice trainers is just cost cutting by organisations, Pay the going rate and get someone who knows what they Re doing , because they have medical qualifications and have done it many many times for real


I’ve taken classes taught by people like EMTs, firefighters, etc., and I’ve co-taught with the like.  Same for people who’ve never had to use it.

I genuinely saw zero difference in the material.  Some of the experienced people where better, some weren’t as good.

To be honest, I didn’t see a difference overall at all.  The experienced people might’ve thrown in a story or two, but that didn’t change anything.  Except maybe a guy like you taking the training more seriously.

Here’s something I used to say when someone asked if I’ve ever used it...

I’m fortunate enough to have never been in that situation.  If I ever am, I’ll do everything I know to the best of my ability.  

There was a smartass who said “how do you really know it works then?”  My reply - if a person needs this stuff, they’ll be unconscious, just like the mannequin.  The only real difference will be the emotional aspect of it.  I’ve been in some life and death situations where I was the person in charge until higher trained people took over.  I did my job in all of those situations, so I’m confident I’ll do my job in this situation if and when it arises.  

Conversation ended there.


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> I’ve taken classes taught by people like EMTs, firefighters, etc., and I’ve co-taught with the like.  Same for people who’ve never had to use it.
> 
> I genuinely saw zero difference in the material.  Some of the experienced people where better, some weren’t as good.
> 
> To be honest, I didn’t see a difference overall at all.  The experienced people might’ve thrown in a story or two, but that didn’t change anything.  Except maybe a guy like you taking the training more seriously.
> 
> Here’s something I used to say when someone asked if I’ve ever used it...
> 
> I’m fortunate enough to have never been in that situation.  If I ever am, I’ll do everything I know to the best of my ability.
> 
> There was a smartass who said “how do you really know it works then?”  My reply - if a person needs this stuff, they’ll be unconscious, just like the mannequin.  The only real difference will be the emotional aspect of it.  I’ve been in some life and death situations where I was the person in charge until higher trained people took over.  I did my job in all of those situations, so I’m confident I’ll do my job in this situation if and when it arises.
> 
> Conversation ended there.


Your turning it into a personal slight, you asked me the question and I have given  my views, my views are that people teachingskills on Which lives depend, should be suitably qualified, in this case that would be a medical qualification and suitable experiance, if you did a good job of your training that's down to your personal attribute s and not to the organisation having a good system for training life saving skills your level may very well not be replicated by others


----------



## Midnight-shadow

jobo said:


> I'm sure some of them are, I can order an experienced professionAL medical traiNET to teach cpr, QUIte easily, I know coz I've ordered dozens of them over the years.  nurses , paramedics etc
> 
> Having novice trainerS training novice trainer who go on to train more novice trainers is just cost cutting by organisations, Pay the going rate and get someone who knows what they Re doing , because they have medical qualifications and have done it many many times for real



The way I do CPR and teach it is the exact same way the paramedics and doctors do it. I started teaching CPR before I had to use it in a real situation, and after I had used it in a real situation, I practiced and taught it the exact same way. Yes doing it on a manikin is different to doing it on a real person, but that comes down to the limits of the training equipment, not the competence of the teacher. CPR is a very very simple process as long as you place your hands correctly, which is why it can be taught to so many people. You don't need a medical degree to do it, or teach it. 

Expecting all CPR teachers to have a medical degree is like getting Steven Hawking to explain that 2+2=4....


----------



## jobo

Midnight-shadow said:


> The way I do CPR and teach it is the exact same way the paramedics and doctors do it. I started teaching CPR before I had to use it in a real situation, and after I had used it in a real situation, I practiced and taught it the exact same way. Yes doing it on a manikin is different to doing it on a real person, but that comes down to the limits of the training equipment, not the competence of the teacher. CPR is a very very simple process as long as you place your hands correctly, which is why it can be taught to so many people. You don't need a medical degree to do it, or teach it.
> 
> Expecting all CPR teachers to have a medical degree is like getting Steven Hawking to explain that 2+2=4....


Tooth extraction is a very simple process, I'm guessing you want a medical profession so should you ever need to extract a tooth ? 

Rewiring a house is a very simple process, you can learn of you tube, most people have the sense to pay a professional to do it. 

