# How important is contact sparring in MA?



## Hanzou (Sep 30, 2014)

This discussion sort of emerged in the other thread, but I thought it was pretty off topic there, and really deserved its own thread.

I'm a pretty firm believer in contact sparring; Sparring in which you actually hit or grapple with another person. I feel that the only way you can learn to hit or grapple with someone is to actually hit or grapple someone. 

Does anyone feel that you can develop such skills without contact sparring, or no sparring at all?


----------



## Danny T (Sep 30, 2014)

For this discussion: Define 'sparring'.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Sep 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> This discussion sort of emerged in the other thread, but I thought it was pretty off topic there, and really deserved its own thread.
> 
> I'm a pretty firm believer in contact sparring; Sparring in which you actually hit or grapple with another person. I feel that the only way you can learn to hit or grapple with someone is to actually hit or grapple someone.
> 
> Does anyone feel that you can develop such skills without contact sparring, or no sparring at all?



Define contact.

If you mean never hitting anything or anyone, I don't and couldn't train in a system like that so can't comment.


----------



## jezr74 (Sep 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> This discussion sort of emerged in the other thread, but I thought it was pretty off topic there, and really deserved its own thread.
> 
> I'm a pretty firm believer in contact sparring; Sparring in which you actually hit or grapple with another person. I feel that the only way you can learn to hit or grapple with someone is to actually hit or grapple someone.
> 
> Does anyone feel that you can develop such skills without contact sparring, or no sparring at all?




I think it's something that can be used to enhance your skills. But I also think that going from nothing, to striking a bag in the basement enhances your skills as well.

So IMO, technically you can develop skills with no contact sparring. It's kind of like doing a first aid course, you develop the skills needed to perform first aid and that may be all you need, practicing CPR on a dummy etc. But you will get great benefit from experience in the field.

So I think you may have inadvertently injected some contention already with starting with "How *important* is sparring in MA" to your last line "develop such skills without contact sparring, or no sparring at all?", you may have people backed in to a corner already and now they want you to define the detail. This thread may be perceived as laying a trap.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 30, 2014)

I would say it's every bit as important, if not in some ways more so, to learn to *be* hit. You can learn to strike even to some extent to grapple if you have a grapple dummy ( not satisfactory though) without ever touching someone but it's impossible to get used to being hit, punched kicked etc. Of course you can say well, I block everything or I'm too fast but the truth is at some point someone will catch you or in a SD situation there may be a sucker punch. So often people who haven't been hit react to it by freezing, sometimes they get angry and go off on one, losing your temper never helps. You cannot defend yourself if you are frozen or in a red mist so sparring is important, or at the very least some sort of training to enable you to react appropriately to being attacked. Even if you are armed with a weapon, it will do you no good if you are so shocked by being struck you can't use it.


----------



## jezr74 (Sep 30, 2014)

Forgot to answer the subject question, I do think it's important. I'm personally keen to put what I've learnt into sparring, stand-up and ground. I hope it will show gaps\strengths my in *own* skills so I can adapt and focus where it's needed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 30, 2014)

If

 - someone tries to knock/throw you down 1000 times and you are still standing, the probability that his 1001th try will work on you will be very low.
- you have knock/throw your opponent down 1000 times, the probability that your 1001th try will work on him will be very high.

It's just "probability theory" and nothing magic about it.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 30, 2014)

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Define contact.



Touching/Hitting another person.



> If you mean never hitting anything or anyone, I don't and couldn't train in a system like that so can't comment.



Yep, that's exactly what I mean.


----------



## Buka (Sep 30, 2014)

No contact sparring is like no contact sex. IMO, if it's no contact, it isn't sparring.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 30, 2014)

jezr74 said:


> I think it's something that can be used to enhance your skills. But I also think that going from nothing, to striking a bag in the basement enhances your skills as well.
> 
> So IMO, technically you can develop skills with no contact sparring. It's kind of like doing a first aid course, you develop the skills needed to perform first aid and that may be all you need, practicing CPR on a dummy etc. But you will get great benefit from experience in the field.
> 
> So I think you may have inadvertently injected some contention already with starting with "How *important* is sparring in MA" to your last line "develop such skills without contact sparring, or no sparring at all?", you may have people backed in to a corner already and now they want you to define the detail. This thread may be perceived as laying a trap.



Well since my MA is heavily based on heavy contact sparring, I simply can't imagine an MA functioning without it.

It would be like if you have one Bjj exponent, let's call him Coco, doing prearranged forms of various chokes, positions, and holds, and somehow he made it to black belt doing this, and then he fought your typically trained Bjj black belt who does an extremely high amount of contact sparring. 

Coco would get destroyed, probably very quickly because (IMO) he lacks the experience of actually applying his techniques.

 However, my viewpoint is colored by my personal experiences. I'm sure there are those that disagree.


----------



## jezr74 (Sep 30, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well since my MA is heavily based on heavy contact sparring, I simply can't imagine an MA functioning without it.
> 
> It would be like if you have one Bjj exponent, let's call him Coco, doing prearranged forms of various chokes, positions, and holds, and somehow he made it to black belt doing this, and then he fought your typically trained Bjj black belt who does an extremely high amount of contact sparring.
> 
> ...




Yeah, definitely. Would you call Coco less skilled or less experienced? Do you see a distinction between skill, technicality and experience for that matter?


----------



## blindsage (Oct 1, 2014)

Contact should be required, sparring not so much.  There are a number of ways contact can be included, sparring is just one, and not necessarily the best.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 1, 2014)

Buka said:


> No contact sparring is like no contact sex. IMO, if it's no contact, it isn't sparring.



You mean safer and less chance of having an accident.


----------



## Buka (Oct 1, 2014)

You know, this might be a more difficult question to answer than it appears. I don't know about every Martial Art, I don't think any of us do. Maybe it's yes for some and no for others. Not the way I see it, but I'm just one more opinion in a world of opinions.

But, damn, it's just so much fun.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 1, 2014)

Hmm - now that I think about it, coming up with a precise and exhaustive definition of sparring is kind of tricky. It's not really a simulation of a typical violent encounter, although it can have resemblance to certain kinds of real fights. 

I'll go ahead and define sparring as a non-choreographed exercise for two or more partners where each person, within certain constraints, is trying to overcome the other person's technique with their own and where the outcome is not pre-determined.  There are some holes in this definition, but it's close enough to work with.

This can cover a lot of ground - grappling for a submission, no-contact "tag" striking, judo randori, hard-contact MMA sparring, asymmetric drills (one person only strikes, the other only grapples, etc)., weapon sparring, and much more.  It would _not _include the typical aikido "randori" where attackers come in with unscripted attacks and the defender is expected to "defeat" them. 

Like any form of training, sparring has advantages and also disadvantages which need to be balanced out with other exercises. The specifics of those advantages and disadvantages vary with the form of sparring.  I do feel that some of the advantages will not be replicated with any other type of training.

I do feel that at least some degree of contact is vital to getting the benefits of sparring. No-contact sparring will develop a host of bad habits, including improper distancing and unrealistic body mechanics.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 1, 2014)

*Contact is essential*.  You need to feel contact both in your striking and when you get hit.  This can come through sparring which is important but also in drills.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 1, 2014)

jezr74 said:


> Yeah, definitely. Would you call Coco less skilled or less experienced? Do you see a distinction between skill, technicality and experience for that matter?



I would consider Coco to be both less skilled and less experienced, because I consider both to be related. You become more skilled through experience.


----------



## Buka (Oct 1, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Hmm - now that I think about it, coming up with a precise and exhaustive definition of sparring is kind of tricky. It's not really a simulation of a typical violent encounter, although it can have resemblance to certain kinds of real fights.
> 
> I'll go ahead and define sparring as a non-choreographed exercise for two or more partners where each person, within certain constraints, is trying to overcome the other person's technique with their own and where the outcome is not pre-determined.  There are some holes in this definition, but it's close enough to work with.
> 
> ...



Tony, when you mention the disadvantages of sparring do you mean if sparring was the only training done? Or disadvantages in another way? And I'm only referring to contact sparring as I believe no contact sparring is detrimental to everything.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 1, 2014)

Buka said:


> Tony, when you mention the disadvantages of sparring do you mean if sparring was the only training done? Or disadvantages in another way? And I'm only referring to contact sparring as I believe no contact sparring is detrimental to everything.



Both. A couple of potential drawbacks to sparring are a) the development of a "dueling" mentality and b) "playing to the rules" (where participants take advantage of the rules to use tactics that would be suboptimal in a real fight). Both of these tendencies can be compensated for with other forms of training.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 1, 2014)

If you are doing an art that requires contact sparring like kickboxing then it is essential, if you are doing a self defense art then it depends on what emphasis you place on it. If you are doing a grappling art then it is unavoidable. Even when your art is a non-contact art it is not a matter of making no physical contact whatsoever. You still have to block and deflect strikes or you may get hit, you still have to physically perform throws and joint locks and you still have to learn to get out of holds applied to you during self defense practice.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 1, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> This discussion sort of emerged in the other thread, but I thought it was pretty off topic there, and really deserved its own thread.
> 
> I'm a pretty firm believer in contact sparring; Sparring in which you actually hit or grapple with another person. I feel that the only way you can learn to hit or grapple with someone is to actually hit or grapple someone.
> 
> Does anyone feel that you can develop such skills without contact sparring, or no sparring at all?



For martial *sports*, sparring is required and necessary to properly develop the skills needed for competition.  For a martial *art* (that is focused on self defense rather than esoteric aspects), sparring is detrimental to properly developing the skills needed.  Sparring, in the context one would normally associate with the term, is limited in scope and focus.  It involves two participants that abide by a restrictive skill set (based upon the art in question), in a specific setting for a specific period of time.  This is not conducive to realism.  This isn't to downplay the importance of sparring for sport which, as I stated, is necessary.  Scenario based training is far better for a martial art, that has a focus on self defense as it doesn't restrict itself to a specific venue or skill set or rule set.  

As an example, I've taught over 1000 students, most of which are high liability professionals.  We do zero sparring.  We focus on scenario based training which allows the venue to change (inside, outside, woods, alley, inside a car, in an elevator, on stairs etc), the number of attackers to change, dim light or no light situations, improvised weapons, escape and evasion, de-escalation techniques etc.  This type of training has served us quite well.  

So it all boils down to the venue and goals of your training as to which training methodology works best.


----------



## K-man (Oct 1, 2014)

I can come at full contact sparring and I can accept no sparring but what is 'non-contact sparring'? 
:asian:


----------



## Danny T (Oct 1, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> For martial *sports*, sparring is required and necessary to properly develop the skills needed for competition.  For a martial *art* (that is focused on self defense rather than esoteric aspects), sparring is detrimental to properly developing the skills needed.  Sparring, in the context one would normally associate with the term, is limited in scope and focus.  It involves two participants that abide by a restrictive skill set (based upon the art in question), in a specific setting for a specific period of time.  This is not conducive to realism.  This isn't to downplay the importance of sparring for sport which, as I stated, is necessary.  Scenario based training is far better for a martial art, that has a focus on self defense as it doesn't restrict itself to a specific venue or skill set or rule set.
> 
> As an example, I've taught over 1000 students, most of which are high liability professionals.  We do zero sparring.  We focus on scenario based training which allows the venue to change (inside, outside, woods, alley, inside a car, in an elevator, on stairs etc), the number of attackers to change, dim light or no light situations, improvised weapons, escape and evasion, de-escalation techniques etc.  This type of training has served us quite well.
> 
> So it all boils down to the venue and goals of your training as to which training methodology works best.



This is why I asked first to define sparring.
We do a lot of sparring in several different aspects. Sport based in the ring or cage. 3 or 5 minutes rounds and based upon the specific rules of the contest being trained for. We also do a lot of scenario type training similar to what you are describing. Are you pressure testing it using the fundamental techniques you drill during the training phase and what do you call it?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 1, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> For martial *sports*, sparring is required and necessary to properly develop the skills needed for competition.  For a martial *art* (that is focused on self defense rather than esoteric aspects), sparring is detrimental to properly developing the skills needed.  Sparring, in the context one would normally associate with the term, is limited in scope and focus.  It involves two participants that abide by a restrictive skill set (based upon the art in question), in a specific setting for a specific period of time.  This is not conducive to realism.  This isn't to downplay the importance of sparring for sport which, as I stated, is necessary.  Scenario based training is far better for a martial art, that has a focus on self defense as it doesn't restrict itself to a specific venue or skill set or rule set.



Well to be fair, there's plenty of martial sports that also consider themselves self defense systems. They also have pretty good arguments to back up their beliefs.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 1, 2014)

Danny T said:


> Are you pressure testing it using the fundamental techniques you drill during the training phase and what do you call it?



The pressure testing we use is simply real world altercations against violent, resisting individuals.  Which, unfortunately, we get all to often.  That is our litmus test.  If we wouldn't use it against such an individual (many of which are drunk or worse, under the effects of spice or some other such garbage) we don't teach it.  

A good way to research specific techniques/principles are to discuss them with those that are likely to be in an altercation (if you aren't in a career field that calls for this type of interaction) such as a police officer, corrections officer, professional bouncer or executive protection agent.  If they are experienced they can go a long way towards cutting through the stuff that doesn't work well or worse, puts you in a bad situation i.e. flashy, overcomplicated movements that rely on refined motor skills and room to move.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 1, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well to be fair, there's plenty of martial sports that also consider themselves self defense systems. They also have pretty good arguments to back up their beliefs.



Really?

What are these martial sports?  And what is the good argument that backs up their beliefs?


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Oct 1, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Touching/Hitting another person.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's exactly what I mean.



Thanks for clarifying.

I can't really get my head around the concept or understand why anyone practicing an art with strikes would train that way, but maybe some people do and can enlighten me/us...


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 1, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Really?
> 
> What are these martial sports?  And what is the good argument that backs up their beliefs?



Well look at boxing for example;






Skills like that can certainly have plenty of self defense applications. That along with endurance, learning how to throw a punch, learning to take a hit, footwork, etc. Can get you out of some hairy situations.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 1, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well look at boxing for example;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, first let me say that I'm not busting your chops as I discuss this with you 

Second, let's take a look at boxing.  Boxing does have some nice aspects to it such as conditioning and footwork.  That's about it.  Why?  It is a sport that is designed for two people to engage in, in an artificial environment, with drastically limited rules, with safety gear, a referee and nice breaks to get some water and some advice (not to mention medical attention).

None of this happens in real life.

Look at the video you posted.  The guy is bobbing and weaving all over the parking lot.  He's not focused on things like:



Escape and evasion
Verbal de-esculation
Possibility of multiple opponents
Going to the ground on pavement
Traffic
Multiple attackers
Weapons
Blood borne pathogens
Self injury

Boxers wear gloves, not to protect the other persons face, but to protect their hands.  Even professional boxers have injured their hands, in and out of the ring.  The head is a hard target, both to hit as well as when hit.  The hands, even if conditioned are not as hard.  Injuring your hand limits your options;



Grappling
Locking
Dialing a phone
Using keys
Using a conventional or improvised weapon
Self care after an other injuries

Additionally, and this is overlooked in a major way is blood borne pathogens.  Open up a wound on the opponents face/mouth/nose and but your hand and you risk an exposure.  This isn't a minor thing.  It is downright scary if it happens to you.  From a high liability perspective, drugs are a major part of crime.  People are taking more things now than ever and are carrying disease more now than ever.  Most schools don't cover this in any way, shape or form.

Next, the training doesn't cover anything I listed in the first list.  Boxing is great one-on-one, in a controlled environment with someone abiding by the same rules as you.  Beyond that, it is a poor choice for self defense.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 1, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Okay, first let me say that I'm not busting your chops as I discuss this with you
> 
> Second, let's take a look at boxing.  Boxing does have some nice aspects to it such as conditioning and footwork.  That's about it.  Why?  It is a sport that is designed for two people to engage in, in an artificial environment, with drastically limited rules, with safety gear, a referee and nice breaks to get some water and some advice (not to mention medical attention).
> 
> ...




And with all that said, observe a boxer taking down multiple attackers at once;






He's using the skills he learned in a sport, but those sport attributes could be easily translated into a self defense situation. Those attributes and skills were developed through consistent heavy sparring.


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 1, 2014)

I wasn't aware that non-contact sparring was a thing.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 1, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> And with all that said, observe a boxer taking down multiple attackers at once;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This video has been posted here before.  Let's take a look.

Good points:  He moved effectively to keep the attackers off balance (for the most part) which allowed him to take them on one at a time (at least as far as is seen in the video).  He was able to capitalize on the attackers inexperience.

Bad points:  He had tunnel vision (he's lucky he didn't get run over with all the traffic [the others were lucky as well]).  He focused on trying to engage multiple attackers rather than trying to escape, use a barrier between himself and the attackers or use improvised weapons.  We'll make the assumption that he had some boxing experience (although keeping the hands up and punching isn't restricted to just boxing).  This sport training led him to revert to that skill set when under duress.  Which means he didn't look for options other than moving and punching.  While this worked, at least in the portion of the video we see on YT, it is due also to the attackers not being skilled, not trying to take him to the ground, not using weapons and not coordinating their attacks.  Change any of these factors and you may well have a different outcome.  The video also doesn't address the condition of his hands after this altercation.  Was he fine?  We don't know.  Did he injure a hand?  We don't know.  

The take home point is that a punch to the face can work.  A kick to the groin can work.  Someone that trains for sport can get lucky.  No one is saying that sport sucks or some aspects can't be used.  But if all you have is a hammer then you tend to treat everything like a nail under duress.  Sparring is a sport training methodology.  Nothing wrong with that.  Self defense requires a different training methodology and mind set.  Nothing wrong with that either.  Since it is established fact that you will revert to your training under duress, we need to make sure the methodology of training fits the situation.  

Sparring isn't a necessary part of self defense training.  Beyond that, it is detrimental BECAUSE we revert to our training under duress.  Unless sparring allows the person the opportunity to de-escalate, escape, evade, use a weapon, improvise a weapon, use the terrain etc.  Does sparring usually contain these and other real world elements (lighting, environment, multiple attackers, starting from a position of disadvantage)?  No.  Does scenario based training contain these elements?  Yes.  

:wavey:


----------



## Danny T (Oct 1, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> The pressure testing we use is simply real world altercations against violent, resisting individuals.  Which, unfortunately, we get all to often.  That is our litmus test.  If we wouldn't use it against such an individual (many of which are drunk or worse, under the effects of spice or some other such garbage) we don't teach it.
> 
> A good way to research specific techniques/principles are to discuss them with those that are likely to be in an altercation (if you aren't in a career field that calls for this type of interaction) such as a police officer, corrections officer, professional bouncer or executive protection agent.  If they are experienced they can go a long way towards cutting through the stuff that doesn't work well or worse, puts you in a bad situation i.e. flashy, overcomplicated movements that rely on refined motor skills and room to move.



I understand using in real world altercations. That is the real litmus test. However, what is done for those coming with absolutely no real world experience? Teach it, Discuss it, then throw them out to find out if they are able to actually use it?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 2, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> This video has been posted here before.  Let's take a look.
> 
> Good points:  He moved effectively to keep the attackers off balance (for the most part) which allowed him to take them on one at a time (at least as far as is seen in the video).  He was able to capitalize on the attackers inexperience.
> 
> ...



Show me the evidence of this fact that you will revert to your training under stress.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 2, 2014)

Sparring takes away the advantages of numbers dirty tricks deescalation and so on to force you to focus on core skills. Making them more intuitive.

Combat scenarios are good but to engage a quality oponant you need the extra layers of complexity that comes with sparring. Then you can take those skills into a combat scenario. Or into real life.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 2, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> For martial *sports*, sparring is required and necessary to properly develop the skills needed for competition.  For a martial *art* (that is focused on self defense rather than esoteric aspects), sparring is detrimental to properly developing the skills needed.  Sparring, in the context one would normally associate with the term, is limited in scope and focus.  It involves two participants that abide by a restrictive skill set (based upon the art in question), in a specific setting for a specific period of time.  This is not conducive to realism.  This isn't to downplay the importance of sparring for sport which, as I stated, is necessary.  Scenario based training is far better for a martial art, that has a focus on self defense as it doesn't restrict itself to a specific venue or skill set or rule set.
> 
> As an example, I've taught over 1000 students, most of which are high liability professionals.  We do zero sparring.  We focus on scenario based training which allows the venue to change (inside, outside, woods, alley, inside a car, in an elevator, on stairs etc), the number of attackers to change, dim light or no light situations, improvised weapons, escape and evasion, de-escalation techniques etc.  This type of training has served us quite well.
> 
> So it all boils down to the venue and goals of your training as to which training methodology works best.



I would frame this a bit differently.

Sparring (correctly done) is king for developing *fighting *skills. There's nothing else which will develop the ability to overcome an opponent's technique with your own to the same extent.

The issue is that fighting skills are not necessarily the most important aspect of surviving a violent (or potentially violent) encounter. Avoidance, de-escalation, dis-engagement, escape and evasion, dealing with the legal aftermath, etc are arguably more important and those are better addressed in scenario training such as the sort you focus on.

Some of the other aspects you mention - different environments, lighting, weapons (improvised or not), numbers of attackers - can be addressed in both sparring and scenario training. Unfortunately most practitioners neglect to incorporate these factors into their sparring, but it's perfectly viable to make them a regular part of training.

My ideal for martial arts practice is to include both sparring and scenario training. Mix up the conditions and rules for both so that students don't start relying on a particular ruleset. The sparring will develop technique, timing, and distancing. The scenario training will develop tactical and strategic awareness. Both will develop mental fortitude.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 2, 2014)

Danny T said:


> I understand using in real world altercations. That is the real litmus test. However, what is done for those coming with absolutely no real world experience? Teach it, Discuss it, then throw them out to find out if they are able to actually use it?



It is a matter of experience vs. theory.  Is the instructor teaching from experience or theory?  Has the technique/principle/tactic/strategy being taught to you ever been used outside the dojo on real, resisting, violent individuals?  If so, what was the result.  

Martial Warrior - excoboard.com

Here is an example of what I'm talking about using Aiki Jujutsu.  The techniques is to take control of the attackers arm, take them off balance, turn them in a full circle and then clothesline them.  Something you'd see in a Steven Segal movie.  It looks really cool....and I'd never, ever use it in real life.  Why?  I've been in too many uses of force where the cool stuff would never work.  First, you'd have to have room to pull it off.  Sufficient space is a luxury that isn't always present and cannot be depended upon.  Thus our goal is to be able to fight inside a phone booth because in reality you may not have much more room (elevator, stairs, between cars in a parking lot, tight alley, in a crowd etc).  Second, it requires several refined motors skill movements.  Under duress, refined motors skills become very difficult to do.  Thirdly, it requires a semi-compliant partner which is fine for choreographed movies, not so helpful against a guy on spice.  Lastly, the same end-goal i.e. the clothesline to take the guy to the ground can be accomplished using gross motor skill movements that are quicker, cleaner and don't require the space. 

Martial sports have a lot of cool moves.  And in a controlled environment, against a single opponent (who is using the same rule set), on a flat surface that's dry, where it's well lit, with plenty of space you can do all sorts of cool stuff.  You can even pull off some of it in a real fight if you're lucky and the various factors don't stack up against you.  I just don't like to rely on luck, and I like to stack up the various factors in my corner.  

So bottom line is to take an honest look at the training and ask questions.  And keep in mind that a real attack is a nasty, chaotic, ugly thing.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 2, 2014)

K-man said:


> I can come at full contact sparring and I can accept no sparring but what is 'non-contact sparring'?
> :asian:





Marnetmar said:


> I wasn't aware that non-contact sparring was a thing.



I can't speak for anyone else, but when I took TKD, we trained for no-contact sparring.  Our goal was to get about a millimeter to 1/4 inch from our opponent during a kick or strike.  Blocking was full contact, but we were taught to only block as far as we needed to push the attack aside.  Reasons we were taught: If we had sufficient control to stop our kick or strike at that short distance, we had sufficient control to stop our strike or kick 2 inches inside our opponent when that was necessary.  You do have to order you mind to always know when you were sparring and when you were defending against a real attack.  That is a training objective as well.  Also, we expected our strikes and kicks, properly delivered in a any attack, to be devastating.  Not what you want to do to a fellow student.  But you are always using full power to a point that you choose, outside or inside your opponent.  

I have seen people with the control I describe, but only considered myself safe at about 1 inch when I had to stop my training.



drop bear said:


> Show me the evidence of this fact that you will revert to your training under stress.



Train the way you fight. Because you will fight the way you have been trained. | The former Elder Statesman


Surviving the Active Shooter | Azweaponcraftprepper 


http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_9/uss_virginia.html


Train as you fight, Fight as you train



Maybe more than you want to read, but you did ask.  Others likely may be able to find even more information.  

I must admit to some curiosity as to why would you train if you don't expect to need to.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 2, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Show me the evidence of this fact that you will revert to your training under stress.



I was honestly taken back when I read your statement.  Is this a serious question?  Law enforcement and the military have known this for *decades* which is why the training is constructed the way it is.  And it was learned the hard way.  Going all the way back to Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate and O'Neill (and even before them).  I suggest, if you really don't understand things like stress related responses (flinch, fight or flight, OODA etc) that you have some research to do.

Start with the O.O.D.A loop. 

Then the flinch response (Tony Blauer does a good job on this).

Then look at the ways L.E., Corrections, E.P. and the military train and more importantly, why they train that way.  

Too bad you aren't local or I'd invite you over to show you Boatman edged weapon training and S.P.E.A.R. and explain why it was developed, why it's so effective and why they're some of the only systems with real world statistical documentation as to why they're so effective.  And retained in long term memory (decades in the case of WWII combatives).  And it all derived from how we respond under duress/stress and why we train the way we train.  If you need any guidance let me know.  
:wavey:

Edited to add:  Oftheherd and I were posting at the same time.  He's provided some links for you to look at, and thank you for posting them.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 2, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I was honestly taken back when I read your statement.  Is this a serious question?  Law enforcement and the military have known this for *decades* which is why the training is constructed the way it is.  And it was learned the hard way.  Going all the way back to Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate and O'Neill (and even before them).  I suggest, if you really don't understand things like stress related responses (flinch, fight or flight, OODA etc) that you have some research to do.
> 
> Start with the O.O.D.A loop.
> 
> ...



As always, well thought out, good information that practitioners can take to heart.  Most importantly for those who have followed Kong Soo Do since he joined MT, he speaks from personal experience.  Not many of us would have the personal experience Kong Soo Do has (nor would probably want a job where you got that much).  I know that is a strong endorsement, but in reading his posts, and a few PM conversations, he has impressed me as having much personal experience, and knowing what he is talking about.

Take if for what it is worth.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Oct 2, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> And with all that said, observe a boxer taking down multiple attackers at once;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmm, interesting post and interesting clip.

Seems a bit familiar though, like I've seen it before somewhere...

Oh wait, it was here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/90-general-self-defense/115945-ground-fighting-3.html

And at the time I posted it you said this:

_






 Originally Posted by *Hong Kong Pooey* 


Yes you're at a disadvantage against multiple attackers, yet you're beloved youtube has many clips of one person overcoming the odds and getting the better of the situation against multiple opponents, and all the ones I've seen have done it by staying on their feet, or at least getting back up quickly if they do get taken down.

Is that not proof that some MAs or at least certain training CAN prepare you for multiple opponents?

_

Nope. 

The example you showed for example was a boxer. Boxers never train for multiple opponents. The guy simply had the benefit of fighting in a cone where all of his opposition was coming from the front of him, so he could tag them as they came into range while he backed up. If he had opponents coming from all directions, that situation may have turned out quite different. Boxing doesn't train you to fight multiple opponents, boxing teaches you how to fight so that you can knock people out with punches. If you know how to fight well, there's a good chance you can take more than one untrained moron down.

There's a big difference there, because there's a lot of martial arts out there that DON'T teach you how to fight period.​

Changed your mind?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 2, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I was honestly taken back when I read your statement.  Is this a serious question?  Law enforcement and the military have known this for *decades* which is why the training is constructed the way it is.  And it was learned the hard way.  Going all the way back to Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate and O'Neill (and even before them).  I suggest, if you really don't understand things like stress related responses (flinch, fight or flight, OODA etc) that you have some research to do.
> 
> Start with the O.O.D.A loop.
> 
> ...



So it is not really a fact. That is why I asked. There is a difference between suggesting that good training effects results in a crisis and this idea that people revert to type.

I mean there is no actual study done regarding how much creativity or on the spot planning dissapears during a stressful situation.

So as an idea it has some merit but as a fact. No it really isn't.

What it is is a complicated method of switching between rational and instinctive response.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201109/how-can-we-make-better-decisions


----------



## drop bear (Oct 2, 2014)

OK contact sparring is limited with padding and a safe environment. The reasoning behind this is three fold.

1. They are fighting back.

2. They can actually fight.

3. Crippling people in training needlessly is the opposite of what you are trying to achieve.

You cannot overcome these issues without removing some of the realism. It means if you add realism you remove one of these issues all of which are fundamental to learning.

Think of sparring as employing the scientific method. To see if an idea works against a resisting oponant in a fairly sterile environment.

Sparring also provides self defence exactly how it is trained. So should someone be so worked up through stress. Go to his car. Put on a pair of 16 ounce gloves and box according to Queensbury.there is still the ability to defend themselves and incapacitate an attacker.

Anything that the defender does on top of that is just cheddar.

If we apply the same idea to non contact. Then they are going to hit the other guy with no power or fail when the fight goes off script. You just do not gain that instinctive defend respond from anything but hard sparring. Except actual combat.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 2, 2014)

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Hmmm, interesting post and interesting clip.
> 
> Seems a bit familiar though, like I've seen it before somewhere...
> 
> ...



At what point does the argument in the Ground fighting thread contradict the argument in this thread?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 3, 2014)

drop bear said:


> OK contact sparring is limited with padding and a safe environment. The reasoning behind this is three fold.
> 
> 1. They are fighting back.
> 
> ...



I guess the best I can say is if you think what you say works for you, stay with it.  

I do take exception to the bolded/underlined above.  If you check what I said, the goal was not to hit your practice opponent at all, except in blocking.  But there was no such thing as a kick or punch that wasn't done at full power, with as much control as we had.  The difference was where the full power was delivered; outside the body or inside it.  That was the purpose of learning control; it was a very important part of what we were expected to learn.  Also, when we sparred, there was no script.  Not even in one-step and three-step sparring.  We blocked the requisite number of times, then counter-attacked as we wished from the counter-attacks we had been taught.  Free sparring was just that.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 3, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Then they are going to hit the other guy with no power or fail when the fight goes off script.



That depends upon the quality of the sparring and the technique. There have been many people in my art that have only done non-contact sparring and were able to have plenty of power when they had to use it and mostly it was over very quickly.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 3, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So it is not really a fact.



Actually yes, it is a fact.  We've provided you sources of research.  Whether or not you thoughtfully do that research is up to you.  But again, it is a fact that high liability professionals have know literally for many decades and has a profound, positive effect on the way training has been upgraded.   That is why we train the way we train.


----------



## Buka (Oct 3, 2014)

Good thing there's more than one way to skin a cat......because we all be cat skinners here. Hopefully, we won't argue about what skinning tool to use, or what the hell to do with that damn hide. (A cool hat, maybe)


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 3, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> That depends upon the quality of the sparring and the technique. There have been many people in my art that have only done non-contact sparring and were able to have plenty of power when they had to use it and mostly it was over very quickly.



I find that hard to believe.

Unfortunately, there's no way to verify, so we'll have to take your word for it. When I run across people who spar like that, they behave exactly as Drop Bear has described.


----------



## Buka (Oct 3, 2014)

I've always trained contact, always believed it was best, probably always will. BUT - I'm an old guy now. Anytime I forget something, like when you sometimes walk into a room and forget what the hell you were looking for.....you get that little _uh oh_ feeling.

We never wore headgear until the 80's Even in boxing gyms there wasn't any headgear except for some of the pro fighters. Boy, do I wish I could turn the clock back.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Oct 3, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> At what point does the argument in the Ground fighting thread contradict the argument in this thread?



It seemed to me that you were making the exact same point as I was in the ground fighting thread, no? Namely that his boxing training/skills enabled him to deal with multiple attackers on that occasion.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Actually yes, it is a fact.  We've provided you sources of research.  Whether or not you thoughtfully do that research is up to you.  But again, it is a fact that high liability professionals have know literally for many decades and has a profound, positive effect on the way training has been upgraded.   That is why we train the way we train.



Or you say its a fact to validate the reason you train how you train. That is why the source wasn't a neuroscientist but an industry trainer. It seems self fulfilling. 

It also seems conveniently overly simple.

And seriously Tony blauer? Mr cross fit defence?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> That depends upon the quality of the sparring and the technique. There have been many people in my art that have only done non-contact sparring and were able to have plenty of power when they had to use it and mostly it was over very quickly.



See that is only true that we are not robots and do not revert to training under stress. It would mean there is some sort of reasoning and adaptation on the fly going on there.

My actual issue with only non contact sparring is a little different. I think it puts your timing out which and enhances different aspects of fighting that may effect your performance should the fight not be over quickly.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 4, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I find that hard to believe.



If you had trained with any of them you wouldn't.



Hanzou said:


> Unfortunately, there's no way to verify, so we'll have to take your word for it.



It is difficult to verify to others the effectiveness of an art that trains only for self defense as generally we tend to stay out of street fights whenever possible and don't keep paparazzi on hand when we do. So you will have to take my word for it just like I have to take yours and Drop Bear's word for anything you say about yourselves or your arts. If footage of one of o



Hanzou said:


> When I run across people who spar like that, they behave exactly as Drop Bear has described.



We run in different circles.ur students or instructor, or me, defending ourselves in a real self defense situation turns up I will post it on here.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 4, 2014)

drop bear said:


> See that is only true that we are not robots and do not revert to training under stress. It would mean there is some sort of reasoning and adaptation on the fly going on there.



The last altercation I got into I was able to choose what actions to take, except for one wild punch to the ribs I through after which I immediately pulled myself up on.



drop bear said:


> My actual issue with only non contact sparring is a little different. I think it puts your timing out which and enhances different aspects of fighting that may effect your performance should the fight not be over quickly.



There is an element of guesswork that goes on with non-contact sparring as to the effects of your strikes, and theirs, but we feel that the advantages, such as not limiting your targets and saving injuries, outweigh the disadvantages.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 4, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Or you say its a fact to validate the reason you train how you train. That is why the source wasn't a neuroscientist but an industry trainer. It seems self fulfilling.



This is why it is so hard to take any of your posts serious.  I don't know if your simply trolling or if you're actually that inexperienced?