If the organisation you work for won't get the gardener to fix the circuit board then shouldn't be getting the receptionist to teach cpr


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It was not really one guy who watched a bit of youtube.
> 
> Google dr fredrich Maass. And you will see the evolution of cpr.(It is a pdf so I have no idea how to link it.
> 
> But it was basically generations of people trying slightly less and less ridiculous methods like tying people to horses and blood letting, untill they boiled it down to what we have now.


Yes. What was the point? If there wasn't a viable standard CPR today, there would be people studying what has seemed to work to look for solutions. And they'd probably use any reasonable evidence they could get their hands on, including video.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Yes. What was the point? If there wasn't a viable standard CPR today, there would be people studying what has seemed to work to look for solutions. And they'd probably use any reasonable evidence they could get their hands on, including video.


But those people would most probably be people who had ACTUALLY tried other techniques themselves


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> I'm sure some of them are, I can order an experienced professionAL medical traiNET to teach cpr, QUIte easily, I know coz I've ordered dozens of them over the years.  nurses , paramedics etc
> 
> Having novice trainerS training novice trainer who go on to train more novice trainers is just cost cutting by organisations, Pay the going rate and get someone who knows what they Re doing , because they have medical qualifications and have done it many many times for real


Except that we have evidence it actually produces effective technique. And since that's the point....

I agree it's better when someone who has used it teaches it. They'll be able to share some nuances and warnings those who haven't needed it won't have. Mind you, those nuances are unlikely to be useful to a neophyte trainee, until after they've had to use it a time or two. They simply don't have the experience to leverage them yet.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> But those people would most probably be people who had ACTUALLY tried other techniques themselves


In that context, probably, because it's a predictable need, and there are plenty of analytical people in the appropriate profession. 

That doesn't really translate to things like multiples training (which you and DB are drawing the analogy to). There are only a few (relatively speaking) people out there who've had repeat experiences with multiples who are teaching anything about them to the public. And only a portion (far from all) of those who do so are actually analyzing enough information to come up with valid conclusions about what actually works. Most of them seem to be repeating the process DB pointed out that medicine took in its development. Something seems to work, so they teach that. Problem is, sometimes they're teaching what worked because of the situation, or the people involved, and generalizing it across all situations.

As I said before, if there were enough people with real-world experience who were teaching good multiple strategy, for all students to easily get it from them, I wouldn't spend any time teaching it. I've not found that to be the case, so I teach what I can.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Except that we have evidence it actually produces effective technique. And since that's the point....
> 
> I agree it's better when someone who has used it teaches it. They'll be able to share some nuances and warnings those who haven't needed it won't have. Mind you, those nuances are unlikely to be useful to a neophyte trainee, until after they've had to use it a time or two. They simply don't have the experience to leverage them yet.


Well no we dont, we have evidence that a very small number of people have used the skills success fully, we have no idea how many people died needlessly because the training was sub par ?

Your a management consutant, would you really recommend , that life crucial skills are taught by unqualified people.

I've had this argument all my working life, if you want a scaffold traNing course pay a scaffold with training qualifications to give it, don't send Jenny from accounts on a two day scaffold course and expect her to do it. And yes this very arguments For cpr,and defibs


----------



## Midnight-shadow

jobo said:


> Tooth extraction is a very simple process, I'm guessing you want a medical profession so should you ever need to extract a tooth ?
> 
> Rewiring a house is a very simple process, you can learn of you tube, most people have the sense to pay a professional to do it.
> 
> If the organisation you work for won't get the gardener to fix the circuit board then shouldn't be getting the receptionist to teach cpr



We're talking about life or death situations here, when seconds could make the difference, and I don't know about you but I believe the more people who know CPR, the better, even if they haven't been taught by a medical professional. Don't get me wrong, I would love it if we lived in a world where a paramedic or doctor could be at the scene within seconds of someone going into cardiac arrest, but that is never going to happen. That's why we have first responders and other lay persons trained in CPR. As Seymour said before, there are simply not enough people with medical degrees and real world experience to train all the people who could go on to save lives. That's why simple procedures like modern CPR and devices like AEDs were invented to allow people with no experience to help.

EDIT: Just reading the latest comments and I'd like to point out that if a person requires CPR (i.e. they are not breathing and have no heartbeat), they are already dead. When you do CPR you are effectively trying to bring them back to life, so of course it isn't going to work all the time and just because the CPR failed doesn't mean the training was sub par or the method was ineffective.