It is quite obvious you haven't done any research into this.  Otherwise you'd find that research scientists, in various fields, along with military researchers have all arrived at the same conclusion, 'under stress (combat) you don't rise to the occasion, you sink to the level of your training'.  I could post a plethora of links, in addition to the ones already posted but I don't get the feeling you're really interested.  If by chance you are interested, google is your friend.  Perhaps start with Lt. Col. Grossman and then branch out into research papers from scientists in various fields that have conducted studies on blood pressure/rate, adrenaline, refined/gross motor skills etc while under duress/stress.  



> It also seems conveniently overly simple.



If you do the research, you'll discover that is precisely the point.



> And seriously Tony blauer? Mr cross fit defence?



Don't know about crossfit, but he's been teaching combatives to military, law enforcement and corrections for decades.


----------



## K-man (Oct 4, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Or you say its a fact to validate the reason you train how you train. That is why the source wasn't a neuroscientist but an industry trainer. It seems self fulfilling.
> 
> It also seems conveniently overly simple.
> 
> And seriously Tony blauer? Mr cross fit defence?


I'm right with *Kong* here. Tony Blauer is one of the top guys around and is one of the pioneers of modern reality based self defence training. I have known his training for years and would love to see what he does first hand. 
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 4, 2014)

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> It seemed to me that you were making the exact same point as I was in the ground fighting thread, no? Namely that his boxing training/skills enabled him to deal with multiple attackers on that occasion.



Not so much his boxing skills, but the fact that boxing taught him how to be a *fighter.* I brought it up in this thread because I believe that martial athletes have the edge over martial artists because of their athletic ability and their contact sparring.


----------



## geezer (Oct 4, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> ....I believe that martial athletes have the edge over martial artists because of their athletic ability and their contact sparring.



As a "martial artist" who is no athlete, and getting to the point in life where it is getting increasingly difficult just to stay in decent shape, I must say that Hanzou's comment above is just common sense.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 4, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I brought it up in this thread because I believe that martial athletes have the edge over martial artists because of their athletic ability and their contact sparring.



I disagree for two reasons.  First, you need to define the venue in which they have an edge.  Is it in a sporting competitions?  If so, we've got an apples and oranges comparison.  Is it in the _street_?  I'll take someone with real world combatives experience over a TKD or BJJ gold medalist.  Sparring makes a difference for sport, it makes no difference in real world altercations (and is detrimental) for the reasons I've listed above.  Secondly, it depends on the school as to how conditioned the practitioner is and not the goal of the school.  A martial artist is a person and a person can either be fit or unfit.  It is a choice.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> And with all that said, observe a boxer taking down multiple attackers at once;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



how do you know he's a boxer?  He could be wing chun, or shoalin, or shotokan, or tang soo do, or just gifted with his hands.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well look at boxing for example;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



this one is actually really stupid.  the only thing this shows is that when you know how your opponent will attempt to attack you, it's quite easy to dodge and evade his attacks.

If you try to argue that his footwork and bobbing and weaving skills are really good, at the same time anyone could also argue that the punching skills suck because nobody could hit him with their "boxing" punches.  

This example is worthless.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 4, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> how do you know he's a boxer?  He could be wing chun, or shoalin, or shotokan, or tang soo do, or just gifted with his hands.



1.Because reports said he was an Armenian boxer.

2. WC,TSD, Shoto, and Shaolin guys don't fight like that.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> 1.Because reports said he was an Armenian boxer.



I didn't listen all the way thru, did it say so in the video?  In English?



> 2. WC,TSD, Shoto, and Shaolin guys don't fight like that.



oh you KNOW this, do you?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 4, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> this one is actually really stupid.  the only thing this shows is that when you know how your opponent will attempt to attack you, it's quite easy to dodge and evade his attacks.
> 
> If you try to argue that his footwork and bobbing and weaving skills are really good, at the same time anyone could also argue that the punching skills suck because nobody could hit him with their "boxing" punches.
> 
> This example is worthless.



Until you recognize that even most trained fighters don't utilize that skill and their brains become mashed potatoes. Your typical twice a week TKD or Kung Fu stylist cant evade anywhere close to that level. It's one of the core aspects of boxing, and you simply dont see it in many striking arts.


----------



## geezer (Oct 4, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Y*our typical twice a week* TKD or Kung Fu stylist cant evade anywhere close to that level.



Your "typical" twice a week hobbyist _at anything _can't do what a pro or really serious amateur can do. So what?


----------



## geezer (Oct 4, 2014)

:lookie:





Kong Soo Do said:


> I disagree for two reasons.  First, you need to define the venue in which they have an edge.  Is it in a sporting competitions?  If so, we've got an apples and oranges comparison.  Is it in the _street_?  I'll take someone with real world combatives experience over a TKD or BJJ gold medalist.  Sparring makes a difference for sport, it makes no difference in real world altercations (and is detrimental) for the reasons I've listed above.  Secondly, it depends on the school as to how conditioned the practitioner is and not the goal of the school.  A martial artist is a person and a person can either be fit or unfit.  It is a choice.



I don't spar much these days. But when I did I was fitter and more confident. I learned that it's not so easy to land a solid technique against a resisting opponent. If you can't land a punch, you can't land a "deadly technique" either. If you can't take the buffeting of moderate, controlled contact sparring, you'll be even more mentally disrupted by the violence of an actual attack on your person. Now there are other ways besides sparring to address these issues, but sparring can be one important part of a self defense training program for these reasons. 


Sorry to keep agreeing with _Hanzou_. Please carry on . :lookie:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 4, 2014)

If you 

- can use your hand to hold on your opponent's throat, you can punch on his face, or take him down if needed. 
- can't prevent your opponent's hand to reach on your throat, your combat skill will have some issue.

IMO, the "throat control" is the next best option after full contact.


----------



## K-man (Oct 4, 2014)

geezer said:


> :lookie:
> 
> I don't spar much these days. But when I did I was fitter and more confident. I learned that it's not so easy to land a solid technique against a resisting opponent. If you can't land a punch, you can't land a "deadly technique" either. If you can't take the buffeting of moderate, controlled contact sparring, you'll be even more mentally disrupted by the violence of an actual attack on your person. Now there are other ways besides sparring to address these issues, but sparring can be one important part of a self defense training program for these reasons.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you are saying to a point and it is because of that point that I disagree with most of *Hanzou*'s claims. When we used to spar it was from 'sparring range' or roughly two metres apart. It was give and take type sparring, getting in and out. It was good fun and you took some and gave some out. It was neither a violent attack on your person, nor were you trying to get in and finish your opponent so I would suggest that although it has some value, it is not enough for me to make it part of the syllabus. 

We start either from sticky hands and build up the intensity or we have one person as the designated attacker. In real life you are not normally trying to attack your attacker, short of an opportunistic pre-emptive strike. Sport sparring is fine for sport but for me, I'd rather wait for the attack. Even then, that is not necessarily waiting for him to throw a punch but just he has to get inside striking range to be effective and that is my area of strength. I have no interest in entering his.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> this one is actually really stupid.  the only thing this shows is that when you know how your opponent will attempt to attack you, it's quite easy to dodge and evade his attacks.
> 
> If you try to argue that his footwork and bobbing and weaving skills are really good, at the same time anyone could also argue that the punching skills suck because nobody could hit him with their "boxing" punches.
> 
> This example is worthless.



And that is the difference between defending boxing and defending boxing punches.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2014)

K-man said:


> I agree with what you are saying to a point and it is because of that point that I disagree with most of *Hanzou*'s claims. When we used to spar it was from 'sparring range' or roughly two metres apart. It was give and take type sparring, getting in and out. It was good fun and you took some and gave some out. It was neither a violent attack on your person, nor were you trying to get in and finish your opponent so I would suggest that although it has some value, it is not enough for me to make it part of the syllabus.
> 
> We start either from sticky hands and build up the intensity or we have one person as the designated attacker. In real life you are not normally trying to attack your attacker, short of an opportunistic pre-emptive strike. Sport sparring is fine for sport but for me, I'd rather wait for the attack. Even then, that is not necessarily waiting for him to throw a punch but just he has to get inside striking range to be effective and that is my area of strength. I have no interest in entering his.
> :asian:



you are adopting some new dynamic of fighting that does not involve that moving in and out of range and attacking and stuff?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> It's one of the core aspects of boxing, and you simply dont see it in many striking arts.



I'll clarify:  YOU don't see it.


----------



## K-man (Oct 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> you are adopting some new dynamic of fighting that does not involve that moving in and out of range and attacking and stuff?


Not new. If you have to fight you engage and fight. That is the basic concept of Okinawan Karate and the way they teach the application of kata. Same principle in Krav and in Aikido. Judo engages, BJJ engages, Jujutsu engages, Wrestling engages.  I can't think of any non-sport, empty-hand martial art that bounces around give and take like you see in Boxing, most Karate, and TKD. In MMA there is engagement but prior to the engaging you still have the sporting dance. You get penalised for not attacking. Muay Thai is similar in that it has the exchange of strikes but does allow the clinch.

As I have said all along, it is all in the definition. I didn't come into the discussion in the early stages as 'sparring' was defined as;



Hanzou said:


> Touching/Hitting another person.


which is loose enough to cover everything. I don't know any empty hand form of martial art that does fall under that umbrella, unless it is one of the Ninjutsu sub sets. By this definition wrestling does not spar yet is a contact sport. I would suggest that training for wrestling is also sparring, in the broader sense, as much as any other martial art.

So by the definition given we spar in every area of our training. It's just not what a lot of people seem to expect to see when people 'spar'. By the definition given I would suggest contact sparring is essential in most martial arts, just that 'sparring' can be conducted in different ways. 
:asian:


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 5, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Your typical twice a week TKD or Kung Fu stylist cant evade anywhere close to that level. It's one of the core aspects of boxing, and you simply dont see it in many striking arts.



That example shows that the fighter in the video is good at head movement but he also subjected the test to the following constraints:

1) Only punches were used.
3) Relatively unskilled punchers were used.
3) Only the head was targeted.

That skews the results quite a bit.

To make a blanket statement that someone who only trains twice a week (the bare minimum recommended amount of training) can't get even close to that is inaccurate at best.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 5, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I believe that martial athletes have the edge over martial artists because of their athletic ability and their contact sparring.



Personally I would give the edge to someone who spends most or all of their time training for self defense over someone who tarins for sport and does self defense on the side. You don't have to be an elite athlete to be able to defend yourself well you just have to have the appropriate skills/knowledge and the right mindset.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> I'll clarify:  YOU don't see it.



Would you care to post some vids showing traditional stylists utilizing that level of head movement and evasiveness?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> I didn't listen all the way thru, did it say so in the video?  In English?



The boxer's name is Samvel Demrjian, and he is a semi-professional Armenian boxer. In that vid he was fighting a mob of turks.



> oh you KNOW this, do you?



If you spent your time and money in WC, Shotokan, Shaolin, or TSD and ended up fighting just like a boxer, you wasted your money. You should have just taken boxing.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> That example shows that the fighter in the video is good at head movement but he also subjected the test to the following constraints:
> 
> 1) Only punches were used.
> 3) Relatively unskilled punchers were used.
> ...



Would you prefer this;












I didn't see too much of either in these vids;









Just saying.....


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Personally I would give the edge to someone who spends most or all of their time training for self defense over someone who tarins for sport and does self defense on the side. You don't have to be an elite athlete to be able to defend yourself well you just have to have the appropriate skills/knowledge and the right mindset.



Again it comes down to simple logic; Who's better at knocking someone out? Someone who has actually knocked someone out, or someone who has never knocked someone out?

Who is better at choking someone? The person who has actually choked someone out, or the person who has only simulated choking someone out?

As shown in that vid with the boxer fighting off multiple attackers, its not difficult to take abilities learned for sport purposes into a self defense situation.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I disagree for two reasons.  First, you need to define the venue in which they have an edge.  Is it in a sporting competitions?  If so, we've got an apples and oranges comparison.  Is it in the _street_?  I'll take someone with real world combatives experience over a TKD or BJJ gold medalist.



We also need to define what group of people we're talking about here. I'd definitely rather have a cop or soldier at my side than a Bjj black belt. However, I'd rather have a 5 year Bjj practicioner at my side than a soccer mom who's done Krav Maga for 5 years.



> Sparring makes a difference for sport, it makes no difference in real world altercations (and is detrimental) for the reasons I've listed above.



I'm forced to disagree. There's far too many examples of sport-based techniques working just fine in "real world" altercations for that statement to be true. Those sport-based techniques were honed through constant sparring practice.



> Secondly, it depends on the school as to how conditioned the practitioner is and not the goal of the school.  A martial artist is a person and a person can either be fit or unfit.  It is a choice.



Not always. In some styles of MA the intensity is a trademark of the style itself. For example, you're never going to find a Judo school where you're not going to be thrown to the mat. You're never going to find a Muay Thai or Boxing school where they're not making you put on gloves and step into the ring. Because of that we know what to expect from practitioners of those styles.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 5, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Would you prefer this;



No I wouldn't. Both video samples show how NOT to duck properly, the people in them were lucky they didn't get kneed in the head.





Hanzou said:


> I didn't see too much of either in these vids;



See how much head movement you have after 2.5 hours of sparring.




Hanzou said:


> Just saying.....



Rhee TKD is not boxing or MMA, it's primary means of defending against strikes is blocking/deflecting, head movement is secondary. Feel free to post some videos of your training or your schools training so we can compare the difference.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 5, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Again it comes down to simple logic; Who's better at knocking someone out? Someone who has actually knocked someone out, or someone who has never knocked someone out?
> 
> Who is better at choking someone? The person who has actually choked someone out, or the person who has only simulated choking someone out?



The person with the greater skill. For the record I have actually knocked someone out in sparing.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 5, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I'm forced to disagree. There's far too many examples of sport-based techniques working just fine in "real world" altercations for that statement to be true. Those sport-based techniques were honed through constant sparring practice.



So what would you consider to be a sport based technique, I mean one that was not originally designed for self defense or combat.art? Martial arts techniques are also honed through constant sparring practice, not just sport-based ones and there are numerous examples (not all caught on video) of them working too.



Hanzou said:


> For example, you're never going to find a Judo school where you're not going to be thrown to the mat.



Stands to reason considering Judo is a throwing art.


----------



## Buka (Oct 5, 2014)

My guess - on Martial Arts forums, as in all dojos, everyone trains, some teach, some  fight-some professionally-most for sport, some have defended themselves  on the street, some haven't. The one thing all of them have in common is  total conviction about being right.

Maybe this guy is sharper than we thought.







Wouldn't it be funny if we were ALL full of crap?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> No I wouldn't. Both video samples show how NOT to duck properly, the people in them were lucky they didn't get kneed in the head.



LoL! That's a pretty arrogant statement.





> See how much head movement you have after 2.5 hours of sparring.



There wasn't much head movement from the get go.




> Rhee TKD is not boxing or MMA, it's primary means of defending against strikes is blocking/deflecting, head movement is secondary.



Really? It seemed that your instructor had adopted some boxing/MMA principles in his sparring practice.



> Feel free to post some videos of your training or your schools training so we can compare the difference.



I'm currently training in Gracie Jiu-Jitsu. Vids shouldn't be too hard to find.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 5, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> LoL! That's a pretty arrogant statement.



There is nothing arrogant about it, just a statement of fact based on my training. One thing we tell students not to do when they duck is to lean forward in that fashion.




Hanzou said:


> Really? It seemed that your instructor had adopted some boxing/MMA principles in his sparring practice.



As stated in one of my earlier posts, he was sparring according to the rules and target areas of the person he is sparring. There are some principles that many martial arts have in common with MMA and other martial arts.



Hanzou said:


> I'm currently training in Gracie Jiu-Jitsu. Vids shouldn't be too hard to find.



Then why have you not shown any so far? You always seem to indicate that you think videos prove everything and take every opportunity to show them of other styles and schools. So hunt them down and show us, I'm curious.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> So what would you consider to be a sport based technique, I mean one that was not originally designed for self defense or combat.art?



The Triangle Choke for example. It was created purely for sporting purposes, but it has a strong self defense application seen here;






And here;

Female US Navy Sailor Puts Rapist To Sleep With Triangle Choke In Dubai | Bjj Eastern Europe



> Martial arts techniques are also honed through constant sparring practice, not just sport-based ones and there are numerous examples (not all caught on video) of them working too.



Honed through constant sparring practice in those schools that actually spar.



> Stands to reason considering Judo is a throwing art.



Yes, but the point still stands.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> There is nothing arrogant about it, just a statement of fact based on my training. One thing we tell students not to do when they duck is to lean forward in that fashion.



It's pretty arrogant to assume that you know more about striking than a professional boxer, and that said boxer is doing it "wrong".






> As stated in one of my earlier posts, he was sparring according to the rules and target areas of the person he is sparring. There are some principles that many martial arts have in common with MMA and other martial arts.



Why the need to switch over to a boxer/MMA style? Isn't TKD good enough?



> Then why have you not shown any so far? You always seem to indicate that you think videos prove everything and take every opportunity to show them of other styles and schools. So hunt them down and show us, I'm curious.



Well what would you like to see? Here's my instructor's instructor Relson Gracie playing around with a white belt;






That isn't my particular school, but Relson tends to run his Gjj academies in similar fashion.


----------



## Steve (Oct 5, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I disagree for two reasons.  First, you need to define the venue in which they have an edge.  Is it in a sporting competitions?  If so, we've got an apples and oranges comparison.  Is it in the _street_?  I'll take someone with *real world combatives experience* over a TKD or BJJ gold medalist.  Sparring makes a difference for sport, it makes no difference in real world altercations (and is detrimental) for the reasons I've listed above.  Secondly, it depends on the school as to how conditioned the practitioner is and not the goal of the school.  A martial artist is a person and a person can either be fit or unfit.  It is a choice.



Most martial arts instructors have zero real world combatives experience. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 5, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> No I wouldn't. Both video samples show how NOT to duck properly, the people in them were lucky they didn't get kneed in the head.



No luck involved at all. The second clip is from a boxing match, so no knees allowed. The first clip is of Anderson Silva, one of the best unarmed fighters on the planet in any style. A whole bunch of top-level professional fighters have had their chance to try kneeing him in the head and none of them has been able to. When he ducks he has precise understanding of where and how his opponent is able to punch, kick, or knee in that moment.


----------



## K-man (Oct 5, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> LoL! That's a pretty arrogant statement.


I'm sorry but this really is this pot calling the kettle black! :lfao:

It's a real shame that you cannot accept that other styles are trained for many other reasons than fighting in the ring. MMA is great for what it is and other styles are great for what they do too.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2014)

K-man said:


> I'm sorry but this really is this pot calling the kettle black! :lfao:
> 
> It's a real shame that you cannot accept that other styles are trained for many other reasons than fighting in the ring. MMA is great for what it is and other styles are great for what they do too.



Styles are trained for fighting period.

I'm of the opinion if a style can't do well in the ring, it probably can't do well in the streets either.  That opinion is backed by quite a bit of evidence. For example, boxers, wrestlers, and now MMAers and Jiujiteiros are all "thugs" which traditional martial artists train to fight against in their self defense classes. In all my years in Bjj, we've never trained to stop a "karate guy" from beating us up.

I wonder why that is?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2014)

K-man said:


> Not new. If you have to fight you engage and fight. That is the basic concept of Okinawan Karate and the way they teach the application of kata. Same principle in Krav and in Aikido. Judo engages, BJJ engages, Jujutsu engages, Wrestling engages.  I can't think of any non-sport, empty-hand martial art that bounces around give and take like you see in Boxing, most Karate, and TKD. In MMA there is engagement but prior to the engaging you still have the sporting dance. You get penalised for not attacking. Muay Thai is similar in that it has the exchange of strikes but does allow the clinch.
> 
> As I have said all along, it is all in the definition. I didn't come into the discussion in the early stages as 'sparring' was defined as;
> 
> ...



Wrestling has a different dynamic to striking. In wrestling yes you need to be re engaging all the time. For striking. You are probably right as I think that is one of the lessons contact sparring teaches you is that you can't just sit there and trade.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Would you prefer this;
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Prince nazeem.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 5, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The Triangle Choke for example. It was created purely for sporting purposes, but it has a *strong self defense application* seen here;



Again, I'm going to disagree with you.  Let me explain why, with respect :wavey:

Did the triangle choke work in this video?  Apparently it did.  Was it self defense?  Hard to say from the video clip, however, let's assume it was.  Rather than having a _strong self defense application_, it has an extremely poor self defense application.  *First*, the guy was so focused on trying to get the choke applied that he was oblivious to his surroundings.  *Secondly*, at no time was he trying to regain his feet as quickly as possible.  *Thirdly*, if this individual had a weapon he would not have been hindered in using it.  *Fourthly*, he was only able to apply this choke due to the good graces of the people surrounding him.  If the other guy had a buddy willing to step in and kick in the head of the guy on the bottom it would have gone quite differently.  A good ground defensive strategy does NOT employ staying on the ground and does NOT assume that it is a one-on-one fight.  A good ground defense strategy utilizes a strategy of regaining the feet as quickly as possible, by whatever means is necessary.  

You mentioned training Gracie BJJ, that's great.  I know Royce Gracie.  At one time he taught at our regional training center.  What he taught was the same sport BJJ he taught to competitors.  He was invited to teach by a HL coordinator that had never actually been in a use-of-force nor knew what a police or corrections officer really needed in a training venue.  BJJ was the flavor of the month and he was apparently a big MMA fan.  Now, for the BJJ players reading this....I'm not bashing BJJ.  In a sport venue it's fine.  In a street venue, particularly for HL professionals it is detrimental training.  At first people were a bit dazzled at being able to train with a celebrity.  Then they realized that none of the training was useable on the street.  He no longer teaches there.  Nothing against him personally.  It's just that what he has to offer, for the most part doesn't work in our venue.  Same thing if Tony Blauer tried to teach sport competitors, it just wouldn't work.  BJJ contains 'some' useful tidbits if you find yourself on the ground, but overall the methodology is completely wrong for the goal.  

Hopefully that will drive the point home in a way that doesn't get anyone's nose out of joint but provides perspective for consideration.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2014)

Steve said:


> Most martial arts instructors have zero real world combatives experience.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I am lucky enough to get ex bouncer ex soldier pro mma fighters. My coach doesn't have real world street. But I do. And i seriously doubt i could take him in a street fight. A lot of the guys I work with have real world street but no formal training to speak of.

The best street fighters I know are generally ex or current sport guys.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 5, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Styles are trained for fighting period.
> 
> I'm of the opinion if a style can't do well in the ring, it probably can't do well in the streets either.



Again, with respect, this is a very narrow view that is limiting your perspective.  You are comparing apples to oranges and confusing an attacker with an opponent.  A style/system doesn't have to do well in the ring to do well in real life.  Why?  Because the ring is an *artificial environment* with an *artificial rule set* that BOTH participants have agreed to abide by.  That isn't real life.  A combative system/style will contain strategies/principles/movements/techniques that are not allowed in the ring.  And for good reason.   In order for a style that is based purely on street combatives to be allowed in the ring it would have to be neutered to fit the sport environment, which means it is no longer the original combative art.  It would be the same thing as saying that the BJJ player can't go to the ground or use submission holds, or the TKD player can't kick.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Again, with respect, this is a very narrow view that is limiting your perspective.  You are comparing apples to oranges and confusing an attacker with an opponent.  A style/system doesn't have to do well in the ring to do well in real life.  Why?  Because the ring is an *artificial environment* with an *artificial rule set* that BOTH participants have agreed to abide by.  That isn't real life.  A combative system/style will contain strategies/principles/movements/techniques that are not allowed in the ring.  And for good reason.   In order for a style that is based purely on street combatives to be allowed in the ring it would have to be neutered to fit the sport environment, which means it is no longer the original combative art.  It would be the same thing as saying that the BJJ player can't go to the ground or use submission holds, or the TKD player can't kick.



Which makes it harder to be sucsessfull winning in a sport context. Basically if you are good at sport. You are going to be better at street when you are not held back.

Train hard fight easy.


----------



## K-man (Oct 5, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Styles are trained for fighting period.
> 
> I'm of the opinion if a style can't do well in the ring, it probably can't do well in the streets either.  That opinion is backed by quite a bit of evidence. For example, boxers, wrestlers, and now MMAers and Jiujiteiros are all "thugs" which traditional martial artists train to fight against in their self defense classes. In all my years in Bjj, we've never trained to stop a "karate guy" from beating us up.
> 
> I wonder why that is?


Well that is your opinion and you have stated it over and over until everyone is quite sick of hearing it. I have never thought of boxers etc being thugs although it is true that certain 'colourful' identities have been known to hang out in gyms. I have never trained with the intent of protecting myself against them and I have never heard anyone I have trained with say anything like that, so I'm not sure where that piece of BS came from. 

As as to wanting to beat up on MMAs. Sure! If I wanted to do that I would train MMA. The mere fact that I don't proves the lie.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Which makes it harder to be sucsessfull winning in a sport context. Basically if you are good at sport. You are going to be better at street when you are not held back.
> 
> Train hard fight easy.



Except that under duress/stress you revert to your training (which includes the methodology).  Haven't you researched into this yet?  You really should if you haven't.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Again, I'm going to disagree with you.  Let me explain why, with respect :wavey:
> 
> Did the triangle choke work in this video?  Apparently it did.  Was it self defense?  Hard to say from the video clip, however, let's assume it was.  Rather than having a _strong self defense application_, it has an extremely poor self defense application.  *First*, the guy was so focused on trying to get the choke applied that he was oblivious to his surroundings.  *Secondly*, at no time was he trying to regain his feet as quickly as possible.  *Thirdly*, if this individual had a weapon he would not have been hindered in using it.  *Fourthly*, he was only able to apply this choke due to the good graces of the people surrounding him.  If the other guy had a buddy willing to step in and kick in the head of the guy on the bottom it would have gone quite differently.  A good ground defensive strategy does NOT employ staying on the ground and does NOT assume that it is a one-on-one fight.  A good ground defense strategy utilizes a strategy of regaining the feet as quickly as possible, by whatever means is necessary.




First: Its pretty hard to be concerned about your surroundings when someone is punching you in the face.

Second: How do you know he wasn't trying to regain his feet? There is no easy way to reverse someone who is driving into you while you're on your back. Gravity and leverage in that situation are not on your side, especially if the person is larger than you. Which is why the guard exists, and is such a valuable position.

Third: While there was no weapon in this situation, the rape attempt in Dubai (which I also posted, yet you ignored) did have a weapon present. The choke was still applied effectively.

Fourth: There's plenty of cases where there are bystanders and no one interferes with two people going at it. However, for gits and shingles, let's say that in this situation people standing around started attacking him too; The guy was being punched in the face by a guy on top of him. If some people decided to stomp his head in on top of the guy bashing his face into the concrete, he'd be screwed. No method of self defense or martial art would be of much use in that situation. However, in the situation actually posted, you had a guy on his back defending himself from an attacker trying to cave his face in. In many cases you're screwed just from that alone.

No opinion on the woman in Dubai who was saved from an armed rapist thanks to a triangle choke?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Except that under duress/stress you revert to your training (which includes the methodology).  Haven't you researched into this yet?  You really should if you haven't.



Meaning that sport fighting will be more effective. Because the sports method has been applied during sparring. It is going to be a lot harder to put your attacker in a redman suit first.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8tn1I07k0Bs


And it is not even a case of physicality. Applied sports method works. And that is a fact.
http://www.esnewsreporting.com/72-year-old-retired-boxer-beats-up-a-robber/


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 5, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> First: Its pretty hard to be concerned about your surroundings when someone is punching you in the face.



Not if you've trained to be aware of your surroundings under adverse conditions.  We train that way, and do it for real.  That's good self defense training methodology.  That's how you capitalize on available resources and opportunities.  Those that do this for real, understand.  Those that don't do this for real, don't understand.



> Second: How do you know he wasn't trying to regain his feet? There is no  easy way to reverse someone who is driving into you while you're on  your back. Gravity and leverage in that situation are not on your side,  especially if the person is larger than you. Which is why the guard  exists, and is such a valuable position.



Because I watched the video.  He wasn't aware of anything, nor trying to do anything except get the choke.  And there are several ways to regain your feet when you aren't tied to an artificial rule set.  Again, we train this way and do it for real.



> Third: While there was no weapon in this situation, the rape attempt in  Dubai (which I also posted, yet you ignored) did have a weapon present.  The choke was still applied effectively.



Why would you assume I ignored you?  There have been seven pages of information posted so far in this thread.  Someone isn't ignoring you if they don't respond to each and every point for seven pages.  Don't be obtuse.  I've responded professionally and respectfully to you.  If you can't do the same then state that you can't so I'll know it's pointless to talk with you and simply ignore you.  As for the rape attempt, glad she's okay.  Or should I say I'm glad she was lucky.  If there were two attackers she wouldn't have been lucky using a sport technique in a self defense situation.  A good self defense technique(s) anticipate multiple attackers and ways to deal with them.  Not use sport techniques that limit your options and force you to rely on luck.


> Fourth: There's plenty of cases where there are bystanders and no one interferes with two people going at it.



And there's plenty of cases where they do interfere to the detriment of the victim.  Your way relies on luck and hope.  My way relies on eliminating or mitigating potential problems.


> No method of self defense or martial art would be of much use in that situation.



It is apparent then that your are not familiar with self defense (or martial arts that focus on self defense) if you hold that opinion.  Once again, we train that way and utilize that training in real life.  Not magic.  Not flashy.  And not infallible, but it beats luck and hope.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Meaning that sport fighting will be more effective. Because the sports method has been applied during sparring. It is going to be a lot harder to put your attacker in a redman suit first.



Your video has already been posted and comment on elsewhere.  I pointed out the problems with it already so fill free to look it up.



> nd it is not even a case of physicality. Applied sports method works. And that is a fact.



No, it is simply your opinion based upon your level of knowledge and perspective of training.


----------



## K-man (Oct 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Meaning that sport fighting will be more effective. Because the sports method has been applied during sparring. It is going to be a lot harder to put your attacker in a redman suit first.


I have no doubt that someone good in the sporting context would be able to look after themselves on the street. What I can't understand is why reality based martial artists would be ineffective. This thread, like all the others Hanzou has twisted, has gone down the same burrow as the rest. Sad!


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 5, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Not if you've trained to be aware of your surroundings under adverse conditions.  We train that way, and do it for real.  That's good self defense training methodology.  That's how you capitalize on available resources and opportunities.  Those that do this for real, understand.  Those that don't do this for real, don't understand.



So you actually have someone lying on concrete or gravel while someone is punching them in the face with no padding or protection?



> Because I watched the video.  He wasn't aware of anything, nor trying to do anything except get the choke.  And there are several ways to regain your feet when you aren't tied to an artificial rule set.  Again, we train this way and do it for real.



Ever stop to consider that he attempted to get to his feet, failed, and then went for the choke?

And while there are several ways to regain your feet when someone's on top of you, that doesn't mean that those several methods are always going to work. Which is why its good to have an alternate route.



> Why would you assume I ignored you?  There have been seven pages of information posted so far in this thread.  Someone isn't ignoring you if they don't respond to each and every point for seven pages.  Don't be obtuse.  I've responded professionally and respectfully to you.  If you can't do the same then state that you can't so I'll know it's pointless to talk with you and simply ignore you.



Uh, the attempted rape was in the same post as the video you responded to.



> As for the rape attempt, glad she's okay.  Or should I say I'm glad she was lucky.  If there were two attackers she wouldn't have been lucky using a sport technique in a self defense situation.  A good self defense technique(s) anticipate multiple attackers and ways to deal with them.  Not use sport techniques that limit your options and force you to rely on luck.



You mean limit her options to the point where she was proficient enough to subdue her attacker and survive?

It seems that the common theme with you is that someone is at a disadvantage if they're unarmed and facing someone with a weapon, or alone against multiple attackers. Considering that I have yet to see "self defense" guys beating down groups of people armed and unarmed, you'll excuse me if I doubt that people trained in that fashion are any more adept at those situations as anyone else.



> And there's plenty of cases where they do interfere to the detriment of the victim.  Your way relies on luck and hope.  My way relies on eliminating or mitigating potential problems.



Both scenarios I posted had little to do with luck or hope. Both survived because of their skills that they gained from training in a sport.



> It is apparent then that your are not familiar with self defense (or martial arts that focus on self defense) if you hold that opinion.  Once again, we train that way and utilize that training in real life.  Not magic.  Not flashy.  And not infallible, but it beats luck and hope.



Then you could post some examples of some self defense-based MAist defeating groups of armed assailants with their bare hands. A news report of video would suffice.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 5, 2014)

K-man said:


> This thread, like all the others Hanzou has twisted, has gone down the same burrow as the rest. Sad!



It's like they say, "You can lead an elephant to water...but you can't push one in".  :boing2:


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 6, 2014)

K-man said:


> I have no doubt that someone good in the sporting context would be able to look after themselves on the street. What I can't understand is why reality based martial artists would be ineffective. This thread, like all the others Hanzou has twisted, has gone down the same burrow as the rest. Sad!



Who said that reality-based arts would be ineffective?

Kong Soo is the one saying that sport MAist are ineffective in self defense situations.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 6, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Would you care to post some vids showing traditional stylists utilizing that level of head movement and evasiveness?



Do you believe that if you can't find it on Youtube, it doesn't exist in the world?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 6, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> If you spent your time and money in WC, Shotokan, Shaolin, or TSD and ended up fighting just like a boxer, you wasted your money. You should have just taken boxing.



That's funny stuff.  Every time you say something about traditional martial arts, you show how little you understand about them.

Maybe you know something about MMA.  I wouldn't be the one to judge, and I'm the first to say I know little about MMA.  I have no interest in it, I don't pay it any attention.  So maybe you know something about it, maybe you don't.  I'll let others judge that. 

But you know nothing about traditional martial arts.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 6, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> Do you believe that if you can't find it on Youtube, it doesn't exist in the world?



I believe that if what you said earlier was true, evidence of it should be fairly easy to find.



Flying Crane said:


> That's funny stuff. Every time you say something about traditional martial arts, you show how little you understand about them.
> 
> 
> Maybe you know something about MMA. I wouldn't be the one to judge, and I'm the first to say I know little about MMA. I have no interest in it, I don't pay it any attention. So maybe you know something about it, maybe you don't. I'll let others judge that.
> ...



I have a black belt in Shotokan, and I trained briefly in Tang Soo Do. I've also seen how WC exponents fight on numerous occasions.

It's fair to say that I know quite a bit about 3/4 the traditional styles you listed. None of them fight like that Armenian boxer.

Just saying.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 6, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> Do you believe that if you can't find it on Youtube, it doesn't exist in the world?



Is there some reason you couldn't find it?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 6, 2014)

K-man said:


> I have no doubt that someone good in the sporting context would be able to look after themselves on the street. What I can't understand is why reality based martial artists would be ineffective. This thread, like all the others Hanzou has twisted, has gone down the same burrow as the rest. Sad!