----------



## jobo

Midnight-shadow said:


> We're talking about life or death situations here, when seconds could make the difference, and I don't know about you but I believe the more people who know CPR, the better, even if they haven't been taught by a medical professional. Don't get me wrong, I would love it if we lived in a world where a paramedic or doctor could be at the scene within seconds of someone going into cardiac arrest, but that is never going to happen. That's why we have first responders and other lay persons trained in CPR. As Seymour said before, there are simply not enough people with medical degrees and real world experience to train all the people who could go on to save lives. That's why simple procedures like modern CPR and devices like AEDs were invented to allow people with no experience to help.
> 
> EDIT: Just reading the latest comments and I'd like to point out that if a person requires CPR (i.e. they are not breathing and have no heartbeat), they are already dead. When you do CPR you are effectively trying to bring them back to life, so of course it isn't going to work all the time and just because the CPR failed doesn't mean the training was sub par or the method was ineffective.


Yes, I can't argue with that, my point is not that only medical people should be trained in cpr, it's that only medical people should be training people in cpr, bad training isn't worse than no training, it's just the same, people die. 

If an organisations needs to train it's staff in cpr, then they should invest the money and pay someone qualified to teach it, not do it as cheaply as possible


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Well no we dont, we have evidence that a very small number of people have used the skills success fully, we have no idea how many people died needlessly because the training was sub par ?
> 
> Your a management consutant, would you really recommend , that life crucial skills are taught by unqualified people.
> 
> I've had this argument all my working life, if you want a scaffold traNing course pay a scaffold with training qualifications to give it, don't send Jenny from accounts on a two day scaffold course and expect her to do it. And yes this very arguments For cpr,and defibs


And that works fine, because a limited number of people need scaffold training, and it can afford to cost what it takes to get them in. To get CPR out to "the masses" requires ready access at low cost, with frequent availability. You don't get that by shifting a qualified, experienced nurse to delivering that training. That's going to be expensive, so that is most commonly used for training people with a real expectation to use it (i.e., other medical professionals). That follows the scaffolding training model. If we wanted to stop people from screwing up when putting up quick scaffolding at their home, we'd have to offer that training really inexpensively, and in a short timeframe through places like Home Depot. We could easily gather the information we need from really good scaffolding folks (especially the ones doing the training), and figure out the most important things for an average person to know when creating a scaffold at home, including what materials are best for that 3' or 6' scaffold, and basic dimensions. We could then train some trainers to deliver that information.

We both know the training from the experience scaffolding guy (if he's also a good trainer) is the better training and will likely produce the better results in the long run. We both also know that people are better off with some decent information, tips, warnings, and suggestions from a well-organized training session based on good analysis and planning, than they would be if they didn't go to it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Yes, I can't argue with that, my point is not that only medical people should be trained in cpr, it's that only medical people should be training people in cpr, bad training isn't worse than no training, it's just the same, people die.
> 
> If an organisations needs to train it's staff in cpr, then they should invest the money and pay someone qualified to teach it, not do it as cheaply as possible


I'd agree when an organization is training its people. But that's not going to reach the maximum number of people. To do that, we need public classes (quite easy to find in the States). And we have good evidence people from those public classes - even when taught by non-medical staff - save lives. We don't know how many more (if any) they'd save if those classes were taught by medical professionals, but we know they do save lives.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> And that works fine, because a limited number of people need scaffold training, and it can afford to cost what it takes to get them in. To get CPR out to "the masses" requires ready access at low cost, with frequent availability. You don't get that by shifting a qualified, experienced nurse to delivering that training. That's going to be expensive, so that is most commonly used for training people with a real expectation to use it (i.e., other medical professionals). That follows the scaffolding training model. If we wanted to stop people from screwing up when putting up quick scaffolding at their home, we'd have to offer that training really inexpensively, and in a short timeframe through places like Home Depot. We could easily gather the information we need from really good scaffolding folks (especially the ones doing the training), and figure out the most important things for an average person to know when creating a scaffold at home, including what materials are best for that 3' or 6' scaffold, and basic dimensions. We could then train some trainers to deliver that information.
> 
> We both know the training from the experience scaffolding guy (if he's also a good trainer) is the better training and will likely produce the better results in the long run. We both also know that people are better off with some decent information, tips, warnings, and suggestions from a well-organized training session based on good analysis and planning, than they would be if they didn't go to it.


Hang on, we are now discussing a different thing, I'm not talking about the masses, the whole population, I'm talking about the work place and an employer meeting their duty of care by having qualified trainers to train life crucial skills.