Well not just the sporting context. Kong so do is just rocking out these facts that are pretty much opinion from rbsders. And look opinion is fine but let's not pretend it is science or that there is no debate on the matter.

If rbsd want to hinge their argument that people fight as they train so therefore everybody has to do drills in a parking lot the argument falls apart. 

If you had to fight exactly as you train you would have to do sport. Because sport is the only situation where in training two people compete who are equally matched and equally motivated until one person is incapacitated. Now not all the time with points and such. But more often than any other method.


You can defend yourself in the street with boxing gloves on if you were that sort of person. A boxer with gloves has enough hurt in their rule set to drop people.

Now of course you wouldn't if given a choice. But the argument is that you don't have one so I am just rolling with that at the moment.

Because given a choice the sports fighter could for example choose to kick the mugger in the head on the deck because he feared there may be a knife.

And if you have choice then sparring could benefit you by training the core skills regardless if all of sparring is applicable in a specific self defence. Because in that situation you would be able to choose what tactics you would employ.


----------



## K-man (Oct 6, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Who said that reality-based arts would be ineffective?
> 
> Kong Soo is the one saying that sport MAist are ineffective in self defense situations.


Mmm! I don't think he said that at all. He did point out some failings that may have been the result of the video guy's sport based training. 



Hanzou said:


> I believe that if what you said earlier was true, evidence of it should be fairly easy to find.
> 
> I have a black belt in Shotokan, and I trained briefly in Tang Soo Do. I've also seen how WC exponents fight on numerous occasions.
> 
> ...


I have a real issue with YouTube videos. I posted three videos earlier this week by people claiming to be expert in their field. All had basic flaws that were against the principles of their style. You delight in posting the worst videos you can find to demonstrate the failings of other styles. We have had armchair experts here before who regarded themselves as God's gift to our martial art community. Unfortunately they couldn't live up to their claims. Now you are here claiming that you are the greatest thing around, or at least I assume from your posts that you are at the top of the MMA tree, and in comparison all others are of lessor ability. You claim to know quite a bit about 3/4 of the traditional styles. Obviously Aikido and Okinawan Karate fall outside your area of expertise as you demonstrated total ignorance of the training we do. You have made similar disparaging comments about WC and when anyone tried to stand up to your criticism you bully them. Kong, FC and others try to point out that they have used their training on the street you ignore the facts and revert to claiming that their styles are ineffective compared to BJJ or MMA. For Heaven's sake, get a life. Debate techniques but don't dis the styles and the practitioners. 

As to your BB in Shotokan. A sport based style and you did say you were very young when you were training in it. I doubt you experience in Shotokan is within a bull's roar of the Shotokan guys I know.

Just saying, now I've had enough of this thread. :wavey:


----------



## K-man (Oct 6, 2014)

This was posted in the time I was posting the previous one so take this one as an exception. 



drop bear said:


> Well not just the sporting context. Kong so do is just rocking out these facts that are pretty much opinion from rbsders. And look opinion is fine but let's not pretend it is science or that there is no debate on the matter.
> 
> If rbsd want to hinge their argument that people fight as they train so therefore everybody has to do drills in a parking lot the argument falls apart.


KSD is a cop on the streets. He is one of the few guys on this forum who has first hand experience against the worst guys in the community. I would take his word against what works on the streets above any sport fighter. I have been trained by high profile martial artists who have trained police and military. I have trained with police and ex military who have used their skills in high pressure situations. I have no doubt that the stuff I train is the real deal and I have no trouble in believing that the training of others is effective as well.



drop bear said:


> If you had to fight exactly as you train you would have to do sport. Because sport is the only situation where in training two people compete who are equally matched and equally motivated until one person is incapacitated. Now not all the time with points and such. But more often than any other method.


Not true. The real world does not match up equally matched and equally motivated persons. Military have their training, police have their training, then they go out into the real world. They don't test what they learn in the ring. I would suggest they fight as they have trained.



drop bear said:


> You can defend yourself in the street with boxing gloves on if you were that sort of person. A boxer with gloves has enough hurt in their rule set to drop people.


I have no doubt about that.



drop bear said:


> Because given a choice the sports fighter could for example choose to kick the mugger in the head on the deck because he feared there may be a knife.
> 
> And if you have choice then sparring could benefit you by training the core skills regardless if all of sparring is applicable in a specific self defence. Because in that situation you would be able to choose what tactics you would employ.


Under the definition of sparring outlined earlier in this thread almost all styles spar. That's why I didn't bother joining the debate sooner. Eventually it developed into the same old arguement as I felt it invariably would.
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 6, 2014)

K-man said:


> Mmm! I don't think he said that at all. He did point out some failings that may have been the result of the video guy's sport based training.



The fact that you think the guy had some sort of failing is my point. The guy in the vid defeated his opponent and survived the assault. Where was the failing in his training?

Kong also attributed the success of those sport styles in SD situations as "luck", implying that if they had some sort of other training, it would be based more on skill and awareness. As if skill and awareness in self defense terms is an alien concept in Sport MA.



> I have a real issue with YouTube videos. I posted three videos earlier this week by people claiming to be expert in their field. All had basic flaws that were against the principles of their style. You delight in posting the worst videos you can find to demonstrate the failings of other styles. We have had armchair experts here before who regarded themselves as God's gift to our martial art community. Unfortunately they couldn't live up to their claims. Now you are here claiming that you are the greatest thing around, or at least I assume from your posts that you are at the top of the MMA tree, and in comparison all others are of lessor ability.



Where did I imply or claim I was the greatest thing around? I merely desire objective evidence to go along with the conversation. In the case of this conversation; If you can provide objective evidence of a RBSD guy beating a bunch of armed attackers with his bare hands ala Steven Segal, I'll be a believer. 

Also I don't even practice MMA. :lfao: I'm Bjj for life brother.



> You claim to know quite a bit about 3/4 of the traditional styles. Obviously Aikido and Okinawan Karate fall outside your area of expertise as you demonstrated total ignorance of the training we do. You have made similar disparaging comments about WC and when anyone tried to stand up to your criticism you bully them. Kong, FC and others try to point out that they have used their training on the street you ignore the facts and revert to claiming that their styles are ineffective compared to BJJ or MMA. For Heaven's sake, get a life. Debate techniques but don't dis the styles and the practitioners.



When I said 3/4 of traditional styles, I was talking about the traditional styles FC mentioned in his post. Those styles were Shoto, WC, TSD, and Shaolin. I have experience with 3/4 of those styles.

As for disparaging WC, I was only disparaging anti-grappling, which is nonsense of the highest order.



> As to your BB in Shotokan. A sport based style and you did say you were very young when you were training in it. I doubt you experience in Shotokan is within a bull's roar of the Shotokan guys I know.



I can agree with that. I did my best effort to flush my knowledge of Shotokan out of mind when I left that style years ago. I kept the kicks and hand techniques though, and that's about it.


----------



## MJS (Oct 6, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> This discussion sort of emerged in the other thread, but I thought it was pretty off topic there, and really deserved its own thread.
> 
> I'm a pretty firm believer in contact sparring; Sparring in which you actually hit or grapple with another person. I feel that the only way you can learn to hit or grapple with someone is to actually hit or grapple someone.
> 
> Does anyone feel that you can develop such skills without contact sparring, or no sparring at all?



I'm a firm believer in it as well.    When I trained Kenpo, we sparred, but the contact, even at the Black Belt level, the strikes were limited to above the belt, nothing to the legs, and nothing to the head.  IF that was allowed, it was very light contact.  In the 3, going on 4 years that I've been doing Kyokushin, the contact is much harder, and while we don't punch to the face, kicks to the head are allowed, as are leg kicks.  Sparring, while we don't do it every class, is high on the ladder, for lack of better words.  Competing is important in the art.  Of course, it is optional.  My school is hosting a tournament next Saturday, and my teacher encourages everyone to go, even if they just do kata.  There are tournaments in other states, ie: NY, Maine, etc, that he encourages us to go to.  There was one recently in Costa Rica, that a few of our students went to.  

Now, usually when we spar, the contact/intensity of the match, is pretty hard.  While I do enjoy this, I personally feel that there should be times, when we focus more on a certain drill, technique, and slow the pace as well as the contact level down, just a bit.  Again, nothing wrong with going out and banging hard, but you can't tell me that every boxer or guy that does BJJ or MMA, spars full out, every session.  I'd imagine that going all out, all the time, would lead to injury.  Furthermore, for me at least, when I want to work on something specific, I like to drill it slow, get the fine points, etc, and then gradually speed things up, and try it during sparring.

Just to add: When I'd do some grappling with some of my training partners, even that wouldn't be all out, each time.  Again, sometimes specific things would be trained, ie: working an escape from a specific position, while the other guy is working to maintain that position.  Sometimes it'd be a flow drill, transitioning from one position to the next, with the bottom guy working to escape.  Other times, we'd be looking for a specific lock or choke.  The list is really endless.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 6, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Fourth: There's plenty of cases where there are bystanders and no one interferes with two people going at it.



Which means absolutely nothing in any similar situation.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 6, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> It's pretty arrogant to assume that you know more about striking than a professional boxer, and that said boxer is doing it "wrong".




I have been training in a primarily striking art for 27 years now, statistically speaking, I probably do know more about striking than most professional fighters.




Hanzou said:


> Why the need to switch over to a boxer/MMA style? Isn't TKD good enough?




Because that was not the point of the exercise.

Rhee Taekwondo - Melbourne University Taekwondo Club



Hanzou said:


> Well what would you like to see?



Something a little closer to you or your school specifically.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 6, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Kong Soo is the one saying that sport MAist are ineffective in self defense situations.



No, I'm saying that sport based training methodology is sub-optimal and detrimental to sound self-defense situations.  And I've explained in detail, several times why I hold to that position.  I, and others have linked to additional information to explain and support that position.  Additionally, I have examined several of the YT videos posted in this and other threads and detailed why the sport training methodology is sub-optimal and detrimental.  

So the bottom line and takeaway message is simply this;  sport training methodology is sub-optimal and detrimental (insufficient) for the needs of real world altercations AND self defense training methodology is sup-optimal and detrimental (insufficient) for the needs of competition.  In direct response to the OP, contact sparring is not needed in martial arts if the martial art (including defensive tactics, combative systems or RBCS) is focused or has the goal of self defense.  Additionally, contact sparring in-and-of-itself is sub-optimal and detrimental for self defense for the reasons I've already detailed in this thread.  Military, law enforcement, corrections and E.P. don't spar, they use scenario based training which allows for full contact in addition to the other necessary elements for solid self defense.


----------



## Balrog (Oct 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> If we apply the same idea to non contact. Then they are going to hit the other guy with no power or fail when the fight goes off script. You just do not gain that instinctive defend respond from anything but hard sparring. Except actual combat.



I have to disagree with this.  Our style trains non-contact, but that's not to say that contact doesn't happen; this is a martial art, after all.  However, we have had numerous instances that I know of where people have had to use their training in a self-defense scenario, and there were no "pulled" techniques.  The attackers went down hard.


----------



## mcmoon (Oct 6, 2014)

While I don't agree with everything Hanzou has said I have to agree with the overall idea.  Sport martial artists are pressure tested far more and are more likely to be able to deal with the stress and adrenaline that comes with an initial attack along with the fact that they have tested techniques that have worked on a resisting opponent.  There was an mma fighter recently who beat 2 home invaders and actually killed one of them.  Luck has nothing to do with it when numerous stories pop up with mma people defending themselves.  When extenuating circumstances arise such as knives, gun, other weapons or other people it puts you at a disadvantage regardless of training.  No offence to soldiers but unless they have had other training their H2H combat is abysmal because there is no need except for bare minimals since they have a gun.  Also from what I have seen the military have grappling tournaments to test their soldiers and the more real world situations they do all involve getting to their gun.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 6, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> In the case of this conversation; If you can provide objective evidence of a RBSD guy beating a bunch of armed attackers with his bare hands ala Steven Segal, I'll be a believer.



In fairness, properly done RBSD scenario training is* not *about beating a bunch of armed attackers with your bare hands a la Steven Seagal. It's not necessarily even primarily about fighting. It's about situational awareness and control.

Beating a bunch of armed attackers with your bare hands is not a high-percentage proposition for anyone. It doesn't matter whether you're a cop, soldier, bouncer, pro fighter, or martial arts instructor - unless you're in a movie with the scriptwriter on your side it's not likely to happen.

One purpose of (properly constructed) scenario training is to expand your options beyond squaring up and beating the other guy(s) in a fair fight. In rough chronological order, those options might look something like this:

1) Perceive the potential for a violent encounter before it starts.
2) Avoid the situation
3) Manipulate the situation so that if violence does begin, the attacker(s) don't have the odds stacked in his(their) favor at the outset with surprise, superior positioning, numbers, weaponry, etc.  
4) Manipulate the situation so that if violence does begin, _y__ou _have the odds stacked in _your _favor at the outset with surprise, superior positioning, numbers, weaponry, etc.
5) Verbally diffuse the situation (this will be a whole lot easier if you have managed 3 & 4 above - most predators will avoid a confrontation where the odds aren't stacked in their favor).
6) If steps 1-5 have failed, work to survive, disengage and escape.
7) If steps 1-6 have failed, work to survive and exercise some option that will improve your odds - find/deploy a weapon, use the environment to make yourself harder to attack, etc.
8) In the aftermath of the incident, be prepared to deal with local law enforcement in a way that won't get you into further trouble.

There's more of course, but that gives a general idea. You'll notice that most of it isn't about fighting and such fighting as there is isn't about "beating" the other guy(s). (This is from a civilian self-defense standpoint. LEO scenarios may include a need to subdue opponents/suspects, but they get advantages of weaponry, numbers, legal backing, etc that a civilian may not.)

I do disagree with Kong Soo Do's contention that sparring and/or sports training will necessarily work against developing the skills I've mentioned above. They _can_ be counterproductive, but not necessarily. It depends on the mindset you train with and how you supplement that training.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 6, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> I have been training in a primarily striking art for 27 years now, statistically speaking, I probably do know more about striking than most professional fighters.



I wouldn't be so sure. How many professional fighters have you worked with?

I've been training for martial arts for 33 years now. I've also been fortunate to work with some high-level professional fighters. Most of them would hand me my *** in any sort of fair fight. The really good ones have not only incredible physical attributes, but also a wealth of technical knowledge and ability.

Most martial artists don't realize what's involved in being a professional fighter. 

 By most people's standards, I'm an above-average martial artist. I've been involved in the martial arts for 33 years and have somewhere in the vicinity of 7000 hours training in different systems. I've fought in the ring as an amateur and I have been in some real street self-defense situations. These days I typically train about 12 hours per week.

For comparison let's look at Renzo Gracie, a professional fighter who is above average but not at the top of the heap. I would wager Renzo has well over _40000 _hours of training in his lifetime. In addition, his training has typically been much more intense than mine and with much better coaches on average. He's also been in a *lot* more fights, both in the street and in sportive competition.

Comparing me to Renzo Gracie would be like comparing the best basketball player in my local middle school to a member of the NBA.

Of course, Renzo is above average and you did say _most _not _all_.  The thing is, even an average professional fighter has to work much harder than most martial arts instructors. A typical dedicated martial arts student might practice 6-10 hours per week. (That's probably above average.) A professional martial arts instructor will probably put in more hours, but much of it will be time spent on teaching others or running the school. A real professional fighter is doing that for a living. That means 30-40 hours per week, most of it much more intense than most martial artists ever put themselves through. In addition, they get lots of experience in actually _fighting _- not just sparring or drilling or training, but actually squaring up against someone who is doing their best to knock them out.  That experience counts for a lot.


Admittedly, some professional fighters at the lower levels may be just getting by on their athletic attributes and mental toughness rather than technical skill and knowledge. They won't last too long if that's all they have.

Interesting note - one of the guys at my gym is a former two-time world champion professional boxer.  In a normal conversation with him, you wouldn't get the idea that he was all that bright. You'd probably think he was a bit of a meathead. Start talking boxing technique with him, and suddenly he seems a whole lot smarter and a wealth of knowledge.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 6, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I do disagree with Kong Soo Do's contention that sparring and/or sports training will necessarily work against developing the skills I've mentioned above. They _can_ be counterproductive, but not necessarily. It depends on the mindset you train with and how you supplement that training.



Fair enough, let's take a look for clarification.  Sparring, as it is normally thought of entails two people starting a prescribed distance apart.  Someone gives the go sign and they begin to fight using a specific rule set.  They discontinue when the point is scored/submission is achieved or whatever the end goal is and then they stop, reset and continue again.  This isn't real life and detrimental to sound training.  Let me be clear, parts of the training are viable i.e. learning to move, counter punch, hit and getting hit are fine.  What is attached to each end is sub-optimal and not realistic.  Scenario based training takes the elements that I just described, and put them into a context which is far more realistic.  The 'victim' has the opportunity to de-escalate the situation if applicable (you don't in sparring).  They have the change to escape/evade if applicable (sparring no).  They have the chance to use their surroundings to their advantage i.e. improvised weapons/putting a barrier between you and the attacker(s) etc (sparring no).  They don't have to abide by a prescribed rule set and the attacker(s) aren't either (sparring no).  They can do so in a variety of environments as I've described multiple times (sparring no).  They don't necessarily start on equal terms and the training can start the victim at a position of disadvantage which is realistic (sparring no).  A scenario takes it to a conclusion which may be escape, rendering medical aid, calling for help etc (sparring no).  

If sparring does the things I've described then it is no longer 'sparring' in the context most would think of the term and is now scenario based training.  

That's why each methodology is superior for it's intended purpose and thus inferior for the opposite purpose.  Thus for self defense, why would I want to use a methodology that doesn't include the elements necessary when I could use a methodology that includes all of the elements necessary in a more realistic format?  With scenario training I get full contact in a format that would happen in real life not an artificial environment.  

Hope that clarifies things :wavey:


----------



## tshadowchaser (Oct 6, 2014)

Spent some time this last weekend with another group of "Karate" practitioners. It was a testing weekend.  Durring the sparring part of the test ( the point sparring section of the test) one corner judge ( a third degree ) called excessive contact almost ever other technique. saying the people where out of control.
Now I may not be part of that school even though I visit them a great deal but I have to disagree. Some of these people where black belts of fighting black belts. I expect a black belt candidate to be able to defend themselves against under belts and I expect them to be able to take a hit.
I'm not sure what this corner judge was expecting ( yes I know control). But they where testing and wanting to show what they had and what they could take.  If all where throwing their techniques with force and speed then all where playing by the same rules and accepted it among themselfs.
Maybe Im just way to old fashioned about the arts but if you can't take a hit how do you expect to survive when you get hit in the street


edit:  how the hell did she get to 3rd in that system without being able to hit or take a hit


----------



## MJS (Oct 6, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> Spent some time this last weekend with another group of "Karate" practitioners. It was a testing weekend.  Durring the sparring part of the test ( the point sparring section of the test) one corner judge ( a third degree ) called excessive contact almost ever other technique. saying the people where out of control.
> Now I may not be part of that school even though I visit them a great deal but I have to disagree. Some of these people where black belts of fighting black belts. I expect a black belt candidate to be able to defend themselves against under belts and I expect them to be able to take a hit.
> I'm not sure what this corner judge was expecting ( yes I know control). But they where testing and wanting to show what they had and what they could take.  If all where throwing their techniques with force and speed then all where playing by the same rules and accepted it among themselfs.
> Maybe Im just way to old fashioned about the arts but if you can't take a hit how do you expect to survive when you get hit in the street
> ...



Well said!  I've seen some Youtube clips of a Kajukenbo Black Belt test.  Pretty damn hard core to say the least!  However, I have to agree....if you're training for self defense purposes, and you can't or have never taken a shot in training, God help you in the real world.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 6, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Fair enough, let's take a look for clarification.  Sparring, as it is normally thought of entails two people starting a prescribed distance apart.  Someone gives the go sign and they begin to fight using a specific rule set.  They discontinue when the point is scored/submission is achieved or whatever the end goal is and then they stop, reset and continue again.  This isn't real life and detrimental to sound training.  Let me be clear, parts of the training are viable i.e. learning to move, counter punch, hit and getting hit are fine.  What is attached to each end is sub-optimal and not realistic.  Scenario based training takes the elements that I just described, and put them into a context which is far more realistic.  The 'victim' has the opportunity to de-escalate the situation if applicable (you don't in sparring).  They have the change to escape/evade if applicable (sparring no).  They have the chance to use their surroundings to their advantage i.e. improvised weapons/putting a barrier between you and the attacker(s) etc (sparring no).  They don't have to abide by a prescribed rule set and the attacker(s) aren't either (sparring no).  They can do so in a variety of environments as I've described multiple times (sparring no).  They don't necessarily start on equal terms and the training can start the victim at a position of disadvantage which is realistic (sparring no).  A scenario takes it to a conclusion which may be escape, rendering medical aid, calling for help etc (sparring no).
> 
> If sparring does the things I've described then it is no longer 'sparring' in the context most would think of the term and is now scenario based training.
> 
> ...



I think my definition of sparring is a bit broader than yours and can even bump up against scenario training at the boundaries.  I consider sparring to be a drill where partners work to test each others reactions and build particular skills and attributes within certain parameters in a non-scripted, non-cooperative, non-predetermined outcome manner. Much of the other stuff you listed isn't required. It's true that sparring generally is more focused and not as wide-open as scenario training, but that's not always a bad thing. You need exercises that are focused and you need others that are more open ended. (Even scenario-based training can't be totally open-ended - you always have some constraints.)

For example: I frequently have my students do a drill that starts out with a cooperative takedown. As soon as uke hits the floor, it goes live. Uke's job is to get back to his feet and disengage. Tori's job is to hold his partner down prevent the escape (depending on the day, he might be allowed to use submissions or strikes as well).  I consider this to be a form of sparring. Would you consider this exercise to be counterproductive for developing real self-defense skills because it didn't cover elements such as how to verbally calm down an angry drunk or how to efficiently deploy your carry weapon? I don't. It's intended to develop certain specific skills which could be useful at one particular moment in a confrontation. Those other skills can be developed in other exercises. You could also have train with a start-to-finish scenario of the sort you are advocating which includes all the elements you listed earlier and which might possibly at some point have the student trying to escape after being taken down. That form of training would be great for seeing the big picture and putting all the pieces together. It's just not likely to give the student enough time working escapes from the bottom to get really good at it.

I've got plenty of other sparring variations like that to work specific skills and attributes.

Even the forms of sparring you mention (squaring up at a set distance in an open environment with symmetrical rules and objectives) has it's place for focused development of particular skills and attributes. In my opinion, it only becomes problematic for self-defense when students mistake the tool for the goal and lose track of the big picture. (To be fair, I can recount some face-palming examples of students doing just that, so I understand where you are coming from.)

BTW - I have sparred in a variety of environments (inside and out), with weapons (improvised and not), and a variety of rulesets (symmetric and not). In my mind, it's all sparring.

I would love to have more time in good scenario training than I have had. I've received great benefit from the bit I've done. I just consider it complementary to sparring rather than contradictory.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 6, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> In fairness, properly done RBSD scenario training is* not *about beating a bunch of armed attackers with your bare hands a la Steven Seagal. It's not necessarily even primarily about fighting. It's about situational awareness and control.
> 
> Beating a bunch of armed attackers with your bare hands is not a high-percentage proposition for anyone. It doesn't matter whether you're a cop, soldier, bouncer, pro fighter, or martial arts instructor - unless you're in a movie with the scriptwriter on your side it's not likely to happen.



Agreed. I was merely pointing out the flaw in Kong's argument about how sport styles can't handle weapons or multiple assailants, while RBSD systems supposedly can. I would like some evidence proving this, because I enjoyed a good Steven Segal flick like everyone else back in the 1990s, and I would love to believe that some chubby guy could kill a group of armed thugs or terrorists with their bare hands.



> There's more of course, but that gives a general idea. You'll notice that most of it isn't about fighting and such fighting as there is isn't about "beating" the other guy(s). (This is from a civilian self-defense standpoint. LEO scenarios may include a need to subdue opponents/suspects, but they get advantages of weaponry, numbers, legal backing, etc that a civilian may not.)



A lot of those pointers also exist in SMA, TMA, and MMAs. My instructor constantly discusses situational awareness, avoiding fights when necessary, and the appropriate use of force in an encounter.

I find it bizarre that some believe that only RBSD systems teach stuff like that.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 6, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Agreed. I was merely pointing out the flaw in Kong's argument about how sport styles can't handle weapons or multiple assailants, while RBSD systems supposedly can. I would like some evidence proving this, because I enjoyed a good Steven Segal flick like everyone else back in the 1990s, and I would love to believe that some chubby guy could kill a group of armed thugs or terrorists with their bare hands.



As I said, the RBSD approach is *not *about handling weapons or multiple attackers by killing a bunch of armed thugs with your bare hands*.  It's about handling them by either controlling the situation so it never ends up being you unarmed against a bunch of armed thugs or else working to escape if it does end up with you unarmed against a bunch of armed thugs.

*(This statement holds for actual *Reality *Based Self-Defense systems only. Anybody who tells you that his system will enable you to destroy multiple armed attackers with your bare hands is actually marketing Fantasy Based Self-Defense. Neither Kong nor anyone else in this thread is making that claim.)



Hanzou said:


> A lot of those pointers also exist in SMA, TMA, and MMAs. My instructor constantly discusses situational awareness, avoiding fights when necessary, and the appropriate use of force in an encounter.
> 
> I find it bizarre that some believe that only RBSD systems teach stuff like that.



I've seen lots of instructors in lots of arts _d__iscuss_ these aspects of self-defense. I've seen a lot fewer actually _train_ them. In my experience, properly constructed scenario training by someone with relevant real-world experience gives much better results than anything else for this purpose.  (That doesn't mean only RBSD exponents ever do that sort of training, but it does seem to be more common for them.)


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 6, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> As I said, the RBSD approach is *not *about handling weapons or multiple attackers by killing a bunch of armed thugs with your bare hands*.  It's about handling them by either controlling the situation so it never ends up being you unarmed against a bunch of armed thugs or else working to escape if it does end up with you unarmed against a bunch of armed thugs.
> 
> *(This statement holds for actual *Reality *Based Self-Defense systems only. Anybody who tells you that his system will enable you to destroy multiple armed attackers with your bare hands is actually marketing Fantasy Based Self-Defense. Neither Kong nor anyone else in this thread is making that claim.)



It would appear that Kong is making that claim since he's criticizing sport styles for being able to cope with those type of attacks.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 6, 2014)

Balrog said:


> I have to disagree with this.  Our style trains non-contact, but that's not to say that contact doesn't happen; this is a martial art, after all.  However, we have had numerous instances that I know of where people have had to use their training in a self-defense scenario, and there were no "pulled" techniques.  The attackers went down hard.




No it is a fact you revert to your training and under stress. Or apparently it isn't. See now I don't know who to believe.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 6, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> No, I'm saying that sport based training methodology is sub-optimal and detrimental to sound self-defense situations.  And I've explained in detail, several times why I hold to that position.  I, and others have linked to additional information to explain and support that position.  Additionally, I have examined several of the YT videos posted in this and other threads and detailed why the sport training methodology is sub-optimal and detrimental.
> 
> So the bottom line and takeaway message is simply this;  sport training methodology is sub-optimal and detrimental (insufficient) for the needs of real world altercations AND self defense training methodology is sup-optimal and detrimental (insufficient) for the needs of competition.  In direct response to the OP, contact sparring is not needed in martial arts if the martial art (including defensive tactics, combative systems or RBCS) is focused or has the goal of self defense.  Additionally, contact sparring in-and-of-itself is sub-optimal and detrimental for self defense for the reasons I've already detailed in this thread.  Military, law enforcement, corrections and E.P. don't spar, they use scenario based training which allows for full contact in addition to the other necessary elements for solid self defense.




And yet the weight of evidence shows sports fighters being successful in real world altercations. At some point you have to accept the evidence even when it disagrees with your internal logic.

I know a few military and law enforcement guys who do spar. Including law enforcement trainers.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 6, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> It would appear that Kong is making that claim since he's criticizing sport styles for being able to cope with those type of attacks.



I think you're misunderstanding him. He's not claiming that his style of training will enable you to cope with those types of situations by beating up your attackers. He's claiming that his style of training will better enable you to_ avoid, change, or escape _those types of situations than sports styles will.

I understand his point, although I see it somewhat differently. There are certain techniques, tactics, and mindsets that are useful for "winning" a winnable fight but are counterproductive or even dangerous when your need is for avoiding, changing, or escaping an_ unwinnable _fight. I've seen many martial artists (not just sports stylists) get caught up in what I call the "dueling" mindset, where their focus is on defeating an opponent rather on than getting home safe and sound. Many people train their sparring in such a way as to increase the chance of getting stuck in that mindset.

(I think I've made my point that I don't think his style of training and yours are or should be mutually exclusive.)


----------



## Steve (Oct 6, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> That's funny stuff.  Every time you say something about traditional martial arts, you show how little you understand about them.
> 
> Maybe you know something about MMA.  I wouldn't be the one to judge, and I'm the first to say I know little about MMA.  I have no interest in it, I don't pay it any attention.  So maybe you know something about it, maybe you don't.  I'll let others judge that.
> 
> But you know nothing about traditional martial arts.



What's a traditional martial art, again?  I'm not sure you or anyone else here can even agree on that.  So suggesting anyone here does or does not know about it is not very helpful or even supportable.  

Mma can be quantified, and so one can be knowledgable.   Tma is undefined and not quantified.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> And yet the weight of evidence shows sports fighters being successful in real world altercations.



A few posted YT videos does not _constitute a weight_ of evidence.  You are being disingenuous.  The weight of evidence demonstrates that professional fighters and HL professionals train quite differently.   And as pointed out in the selectively chosen YT videos are a plethora of inadequacies and the fact that if only ONE of the factors changed, the outcome would be different.  Additionally, lets be honest in our evaluation and admit that there are many, clear examples of professional 'fighters' getting their arses handed to them and/or injuring themselves needlessly because they reverted to their sport training.  In some cases, unfortunately, losing their lives.  




> I know a few military and law enforcement guys who do spar. Including law enforcement trainers.



Perhaps on their own, or at most as an add on to authorized training.  Although I will concede that some agencies still exist who's training tactics are sub-par.  As I mentioned, years ago our regional training center offered Gracie JJ.  When it was discovered the training was not applicable, and in fact detrimental to our needs it was dropped.  SPEAR, PCR and other reality based systems have been offered for decades and are still in demand.  But as far as authorized training, particularly academy training, no, sparring is not done.  Scenario based training is conducted to include the FATS machine for firearms, shoot houses, and hands on scenarios.  



> No it is a fact you revert to your training and under stress. Or apparently it isn't. See now I don't know who to believe.



You don't know who to believe because you haven't done the necessary research.  I've been training since 1975.  I've been teaching martial arts since 1986.  I've been in L.E. since 1990.   I've been teaching academies, EOT and in-service since 1997 including advanced instructor-only or train-the-trainer certifications.  We don't spar in the conventional sense of the term.  We don't spar because sparring is an inferior training methodology for our needs, to include self defense for the average citizen.  As I stated, sparring is superior for the sporting venue.  It is inferior for the self defense venue.  Why?  Simply because scenario based training includes the elements of sparring that are applicable but then expand them to a far more realistic drill.  To put it into numerical terms, and just picking numbers for the sake of an illustration, sparring (for self defense) has +5 positives and -4 negatives whereas scenario based training contains the +5 positives presented in sparring and adds another +5 positives to include the other necessary elements with none of the negatives.  

In these kinds of conversations it seems that the 'sport guys' get their noses out of joint.  I don't know why?  It isn't an us vs. them conversation, at least not on my part.  Only that the methodologies, once again, differ for a reason.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 6, 2014)

Let's tackle this another way, and this is directed specifically to Drop Bear and Hanzou.

When you spar...



Do you spar with the possibility that other attackers will join the fight? 
Do you spar with the possibility that the attacker(s) will have a weapon? 
Do you spar with the ability to use a weapon, conventional or improvised? 
Do you have the opportunity to de-escalate the situation so the sparring section doesn't even happen? 
Do you have the opportunity to escape or evade the situation prior to or during the sparring session? 
Do you spar only in a well lit, open space? 
Do you spar with a specific rule set that both of you have agreed to abide by? 
Do you spar only on a dry surface? 
Do you spar only indoors? 
Do you spar on stairs, in an elevator, inside a car, in the parking lot between two cars, on a slippery surface that slopes? 
Do you spar to a conclusion i.e. you have escaped the situation or the opponent is no longer able to continue the attack?
Do you spar starting at a position of disadvantage i.e your opponent is standing over you or behind you? 

I'd like to hear your responses.  Please be specific as to each of these point whether or not their are utilized.  Thank you


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 6, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Let's tackle this another way, and this is directed specifically to Drop Bear and Hanzou.
> 
> When you spar...
> 
> ...



I'd probably hit "no" for most of that.

And I'd still put money on a soccer mom trained in MT, Boxing, Judo, MMA or Bjj to be more likely to survive an attack than a soccer mom trained in RBSD.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 6, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I'd probably hit "no" for most of that.
> 
> And I'd still put money on a soccer mom trained in MT, Boxing, Judo, MMA or Bjj to be more likely to survive an attack than a soccer mom trained in RBSD.



Then I honestly don't know what to tell you at this point.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Is there some reason you couldn't find it?



didn't look for it.  Did you?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 6, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I believe that if what you said earlier was true, evidence of it should be fairly easy to find.



why?  do you believe everything in life is documented for your review?  hint: it isn't.




> I have a black belt in Shotokan, and I trained briefly in Tang Soo Do. I've also seen how WC exponents fight on numerous occasions.
> 
> It's fair to say that I know quite a bit about 3/4 the traditional styles you listed. None of them fight like that Armenian boxer.
> 
> Just saying.


 
and somehow you missed all the lessons.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 6, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> A lot of those pointers also exist in SMA, TMA, and MMAs. My instructor constantly discusses situational awareness, avoiding fights when necessary, and the appropriate use of force in an encounter.
> 
> I find it bizarre that some believe that only RBSD systems teach stuff like that.



There's discussion -- and there's practice.  

A few years back, my wife took a college class in "self-defense."  It was just combat hapkido packaged for a semester long PE department class.  The whole section on "awareness" and "de-escalation" was handouts.  Other martial arts classes leave it to the club rules or mottos, with maybe a mention here and there.  Class time is devoted to exercises, drills, forms/kata, and maybe sparring.  They'll maybe do a special event self-defense class, or practice some one-step style self defense moves.  