Now employer either meet that expectations or they dont, if they need to invest money then so be it. If they can't afford to pay for the health and safety of their staff and effected members of the public then they shouldn't be in business


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> Your turning it into a personal slight, you asked me the question and I have given  my views, my views are that people teachingskills on Which lives depend, should be suitably qualified, in this case that would be a medical qualification and suitable experiance, if you did a good job of your training that's down to your personal attribute s and not to the organisation having a good system for training life saving skills your level may very well not be replicated by others


That wasn’t a personal slight towards you nor anyone else here.  The smartass was a guy in one of my classes (this was when I taught at a college).  I knew him from other stuff, and he was always a smartass.  Good guy, but a smartass nonetheless


----------



## Midnight-shadow

jobo said:


> Yes, I can't argue with that, my point is not that only medical people should be trained in cpr, it's that only medical people should be training people in cpr, bad training isn't worse than no training, it's just the same, people die.
> 
> If an organisations needs to train it's staff in cpr, then they should invest the money and pay someone qualified to teach it, not do it as cheaply as possible



That's assuming that CPR trained by non-professionals is worse than CPR trained by professionals, and right now there is no evidence to suggest that. My CPR training comes from the RLSS, which is Ofqual accredited to meet the same standards as that used by paramedics and doctors. Are you suggesting that the training I received is worse than that given to paramedics? I would also like to point out that all workplace CPR training is done through the "first aid at work" course, which is also provided by the RLSS and is recognised by the HSE and the GMC. You do not need to be a medical professional or have real world experience in order to be a first aid at work trainer. I think I trust their judgement a little more than you, no offence.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I'd agree when an organization is training its people. But that's not going to reach the maximum number of people. To do that, we need public classes (quite easy to find in the States). And we have good evidence people from those public classes - even when taught by non-medical staff - save lives. We don't know how many more (if any) they'd save if those classes were taught by medical professionals, but we know they do save lives.


Such classes in the UK are run by amongst others The johns ambulance organisation who only use qualified people vetted to a very high standard. There is absolutely no way anyone is teaching cpr, to the public just on a three it five day course of how to do/ teach cpr, the liabilities for prosecution and litigation would be enormous if they cocked up


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> That wasn’t a personal slight towards you nor anyone else here.  The smartass was a guy in one of my classes (this was when I taught at a college).  I knew him from other stuff, and he was always a smartass.  Good guy, but a smartass nonetheless


No, you seem to be taking my views that your unqualified to teach cpr, as slight against you and it isnt, my issue is with unqualified people in general teaching cpr


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> Yes, I can't argue with that, my point is not that only medical people should be trained in cpr, it's that only medical people should be training people in cpr, bad training isn't worse than no training, it's just the same, people die.
> 
> If an organisations needs to train it's staff in cpr, then they should invest the money and pay someone qualified to teach it, not do it as cheaply as possible


The qualification for teaching American Red Cross CPR/First Aid is successfully passing the instructor training course.  The first thing you must do the first night is demonstrate everything properly without any prompting.  If you succeed, you move on; if you don’t, you’re told to enroll in a future class after you’re able to demonstrate the skills properly.  Other organizations are similar, as far as I know.

As to going the cheapest route, there really isn’t a cheapest route.  Give or take a few dollars, everyone charges the same thing.  The Red Cross charges instructors per card issued, and instructors charge whatever they want.  Everyone’s within the same price because no one wants to price themselves out of the market, and not charging enough is a waste of time.  Teaching a 4 hour class is a whole day thing for the instructor when you add up the outside work needed - transporting and setting up equipment, breaking it down and cleaning it, paperwork involved, etc.  People have said we charge too much for 4 hours of work, to which I’ve always replied the 4 hour class takes me 7 hours start to finish.  When they see me there about an hour before the class starts and finally leave the parking lot an hour afterwards, they get it.

The only real cost cutting measure in it is to have an existing employee teach it in-house.  But by the time they pay for the instructor training, materials and equipment, it takes about a dozen classes before they break even.  Depending on staff size, it could be not worth it as they’ll never break even.

Perhaps too much information here.