I've posted elsewhere about scenario training.  It's HARD WORK.  It takes a lot of preparation and planning.  And you have to know what you're doing; you have to start from the right assumptions as a beginning.  You have to have a goal or purpose, and make sure that you don't accidentally reinforce a bad or undesired response when adrenalized, because it's incredibly hard to undo that.

Look, sparring is fun.  Sparring has a place as ONE means of testing your techniques under one form of pressure.  Contact is also important; you have to be hit in training or you'll freeze when you're hit in reality, whether you're talking a tournament or a violent encounter in the real world.  (You may freeze anyway... but that's another discussion.)  But if you do too much hard contact in training -- you won't be able to do anything in the real world.  Given what we're learning about concussions -- do you really think people should be knocked out regularly?  That's just one example...


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> And yet the weight of evidence shows sports fighters being successful in real world altercations. At some point you have to accept the evidence even when it disagrees with your internal logic.
> 
> I know a few military and law enforcement guys who do spar. Including law enforcement trainers.



What evidence?  I've seen plenty of cases where sport fighters got mugged, got their butts handed to them in a street encounter...  Anectdotes only prove so much...  YouTube proves less.  

I don't think anybody has said that sparring has no place -- but sport preparation isn't the same as preparing for violent encounters, either.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 6, 2014)

Steve said:


> What's a traditional martial art, again?  I'm not sure you or anyone else here can even agree on that.  So suggesting anyone here does or does not know about it is not very helpful or even supportable.
> 
> Mma can be quantified, and so one can be knowledgable.   Tma is undefined and not quantified.
> 
> ...



fair enough.  So maybe Hanzou understands a bit about MMA competition and how those interested in that kind of thing approach their training.  Or not.  I'm not the judge of that.

but about much of the other things he likes to proclaim about, he doesn't know much.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 6, 2014)

I've got to ask Hanzou:  what's your point?  Seriously.  Seems to me that your threads just devolve into you telling everyone that if they don't do it your way, if they don't agree with you, then they're wrong and there's no other way to it.  

What do you think is going to happen?  Do you think everyone reading this is going to suddenly see the "error" of their ways and turn to you for guidance?  It just seems like in every thread you start, you've clearly made up your mind from the very beginning about everything.  So what's there to discuss with you?  You aren't really here to discuss anything.  You're here to wallow in your own "wisdom" or something, I dunno.  It's just weird, the direction your threads seem to go.

For my own part, I've always acknowledged that sport combat training can probably often translate well on the streets.  I personally don't feel threatened by recognizing that fact.  It doesn't make me feel any less adequate in my own training.  I don't really care what others are doing.  My training makes sense to me, whether it has your approval or not.  I guess that's why I'm in no hurry to hunt up any Youtube documentation or anything like that, for you.  I just don't care about your approval, or lack thereof.

Why is it that you can't see any value in anything BUT sports competition?  Seriously, in the end I don't even care what you think, it really boggles the mind that your threads last as long as they do.  I'm constantly amazed at the fact that anyone is willing to engage in your threads at all.  Just let you play by yourself in your own sandbox.  Whatever.  Think what you want, I don't have much desire to convince you.  I and others have given you a chance at an education.  But if you feel you already have all the answers, well good luck to ya.  You can choose ignorance, that's a valid choice too.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 6, 2014)

Flying Crane said:


> why?  do you believe everything in life is documented for your review?  hint: it isn't.



I believe that if something exists, there should be more than anecdotal evidence available.



> and somehow you missed all the lessons.



Okay.....


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 6, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> What evidence?  I've seen plenty of cases where sport fighters got mugged, got their butts handed to them in a street encounter...  Anectdotes only prove so much...  YouTube proves less.
> 
> I don't think anybody has said that sparring has no place -- but sport preparation isn't the same as preparing for violent encounters, either.



There's been evidence posted in this very thread. No one is saying that sport fighters are unbeatable. The argument is that a sport fighter can handle themselves just fine in a violent encounter.

BTW, how exactly is someone preparing for a violent encounter?

You mean like this;






Or this;






Yeah, good luck with that.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 7, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Let's tackle this another way, and this is directed specifically to Drop Bear and Hanzou.
> 
> When you spar...
> 
> ...



I'm neither of those but I would like to respond anyway (I changed the bullets to numbers to make it easier to answer).

1) Yes, 2 on one sparring is reasonably common, I took class last night and got the entire class to spar anyone at anytime, if someone gets tapped on the back they fall out until only one remains.
2) Yes, sometimes we will spar with one student having a rubber knife or batton form the outset.
3) Not specifically.
4) No but that aspect is covered separately.
5) No but that aspect is covered separately. 
6) The lighting is more of a safety issue but we have sparred outside when it is starting to get dark. Open space usually but sometimes we will restrict the sparring area and in the big classes students have to be weary of those around them. We also have toe to toe hand sparring where the front foot of both students will remain in close proximity throughout. Also we sometimes have one student against a wall or sitting in a chair and defend only while their partner will attack, sometimes with a batton.
7) There is no specific rule set but it is usually restrict it to mainly striking.
8) More of a safety issue but we have sparred on slippery floors, in those cases students are advised to maintain their stances, keep their feet flat and not to kick high or at all.
9) No but that is the most common way. We occasionally spar outside on a grassed area and on the sand/in the water during beach training.
10) Stairs/no (safety issue plus hard to fit 20 students in a stairwell), elevator no (people look at you funny when you spar in an elevator), car no (It would be hard to find someone to volunteer the use of their car), between two parked cars no (might damage the cars), slippery surface that slopes, slippery, yes, sloping, yes, some of the grassed ares were sloped somewhat.
11) We generally spar until the instructor says to stop.
12) Yes, opponent may be standing behind you, you may be restricted to using only one arm, sparring may commence from a sitting/situp/pushup position, one student might be on the floor or sitting in a chair.

Sparring can be as restricted or as varied as any other training exercise.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> What evidence?  I've seen plenty of cases where sport fighters got mugged, got their butts handed to them in a street encounter...  Anectdotes only prove so much...  YouTube proves less.
> 
> I don't think anybody has said that sparring has no place -- but sport preparation isn't the same as preparing for violent encounters, either.



Not many of my examples have been anecdotal. I haven't fought someone in weeks to be honest. But if you see YouTube clips of actual fights combined with news articles of sports fighters performing real world self defence combined with anecdotal evidence and demonstrated ability in training against a resisted person. 


And at some point it has to weigh against the stories that we have all been told.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> A few posted YT videos does not _constitute a weight_ of evidence.  You are being disingenuous.  The weight of evidence demonstrates that professional fighters and HL professionals train quite differently.   And as pointed out in the selectively chosen YT videos are a plethora of inadequacies and the fact that if only ONE of the factors changed, the outcome would be different.  Additionally, lets be honest in our evaluation and admit that there are many, clear examples of professional 'fighters' getting their arses handed to them and/or injuring themselves needlessly because they reverted to their sport training.  In some cases, unfortunately, losing their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok you can't watch a guy flog three guys in a street fight and turn around with some sort of armchair quarterback response. About how his legs were too far apart or something. That is your internal logic conflicting with the weight of evidence. If you need to rely on what might have happened that is being disingenuous.

I understand that self defence does not need the same complexity as sports fighting. The fights don't go as long. The other guy hasn't trained up to fight you, you can de escalate use environment numbers weapons and so on. That for your average police officer minimal training is sufficient.

And to be honest most people have other things to do.

My suggestion is to take advantage of elements from other training methods should a person wish to do so. So sparring plus combat scenarios is going to add more to your training knowledge than combat scenarios or sparring alone. 

The more well rounded you are the better you will be able to deal with a situation. Contact sparring is an element of that well rounded training.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Let's tackle this another way, and this is directed specifically to Drop Bear and Hanzou.
> 
> When you spar...
> 
> ...



There are reasons why we don't in some of those cases. 

We have to acomidate that the other guy is fighting back 

That the other guy can actually fight.

That we are trying to limit injuries in a very injury prone environment.

I have fought guys in nearly all those environments except for the elevator.

Interesting thing about the two on one. It generally ends in seconds considering that the guys who generally train mma have a bit of nasty in them.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 7, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Let's tackle this another way, and this is directed specifically to Drop Bear and Hanzou.
> When you spar...
> 
> 1)Do you spar with the possibility that other attackers will join the fight?
> ...



I'll toss my responses in as well.

1) Sometimes, although not as often as I would like.
2) Yes, but not as often as I would like  - I've been neglecting my weapons work lately
3) Yes, but not as often as I would like  - I've been neglecting my weapons work lately
4) No. That option is better addressed in scenario training.
5) No to evading prior (once again, that's better addressed in scenario training), but sometimes I set a "victory condition" for one partner to escape the area.
6) No, I've sparred both in confined spaces and in dim light.
7) We do try to make sure the rules are agreed on beforehand, but it's not uncommon to have asymmetric rules - where the participants have different goals and allowable techniques
8) No, I've frequently sparred on wet, slippery surfaces. (this can be both frustrating and amusing)
9) No, I've sparred outside many, many times.
10) a) No to stairs - I've trained on stairs but not done full out sparring for the same reason I haven't done full out open ended scenario training on stairs - if you throw your partner down the stairs someone is likely to crack their skull
    b) Not an actual elevator (don't have one available for the purpose), but certainly spaces equivalent to an elevator
    c) Never sparred in a car, but it sounds like fun. Hmmm ...I wonder who I can get to try that with me. Anyone in my area want to give it a shot?
    d) Not specifically between two cars, but I have sparred outside with obstacles around.
    e) Yes. (Tip - wear clothes that you don't mind getting grass stains on.)
11) Sometimes. Depends on what the focus of the session is.
12) All the time. This is a very standard training method.

I'll be honest, some of the options you bring up I don't do nearly as often as I would like. I train and teach at someone else's gym where the majority of the students are training for competition or for a hobby. If I was running my own gym, we'd be doing a lot more sparring in different environments, with weapons, and with multiple opponents. 

It does seem like you've got the idea that sparring has to operate within certain confines because that's the way you've seen it at the typical school. It's as if you visited a bunch of judo/karate/TKD schools and noticed that they always seem to spar barefoot while wearing a special uniform and then declared that "sparring is inefficient training for the street because you don't wear shoes like you would in real life."


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'll toss my responses in as well.
> 
> 1) Sometimes, although not as often as I would like.
> 2) Yes, but not as often as I would like  - I've been neglecting my weapons work lately
> ...




Although it would be great to test out the environment before you fight a guy on it. Most people don't have that luxury. Slippery surface is a big one for that. It takes a lot of calm reasoning to be fighting a guy and looking for slip hazards at the same time.

I have actually had a guy take his shoes off to fight me once. And then threw crescent kicks in my general direction. like a real martial artist.

It was pretty funny.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 7, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Although it would be great to test out the environment before you fight a guy on it. Most people don't have that luxury. Slippery surface is a big one for that. It takes a lot of calm reasoning to be fighting a guy and looking for slip hazards at the same time.
> 
> I have actually had a guy take his shoes off to fight me once. And then threw crescent kicks in my general direction. like a real martial artist.
> 
> It was pretty funny.



Maybe I should have specified that I also have sparred with shoes on. 

I don't think it's all that necessary to have extensive practice sparring in every environment that you might ever encounter in a fight. I do think it's a good idea to have at least some experience sparring in a variety of environments just so you get used being aware of your surroundings and adjusting to them as necessary.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Maybe I should have specified that I also have sparred with shoes on.
> 
> I don't think it's all that necessary to have extensive practice sparring in every environment that you might ever encounter in a fight. I do think it's a good idea to have at least some experience sparring in a variety of environments just so you get used being aware of your surroundings and adjusting to them as necessary.



You should have a set of gym shoes for when you break a toe or something.


Look given the opportunity is would give this a go for sure.

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


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 7, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Look given the opportunity is would give this a go for sure.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sEKGBXWphXk



A couple of guys from my gym competed in that recently!

Unfortunately, when they got to the venue they found that they didn't have a matchup in their weight class, so they ended up fighting up a weight class and ended up losing the decision. They said it was a lot of fun, though.

Funny story - I saw the guys practicing for the event (two on two, on and around a raised platform) and I thought to myself "I wonder how long it will be before someone gets mixed up and starts swinging at their own teammate?"  Sure enough, ten minutes later I hear "What are you doing?!! I'm on your side!"  "Sorry man, I got confused." :boing2:


----------



## jezr74 (Oct 7, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I have actually had a guy take his shoes off to fight me once. And then threw crescent kicks in my general direction. like a real martial artist.
> 
> It was pretty funny.



Admittedly in my scrapping days when I was young the first thing I did was take my top off, my mates thought I was a show off (not that I was muscular or anything), but it was a purely budgetary thing. Depending on the person I was in fight with, if they were not skilled I'd generally grab their top pull it over their head and send them on their way. But any tangle with a bit of vigour ended up with torn T-shirts or blood, grass, dirt stains. I always got to walk away looking clean.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2014)

jezr74 said:


> Admittedly in my scrapping days when I was young the first thing I did was take my top off, my mates thought I was a show off (not that I was muscular or anything), but it was a purely budgetary thing. Depending on the person I was in fight with, if they were not skilled I'd generally grab their top pull it over their head and send them on their way. But any tangle with a bit of vigour ended up with torn T-shirts or blood, grass, dirt stains. I always got to walk away looking clean.



I buy my t shirts from best and less. I have allways wanted some party boy stripper pants though make a real statement in a fight.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ctnH_LvhKgE


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 7, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Ok you can't watch a guy flog three guys in a street fight and turn around with some sort of armchair quarterback response.



You're looking at this from the wrong perspective.  You should expect, welcome and encourage a detailed critique of the videos you offer from those using critical thinking skills.  If you post a YT video of something and expect people to only _gush_ and _oh and ah_ about it, then you're on the wrong forum.  Particularly if you're in a thread that discusses an area that you're not an expert in at this time.  That's how you learn and grow and I would hope you want to do both.  

I and others have critiques many/all of the videos you've posted, from the perspective of the OP of whatever thread they were in.  Again, you should welcome that.  In several of these videos, although it turned out alright for the good guy/gal, they still were very poor examples of self defense.  That isn't flaming you, that's trying to educate you as to why we said what we said.  Don't resist it, learn from it.  So don't take it as against you personally.  In many of these videos, if just one factor was changed the outcome would have changed.  Now that can be true of any altercation regardless of the training, but the point of sound SD training is to eliminate, mitigate or change these factors as much as possible to the situation.  



> I understand that self defence does not need the same complexity as sports fighting. The fights don't go as long.



That is correct.  SD needs to be simple i.e. based on gross motor skills.  This means they are more viable under duress/stress and just as importantly, they are retained in long term memory.  A SD 'fight' should be over in seconds.  Statistically speaking, serious altercations last seven seconds with injury occurring in the first 3 seconds.  



> The other guy hasn't trained up to fight you...



I'll disagree with you here to an extent.  Inmates train each other in a variety of 'arts'.  Anything and everything from MMA to traditional to street fighting with weapons.  In complete seriousness, and no joking around, I wish every martial artists (be they sport or SD) could see a video compilation of how and what these people train in and the brutality of their methodology.  It would be a reality check for many.  Their aim is to inflict as much damage as humanly possible (with or without weapons) in the shortest amount of time.  



> My suggestion is to take advantage of elements from other training methods should a person wish to do so.



Good advice.



> So sparring plus combat scenarios is going to add more to your training knowledge than combat scenarios or sparring alone.



I'll insert the caveat that scenario based training, when done correctly, uses all the elements of sparring AND the other necessary elements for sound SD.  It is sparring on steroids!


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> You're looking at this from the wrong perspective.  You should expect, welcome and encourage a detailed critique of the videos you offer from those using critical thinking skills.  If you post a YT video of something and expect people to only _gush_ and _oh and ah_ about it, then you're on the wrong forum.  Particularly if you're in a thread that discusses an area that you're not an expert in at this time.  That's how you learn and grow and I would hope you want to do both.
> 
> I and others have critiques many/all of the videos you've posted, from the perspective of the OP of whatever thread they were in.  Again, you should welcome that.  In several of these videos, although it turned out alright for the good guy/gal, they still were very poor examples of self defense.  That isn't flaming you, that's trying to educate you as to why we said what we said.  Don't resist it, learn from it.  So don't take it as against you personally.  In many of these videos, if just one factor was changed the outcome would have changed.  Now that can be true of any altercation regardless of the training, but the point of sound SD training is to eliminate, mitigate or change these factors as much as possible to the situation.
> 
> ...



You are not critiquing the videos based on what worked and what did not. You are critiquing the videos on what you would like to have seen happen. You are working backwards. I am not flaming you either. Just letting you know your ideas of what should happen are interfering with your observation of what is happening. Honestly I think you need to be less of an expert and more of a student. But hey if you want to go that way that is fine.

I don't know how you would define simple. Punching is simple. Punching a guy who can defend is complicated.  The example of a credible martial art generally should be that a person who has spent years at it is better than a person who has spent months. This is an indication that fighting can be a bit complex.

It does not matter how long a SD fight should be over in. It is over when it is over. I would prefer to train for a ten minute fight and have it be over in ten seconds then the situations be reversed. This rush to finish on some sort of internal clock I don't understand. Is there somewhere you have to be?

I have had experience with criminal street fighters and enforcers as they can come from the same stock as bouncers. And sports fighters over represent there as well.