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> The qualification for teaching American Red Cross CPR/First Aid is successfully passing the instructor training course.  The first thing you must do the first night is demonstrate everything properly without any prompting.  If you succeed, you move on; if you don’t, you’re told to enroll in a future class after you’re able to demonstrate the skills properly.  Other organizations are similar, as far as I know.
> 
> As to going the cheapest route, there really isn’t a cheapest route.  Give or take a few dollars, everyone charges the same thing.  The Red Cross charges instructors per card issued, and instructors charge whatever they want.  Everyone’s within the same price because no one wants to price themselves out of the market, and not charging enough is a waste of time.  Teaching a 4 hour class is a whole day thing for the instructor when you add up the outside work needed - transporting and setting up equipment, breaking it down and cleaning it, paperwork involved, etc.  People have said we charge too much for 4 hours of work, to which I’ve always replied the 4 hour class takes me 7 hours start to finish.  When they see me there about an hour before the class starts and finally leave the parking lot an hour afterwards, they get it.
> 
> The only real cost cutting measure in it is to have an existing employee teach it in-house.  But by the time they pay for the instructor training, materials and equipment, it takes about a dozen classes before they break even.  Depending on staff size, it could be not worth it as they’ll never break even.
> 
> Perhaps too much information here.


Break even ? It's not a prOf it loss thing . It's about having the best quality training and that does not come from an in-house employee when compared to a qualified profession al


----------



## Midnight-shadow

jobo said:


> Such classes in the UK are run by amongst others The johns ambulance organisation who only use qualified people vetted to a very high standard. There is absolutely no way anyone is teaching cpr, to the public just on a three it five day course of how to do/ teach cpr, the liabilities for prosecution and litigation would be enormous if they cocked up



You might want to rethink that a little bit....

Adult and Paediatric First Aid Instructor Training Courses | Aid Training

5 day course to become a first aid at work trainer.


----------



## jobo

Midnight-shadow said:


> You might want to rethink that a little bit....
> 
> Adult and Paediatric First Aid Instructor Training Courses | Aid Training
> 
> 5 day course to become a first aid at work trainer.


I just said classes given to the public not at work,

Yes you can be qualified to give first aid training in 5 Days, I see no problem with that if it's restricted to cleaning Woundsand sending people to hospital, what your allowed to do as a first Wider s is very resticted.

It's doesn't actually say if it includes a cpr, if it does then I would view that level of trAINing as inadequate,
It would be allowed to happen at my company, in fact we wouldn't use in house staff to train any first aid, for the very reason we would be extremely vulnerable to litigation if it went wrong


----------



## Midnight-shadow

jobo said:


> I just said classes given to the public not at work,
> 
> Yes you can be qualified to give first aid training in 5 Days, I see no problem with that if it's restricted to cleaning sounds and sending people to hospital, what your allowed to do as a first sides is very resticted.
> 
> It's doesn't actually say if it includes a cpr, if it does then I would view that level of trying as inadequate,
> It would be allowed to happen at my company, in fact we wouldn't use in house staff to train any first aid



The "first aid at work" course includes CPR and AED useage. The other problem with trying to prove if CPR training is worse when taught by non-medical professionals is that CPR is a perishable skill and therefore needs to be practiced regularly. I know so many people who have gone on their CPR course and never used it, or practiced it after the course. This is pointless, which is why as a lifeguard I do monthly training in both water rescue and CPR to keep my skills up. If someone fails to bring a person back to life using CPR, how can you tell whether it was a lack of training by a "qualified" professional that caused the failure?


----------



## jobo

Midnight-shadow said:


> The "first aid at work" course includes CPR and AED useage. The other problem with trying to prove if CPR training is worse when taught by non-medical professionals is that CPR is a perishable skill and therefore needs to be practiced regularly. I know so many people who have gone on their CPR course and never used it, or practiced it after the course. This is pointless, which is why as a lifeguard I do monthly training in both water rescue and CPR to keep my skills up. If someone fails to bring a person back to life using CPR, how can you tell whether it was a lack of training by a "qualified" professional that caused the failure?


It doesn't actually say that in that link,

The onus is one the company to show they did everything that was reasonably practical, not on someone else to show that another way was better or worse.

The company has a legal responsibility to show that the first Aider,was competENT not qualified, in that they had been told, but competent to actually do it. If your the trainer that responsibility is on you, If your in house trainer says a fist AIDer is competent and they are not and someone dies, then the company are very very liable, a lot of companies give certificates or completion and not of com p etance, and legally they are of no use at all, they would be less liable in a lot of cases of these was no first wider at all, not at swimming baths obviously


----------



## Midnight-shadow

jobo said:


> It doesn't actually say that in that link,
> 
> The onus is one the company to show they did everything that was reasonably practical, not on someone else to show that another way was better or worse.
> 
> The company has a legal responsibility to show that the first Aider,was competENT not qualified, in that they had been told, but competent to actually do it. If your the trainer that responsibility is on you, If your in house trainer says a fist AIDer is competent and they are not and someone dies, then the company are very very liable



All first aid at work courses follow the same curriculum, including the CPR and AED procedures. Again you are assuming that just because the CPR failed it automatically means that the person performing the CPR was doing it wrong, and in turn was taught badly by whoever did the training. This is far from the truth. There are many reasons why CPR might fail to bring someone back to life despite being performed perfectly. Hell, even in Hospitals where the victim is surrounded by medical professionals, people still die from sudden cardiac arrests. The good Samaritan laws state that if you fail to resuscitate a person who has collapsed, you cannot be held responsible for them dieing. Again I'd like to point out that someone needing CPR is already dead, you cannot make them worse by performing "bad" CPR. And sometimes, no matter how well you do the CPR or how quickly the paramedics get to the scene, you can't bring them back.


----------



## jobo

Midnight-shadow said:


> You might want to rethink that a little bit....
> 
> Adult and Paediatric First Aid Instructor Training Courses | Aid Training
> 
> 5 day course to become a first aid at work trainer.


It also says you must have a reach certification, you won't get one of those in 5 days


----------



## jobo

Midnight-shadow said:


> All first aid at work courses follow the same curriculum, including the CPR and AED procedures. Again you are assuming that just because the CPR failed it automatically means that the person performing the CPR was doing it wrong, and in turn was taught badly by whoever did the training. This is far from the truth. There are many reasons why CPR might fail to bring someone back to life despite being performed perfectly. Hell, even in Hospitals where the victim is surrounded by medical professionals, people still die from sudden cardiac arrests. The good Samaritan laws state that if you fail to resuscitate a person who has collapsed, you cannot be held responsible for them dieing. Again I'd like to point out that someone needing CPR is already dead, you cannot make them worse by performing "bad" CPR. And sometimes, no matter how well you do the CPR or how quickly the paramedics get to the scene, you can't bring them back.


We are talking about health and safety at work, the good Samaritan law doesNT apply, in fact there is no good Samaritan law in the uk, 

Some one isn't legally dead till a Dr says so, a Dr in hospital is competent to give CPR and pronounced death, 

If your qualified in house trainer gives rubbish instruction then the company is liable legally and to civil claims, which but if this are you disagreeing with ?


----------



## Midnight-shadow

jobo said:


> We are talking about health and safety at work, the good Samaritan law doesNT apply, in fact there is no good Samaritan law in the uk,
> 
> Some one isn't legally dead till a Dr says so, a Dr in hospital is competent to give CPR and pronounced death,
> 
> If your qualified in house trainer gives rubbish instruction then the company is liable legally and to civil claims, which but if this are you disagreeing with ?



The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 is in place regardless of whether the incident happened in a public space or a place of work. The Act also states that "The court must have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger."

In other words, if someone collapsed at work and went into cardiac arrest and you tried to resuscitate them using CPR, and failed, the court would have the fully investigate the circumstances of the incident rather than just passing sentence based on the outcome. That's in the very unlikely event of you getting sued for trying to help someone in the first place.

To quote the following article: First Aid & The Law Part 1 - Duty of Care

*"
For example, if a person inappropriately administered chest compressions where a casualty was not in cardiac arrest, which caused damage to the chest wall or underlying organs, they would be causing damage which would not otherwise have been suffered and, given that the casualty was not in need of emergency resuscitation, would by his intervention be leaving them in a worse position. 

If, however, CPR is performed on a casualty in cardiac arrest, It is difficult to see how a persons intervention could leave someone worse off since a victim would, without immediate resuscitation, certainly die.  Furthermore, if an AED is being used, it will only permit the administration of a defibrillatory shock when it detects a shockable rhythm and, since patients in this state are clinically dead, it is unlikely that any intervention with this device could make the situation worse. "
*
You can be liable for not performing aid when a situation arises, but not for doing "bad" CPR on someone who has no heartbeat.


----------



## jobo

Midnight-shadow said:


> The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 is in place regardless of whether the incident happened in a public space or a place of work. The Act also states that "The court must have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger."
> 
> In other words, if someone collapsed at work and went into cardiac arrest and you tried to resuscitate them using CPR, and failed, the court would have the fully investigate the circumstances of the incident rather than just passing sentence based on the outcome. That's in the very unlikely event of you getting sued for trying to help someone in the first place.
> 
> To quote the following article: First Aid & The Law Part 1 - Duty of Care
> 
> *"
> For example, if a person inappropriately administered chest compressions where a casualty was not in cardiac arrest, which caused damage to the chest wall or underlying organs, they would be causing damage which would not otherwise have been suffered and, given that the casualty was not in need of emergency resuscitation, would by his intervention be leaving them in a worse position.
> 
> If, however, CPR is performed on a casualty in cardiac arrest, It is difficult to see how a persons intervention could leave someone worse off since a victim would, without immediate resuscitation, certainly die.  Furthermore, if an AED is being used, it will only permit the administration of a defibrillatory shock when it detects a shockable rhythm and, since patients in this state are clinically dead, it is unlikely that any intervention with this device could make the situation worse. "
> *
> You can be liable for not performing aid when a situation arises, but not for doing "bad" CPR on someone who has no heartbeat.


I never suggested you could, but nNothing in that changes the law as was, it really doesnt, and it doesn't stop an employer being sued for negligence as they are vicariously liable for the actions of their employee,

Let's say out in house f/ a trainer, makes a bad job of training the first aider and he gives for where non is needed breaking a few ribs, the employer can be used for the bad actions of the first aider,and prosecuted and SUEd  for the actions of the trainer


----------



## dvcochran

JR 137 said:


> I saw a 20/20 or Nightline or similar episode a while back where there were teachers sending people to attack students from a women’s self defense course.  The students knew it was coming and agreed; they just didn’t know when and where.  And the attackers wore those red man suits.
> 
> They filmed one guy hiding in a student’s garage and attacked her as she got out of the car.  The woman was successful.  Gee, I wonder why?  How did the camera crew and the attacker get in there without her previously knowing?  He came up behind her, but I’d imagine the squishiness of the red man suit probably subconsciously told her she’s it’s not real.
> 
> Staged for tv?  Absolutely.  She probably wouldn’t have done as well if she genuinely didn’t know it was coming.  I mean, who let the camera, lights and sound crew in?  But the principle is better than simulating it in the dojo if the student genuinely didn’t know when nor where.
> 
> Edit:  Then again, maybe her husband or someone else let them in unbeknownst to her.  Doubt it; TV isn’t the most honest thing out there.


Trail cam possibly?


----------



## JR 137

dvcochran said:


> Trail cam possibly?


It was quite a while ago, but I distinctly remember thinking how could they possibly get the shots and lighting they got without her knowing they were coming.  It was dark out and they were in her garage when the “attacker” ran in.  He got her as she was getting out of her car.  The picture didn’t look like it was filmed by guys running.

Regardless of all of that for TV stuff, they claimed the teacher did the same to his other students.  So if one was staged for tv, that doesn’t change the ones that weren’t filmed.


----------



## drop bear

We are still confusing the difference between teaching CPR and teaching our own version of CPR from our own research. And not having ever actually done CPR.

Which is generally considered illegal.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yes. What was the point? If there wasn't a viable standard CPR today, there would be people studying what has seemed to work to look for solutions. And they'd probably use any reasonable evidence they could get their hands on, including video.



Which is why they strapped people to horses and blew smoke up people bums.


----------



## oldwarrior

watching said:


> I feel like there's a big difference between point sparring and actual real world self defense. For example, in the real world you won't be wearing protection, fights probably won't last two minutes, and there are no rules or off limits areas.
> With that in mind, is sparring supposed to be something that helps you prepare for real world self defense in some way, or is the purpose of sparring something else entirely?
> Thanks everyone.



Sparring ...another hot topic lol... My take on it is that it depends on how you view it ...what art you are studying and what you are going to take from it... You are correct in my opinion that it has no real basis on a street fight in the 21rst cent but that said if you are talking about "oldschool" arts then they did have more of a practical basis (I am talking about the weapons Schools and arts) the hand to hand stuff lol well ok some basis but I'd say that on any battlefield of those times if you'd lost your weapon you were ummmm it begins with an "F" lol...

Modern sparring will keep you fit as it is aerobic activity and will depending on length of time and the number of "bouts" you do it has that benefit ...also if you are in a competitive art then you do have to sharpen your skills and your awareness of that arena so that is a benefit ...as to the execution of proper technique that I would doubt but there again I have seen perfect technique in a spar to ...To my mind sparring can and does play a role but it is not the be all and end all. 

Rules well there have to be for obvious reasons ...for example if I did a proper Kotegaeshi on yourself (i am making no assumptions here) or if I faced you with a bokken and struck properly and your throat then ...in first case your wrist would be broken and you would not be best pleased lol... and in second case you would be dead and then I'd not be best pleased as i'd be in the slammer for so doing lol... so rules there has to be and always have been ...ok way back if a person got their wrist snapped or killed then depending on who they were it might or might not cause any repercussions.... but rules there still were and they were more or less strictly enforced... Even to this day some "schools" you cannot just walk in and ask to be taught but they are few and far between 

sparring yes it plays it's part but do not get hang up on that to much it is part of the Art you study (or it isn't) so go with it do not think it is the real outside world of the 21rst cent


----------



## oldwarrior

Be proud of the Art or system you are studying ...you are a student of that art or system and it has accepted you (by dint of your instructor) yes by all means question things and be honest about things and with yourself but do not get hung up on one aspect of it 

I can remember 25 years ago standing with a master thinking we were going to spar (I use that term loosely) in full Kendo armour not with shinai but with bokken and i stood tip to tip with him for 20 mins and little happened ...did I at the time think ummm nothing happened ...yes I did ... but after and I means days after my master told me that I had learned a great deal and he had learned about me to and from there on the relationship changed ... 

I guess what I'm trying to say probably not successfully is that although on the face of it there was no "real life" basis ... there actually was ...and I will leave others to ponder what that was lol.

Did it upset me ...yes at the time all I wanted to do was fight ...after it ...well again ponder that ...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Hang on, we are now discussing a different thing, I'm not talking about the masses, the whole population, I'm talking about the work place and an employer meeting their duty of care by having qualified trainers to train life crucial skills.
> 
> Now employer either meet that expectations or they dont, if they need to invest money then so be it. If they can't afford to pay for the health and safety of their staff and effected members of the public then they shouldn't be in business


Yep, that was my point. You and I were talking about two different things. I entirely agree, when it comes to an employer's duty of care.


----------



## Deafdude#5

True, the sparring one does in class with protective gear isn’t going to be anything like real-life self defense. But what it does, is provide you with a level of physical conditioning, an awareness of spatial positioning & knowledge of your limitations (hopefully).


----------



## jobo

Deafdude#5 said:


> True, the sparring one does in class with protective gear isn’t going to be anything like real-life self defense. But what it does, is provide you with a level of physical conditioning, an awareness of spatial positioning & knowledge of your limitations (hopefully).


I agree that it most likely won't be, but there's no good reason why it shouldn't be other than the risk / pain adversion of wearing ridiculously over the top Michelin suits to soar in.

Street fighting chanGes in style dependent on what is popular in the day, but there are only a limited number of fundamental ways to hurt someone and therefore only a limited number of ways to avoid being hurt. If people can't hit you coz you block and move then it's unlikely you will get hurt, if you can hit a Moving and commonly not moving very much,target then you can hurt them.

The skill is rather dictating how the fight unfolds so you are fighting to your strengh, be that kick and move it grappling or a bit of both.

But your other point is valid, as an exponent of ma, you should be able to at least match your opponent in fitness, if you can't then all bets are off


----------



## drop bear

Deafdude#5 said:


> True, the sparring one does in class with protective gear isn’t going to be anything like real-life self defense. But what it does, is provide you with a level of physical conditioning, an awareness of spatial positioning & knowledge of your limitations (hopefully).



From someone who has done a lot of both. It is pretty similar.


----------



## GreatSayiaman

We never point Spar where I train at. I would not know how to Classify BJJ's sparring however in Muay Thai we have three levels of Sparring. Technical, Mid, and Full Blast aka Smoker Style. 

Technical is what we do 95% of the time where we still make contact like around 20% to 30% but not try to blast each other, More as working with full movement and feeling the hits but not trying to Beat up your Sparring Partner. Mid Level the intensity  goes up around 30 to 60%  but still not trying to hurt one another. 

However for for Full Blast that is only at Smoker Tourneys or if the sparring partners agree to it. It is still sparring with Shin Guards and Gloves however depending on the Gym you go to the "Smoker" for there can be head gear and depending on the rules with Knees and Elbows it is full blast like an actual match set in both Pro and Amateur Muay Thai ,K1, and Glory Kickboxing Rules.

I am all for Sparring in general as I feel you get to see how you progress and where you are at in your training.


----------