My issue with scenario training is I have never seen it done as you describe it. Normally where the participants have no real training it is pretty technically deficient and begins to rely too much on good role play from the other guy. It is again done backwards where it is not played out to see what happens it is manufactured to achieve a result.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 7, 2014)

drop bear said:


> You are not critiquing the videos based on what worked and what did not. You are critiquing the videos on what you would like to have seen happen.



No, I'm critiquing the videos to demonstrate both the positives and the failures, which I did.  I pointed out what worked as well as failures in the training.  Others did the same.



> Honestly I think you need to be less of an expert and more of a student.



No, being a continual student of self-defense made me an expert.  Not a boast, just the way it's worked out.  I think you should take less time trying to prove a point in an area you're not an expert, and actually not truly a student in to learn from those that are.  Because a student truly strives to learn.  


> I don't know how you would define simple. Punching is simple. Punching a  guy who can defend is complicated.  The example of a credible martial  art generally should be that a person who has spent years at it is  better than a person who has spent months. This is an indication that  fighting can be a bit complex.



I've already defined simple in my previous post.  Please reread it.  And a credible martial art (or combative system that focuses on self defense) does not take years to gain proficiency.  Indeed, if it is a system that teaches sound principles then the duration is rather short.  Boatman edged weapon defense is a prime example and I've described it many times.  WWII combatives is another I've discussed as well multiple times.  Both short term learning curves, yet incredibly effective.



> It does not matter how long a SD fight should be over in.



No, it is critical.  The longer it continues the more detrimental things can happen.  



> I would prefer to train for a ten minute fight and have it be over in  ten seconds then the situations be reversed. This rush to finish on some  sort of internal clock I don't understand. Is there somewhere you have  to be?



Not sure if you're being disingenuous or simply ignorant on this point.  :idunno:



> My issue with scenario training is I have never seen it done as you describe it.



And that is your issue.  You're putting your limited experience on me and others even after we've described in great detail what and why, when you should be learning the what and the why if you're truly interested in SD.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> It does not matter how long a SD fight should be over in. It is over when it is over.



As a martial artist you have some say in the matter.



drop bear said:


> I would prefer to train for a ten minute fight and have it be over in ten seconds then the situations be reversed.



I would prefer to train to have the fight over in seconds even if I had to keep trying. I took my time once and paid for it dearly. A fight that goes on longer is is a bit like sparring.



drop bear said:


> Is there somewhere you have to be?



Anywhere but there.



drop bear said:


> it is manufactured to achieve a result.



Aren't all martial arts manufactured to achieve a result?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> No, I'm critiquing the videos to demonstrate both the positives and the failures, which I did.  I pointed out what worked as well as failures in the training.  Others did the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




OK it is a boast. You mention that you are amazing in every thread and Hinge your arguments directly to it. That is kind of the issue. It never seems to be based on any actual evidence. I know trainers who really are amazing and they don't have to rely on their resume anywhere near as much. 

That is the reason I will listen to those experts.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> As a martial artist you have some say in the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK it is more complicated than that. To start if the other guy is tough you really may not be able to drop them in the allotted ten second time frame regardless of what you do. Training for the ten second time frame is fine but if you go over that you start to move outside your training.

Pretty much everybody trains to fight longer than they need and generally harder and against better guys. The reason being that when you fight you are more prepared rather than less. And prepared for the worst case scenario.

It is nice when you finish a guy quick. But I would not suggest you rely on it.

Some elements of training are meant to create a desired result. To teach a specific lesson. But sometimes you also need to test ideas to find out what that result is. Otherwise you are no longer looking at what is and only focusing on what should be. And you loose too much perspective that way.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> OK it is a boast. You mention that you are amazing in every thread and Hinge your arguments directly to it. That is kind of the issue. It never seems to be based on any actual evidence. I know trainers who really are amazing and they don't have to rely on their resume anywhere near as much.
> 
> That is the reason I will listen to those experts.



No, I think it's more a matter of you being a little butt sore because you're not receiving the validation you think you deserve.  And you're refusal or being too lazy to research the provided evidence doesn't constitute a lack of evidence.  You've self-admitted your lack of experience in the areas I and others have been discussing.  You'll either learn from us or you won't (I'm not the only expert in this area on this board.  There are a plethora of other qualified, experienced and knowledgeable people here).  If you're looking for validation on a sub-optimal training method you've come to the wrong forum.  


Cheers :wavey:


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> No, I think it's more a matter of you being a little butt sore because you're not receiving the validation you think you deserve.  And you're refusal or being too lazy to research the provided evidence doesn't constitute a lack of evidence.  You've self-admitted your lack of experience in the areas I and others have been discussing.  You'll either learn from us or you won't (I'm not the only expert in this area on this board.  There are a plethora of other qualified, experienced and knowledgeable people here).  If you're looking for validation on a sub-optimal training method you've come to the wrong forum.
> 
> 
> Cheers :wavey:



The evidence was a bunch of opinion pieces by guys who are not really qualified to know. Qualified as in neuroscientists and people who actually make a study of that kind of thing.

Leading about stress from rbsders is the equivalent of an industry backed study. It is obviously agenda driven.

I could seriously care less about validation. I don't have to be amazing to make a point.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> The evidence was a bunch of opinion pieces by guys who are not really qualified to know. Qualified as in neuroscientists and people who actually make a study of that kind of thing.



This pretty much proves you didn't do any research, otherwise you'd realize how ridiculous you sound.  In the future, you may want to actually click on the links provided and follow the research and examine the credentials.  Seems to me the trail led to quite a bit of scientific research by...let's see, what do you call those guys?  Oh yes, they're called scientists (you do realize that most scientists don't wear a white lab coat, don't you?). 



> I could seriously care less about validation.



Are you sure about that?  It's either that or you're just too stubborn to admit when you're wrong or inexperienced in a particular area.

Tell ya what, we'll just agree to disagree.  I'll stick with my experience (and the experience and research of other experts in this area)  and you can stick with your YT videos.  That way were both happy.  

Cheers :wavey:


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 8, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> (you do realize that most scientists don't wear a white lab coat, don't you?).



Sometimes the lab coats are blue.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> This pretty much proves you didn't do any research, otherwise you'd realize how ridiculous you sound.  In the future, you may want to actually click on the links provided and follow the research and examine the credentials.  Seems to me the trail led to quite a bit of scientific research by...let's see, what do you call those guys?  Oh yes, they're called scientists (you do realize that most scientists don't wear a white lab coat, don't you?).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What do you mean inexperienced?


----------



## Danny T (Oct 8, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I'll insert the caveat that scenario based training, when done  correctly, uses all the elements of sparring AND the other necessary  elements for sound SD.  It is sparring on steroids!


Ahh, so you do spar.
I regress to the beginning where I asked "Define Sparring"


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 8, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Sometimes the lab coats are blue.



:cheers:


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 8, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> This pretty much proves you didn't do any research, otherwise you'd realize how ridiculous you sound.  In the future, you may want to actually click on the links provided and follow the research and examine the credentials.  Seems to me the trail led to quite a bit of scientific research by...let's see, what do you call those guys?  Oh yes, they're called scientists (you do realize that most scientists don't wear a white lab coat, don't you?).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If we can get away from the dick-measuring contest for a minute ...

You keep mentioning scientific research supporting your views. I've looked back to previous posts and I may be missing it. Can you point me to some research showing that individuals who spar have poorer outcomes in self-defense situations than individuals who do scenario training (or some other modality)? If it's not available online, can you at least describe the methodology?

You have extensive experience as an LEO and trainer of LEOs. Can you discuss the difference between the typical training needs of an LEO vs those of a civilian wanting self-defense skills?

You posited a certain limited conception of sparring. To back that up you gave a list of 12 questions regarding our sparring practices, clearly expecting certain responses. Some folks, such as myself, gave answers showing that sparring can include much more than you seem to think. Do you still object to sparring when it includes all those options (different environments, weapons, multiple opponents, etc)? If so, why?

I commented earlier to the effect that scenario training is superior for big picture considerations from start (identifying threats) to finish (dealing with legal aftermath) while sparring is superior for isolating and developing specific skillsets. Do you have a response to that? Do you feel that big-picture training is always superior to more focused training? Do you think that there is a good reason for not doing both? If so, why?

I'd love to benefit from your experience and I don't think a series of posts going back and forth saying "I know more than you." "No you don't" "Do too." "Nu uh." is going to help any of us learn anything.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 8, 2014)

Hey, everybody...  Let's try to remember that this is a friendly place.  Insults and personal attacks just don't belong.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 8, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> You keep mentioning scientific research supporting your views. I've looked back to previous posts and I may be missing it. Can you point me to some research showing that individuals who spar have poorer outcomes in self-defense situations than individuals who do scenario training (or some other modality)? If it's not available online, can you at least describe the methodology?



Oftheherd provided several links in post #39.  In addition to those I'll add:

OODA loop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Understanding the OODA loop in a foundational principle in RBSD.  Studies, training and real world events have shown the importance of not only understanding the loop but interrupting it (Hick's Law).


Boyd?s O.O.D.A Loop and How We Use It | Tactical Response 

On Combat, Media Violence

Arousal and Performance: How Stress and Fear Affect Tactical Performance | The Art of Manliness

The methodology is just what I've been posting i.e. under stress we do not rise to the occasion, we sink to the level of our training.  Let me give you one simple, silly little example to illustrate;  a person is under a lot of stress (maybe late for work/family problems/responding to an emergency situation etc) and they try the car door and it's locked.  They notice the keys are in the ignition and panic (because now they're going to be even later and the boss is mean or now they can't take care of or respond to the emergency situation).  What often happens?  They check the same car door again even though they just tried it and it's locked.  Under stress people do all sorts of odd things, some funny and some dangerous.  In one of the above links you'll find real world examples from police altercations.  To quickly recap:

Officer practices gun disarms repeatedly.  The method used in training is for one officer to play the good guy and the other to play the bad guy.  Good guy officer disarms the bad guy officer and then hands the gun back to the bad guy officer so he can practice it again and again and again.  This gets ingrained in the officer.  The goal is to get really good at disarming someone.  And you can get very good at it (Law of Specificity).  But that methodology of training was sub-optimal.  Why?  A well known example in L.E. circles were the officer was confronted during a robbery by a bad guy pointing a gun.  Officer disarmed the bad guy in spectacular fashion...and hand the gun back to the bad guy.  Was the officer stupid?  No.  Under stress he reacted exactly the way he trained.  Luckily the officer's partner arrived and shot the bad guy.  We now train to take the situation all the way to a conclusion i.e. disarm the bad guy, create distance will tapping and racking the gun (in case it is out of battery during the disarm), seeking cover if appropriate, verbalizing a challenge to the bad guy i.e. 'let me see your hands' or 'get on the ground' etc and calling for back up as well as scanning for additional threats etc.

Reloading during a fire fight.  Years ago officers used revolvers (I did when I first started).  The routine was to fire the six rounds, open the cylinder and dump the brass, pick up the spent casings and put them in your pocket (because the instructors wanted a nice clean range), reload the revolver and return to shooting.  Officers did this thousands of times.  Got really  good at shooting.  Until we started finding dead police officers who had empty revolvers, plenty of ammunition on their belts and a pocket full of empty brass.  Were they stupid?  No.  They just reverted to their training under stress and in these cases bad training got them killed.  Now we teach officers (around the country) to dump their mags and immediately get a fresh mag in the gun to return to the fire fight as soon as possible.  

This translates to the YT videos shown in this and other threads and why I critiqued them as I did.  Let's again use the guy going for the triangle choke while on his back.  Did it work?  Yes it did.  Was he aware of his surroundings?  No he was not.  He was dialed in on getting that choke come hell or high water.  I didn't see him looking around for other avenues of escape, improvised weapons, additional means of leverage or using other means to damage his attacker.  Add to this other outside factors such as the very real possibility of a bystander kicking his head in.  Was this person stupid?  No.  He was under stress and reverted to his training which in this case was clearly submission hold based.  Nothing wrong with submissions, but that was the wrong venue to attempt one.

Scenario based training has all the positives of full contact sparring without the negatives and with additional training incorporated.  Not every situation calls for force.  That is why we have shoot and no-shoot scenarios in training.  Same for a 'fight'.  Not every fight has to be a fight if you can defuse it or escape it before it even begins.  But if you never practice verbal judo or any type of de-escalation in training, don't expect to suddenly be thinking about doing it before a real life attack.  Additionally, looking for pre-fight indicators are important.  In sparring you're going to be 'fighting' so you don't need to be looking for indicators.  In sparring you're not looking to escape or place a barrier in between you and the attacker(s).  In sparring you're not thinking about using a weapon or looking for something to be used as an improvised weapon.  If someone that never practices these things thinks they'll just suddenly 'do it' in the heat of the moment...good luck with that.  



> You have extensive experience as an LEO and trainer of LEOs. Can you discuss the difference between the typical training needs of an LEO vs those of a civilian wanting self-defense skills?



A private citizen is going to be more concerned with 'stun and run' principles.  A citizen (good guy) isn't looking to go rounds with someone in the street or in an alley.  They need to protect themselves by doing something to incapacitate the attacker(s) and getting to a place of safety where they can check themselves for injury and contact the authorities.  This may be the case for L.E. and Corrections as well, but we have to add the need for control when applicable.  Thus more often than not the LEO/CO is going to remain on the scene to take control or regain control of the attacker(s) unless it is tactically unwise to do so.  In either case, pure self defense isn't a pretty affair.  It is an ugly, chaotic event that happens in a short amount of time.  



> You posited a certain limited conception of sparring. To back that up you gave a list of 12 questions regarding our sparring practices, clearly expecting certain responses. Some folks, such as myself, gave answers showing that sparring can include much more than you seem to think. Do you still object to sparring when it includes all those options (different environments, weapons, multiple opponents, etc)? If so, why?



It all depends on the focus of the training.  If someone is in a martial sport then the 'typical' type of sparring is fine and in fact quite necessary.  And this again goes back to the 'train as you fight' principle.  If my plan is to be in a competition where I'm standing there trying to score point by hitting/kicking someone in certain spots (or knock them out or submit them) then I need to be well versed in sparring as it is very close to the way the competition is going to happen.  I don't need to be concerned with, and indeed bothered with all the other stuff cause I'll never use it.  I don't need to be worried about this guy having a weapon.  I don't need to worry about his ring man jumping in.  I don't need to worry about SD stuff because the other guy is an opponent and not an attacker.  

In that vein, if SD is the goal then 'sport sparring' isn't needed.  However, if sparring is used, but implements many of the things I (and others) have suggested then they're just that much farther ahead of the curve.  In SD, we're not discussing a trophy or title.  Rather we're discussing your well being or the well being of a loved one (or even a stranger).  Thus anything that can be added to the training to make it as realistic as possible is a plus and I'm all for it.  Instructors have different levels of experience.  My view is simple, if I want to fight in a competition then I'm going to ask the advice of someone in that art/venue.  Conversely, if someone wants SD training but perhaps isn't all that well versed in it, then it makes sense to ask someone that regularly has to put their hands on someone.  What works in the ring might not be so good on the street just like what works in the street might not even be allowed in the ring.  



> I commented earlier to the effect that scenario training is superior for big picture considerations from start (identifying threats) to finish (dealing with legal aftermath) while sparring is superior for isolating and developing specific skillsets. Do you have a response to that?



I agree with you.  As an example, if I'm teaching a specific strike or technique initially (or even review to master or stay refreshed with it) then I'll drill it specifically.  Then it can be used in a scenario.  I have no issue with isolated training to develop a specific skill or using it in mini-drills.  This is what I call the crawl-walk-run or building block approach.  

Hope this clarifies and helps


----------



## Buka (Oct 8, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Oftheherd provided several links in post #39.  In addition to those I'll add:
> 
> OODA loop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



Great post. 

Just a discussion point among old cops....I never used the OODA Loop when I taught DT. I found it confused too many of the officers. As for the Hicks Law....it really should be the Hick-Hyman law, but Ray Hyman got screwed. He actually corrected Hick's math in the original logarithms, but as a graduate student, he got no love. He's a Massachusetts boy and I learned all about him a long time ago when the Hicks law became prominent in Law Enforcement training.

I always wanted to talk with the guy who disarmed and gave the gun back. I've always been told it was true, if it is he would have been great to talk to and pick his brain.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 8, 2014)

Buka said:


> Great post.
> 
> Just a discussion point among old cops....I never used the OODA Loop when I taught DT. I found it confused too many of the officers. As for the Hicks Law....it really should be the Hick-Hyman law, but Ray Hyman got screwed. He actually corrected Hick's math in the original logarithms, but as a graduate student, he got no love. He's a Massachusetts boy and I learned all about him a long time ago when the Hicks law became prominent in Law Enforcement training.



I know what you mean.  Boatman allegedly wasn't the developer of 'Boatman edged weapon defense'.  I remember talking with the fellow years ago on another forum who claimed to have taught Boatman and that Boatman ran with it and got all the attention.  Can't remember his name but he was pretty adamant about it.  Boatman committed suicide several years ago so perhaps it's a moot point and we'll never know for sure.



> I always wanted to talk with the guy who disarmed and gave the gun back. I've always been told it was true, if it is he would have been great to talk to and pick his brain.



Years ago I knew his name and agency.  Don't remember now but I've got my annual recert coming up at the end of this month.  I'll ask the guys and see if anyone remembers.  It's been many a year now for that one.  I also remember the Newhall massacre was tied to bad range training.  That was a bad one


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 8, 2014)

Kon Soo Do said:
			
		

> Oftheherd provided several links in post #39.  In addition to those I'll add:
> 
> OODA loop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



None of the material you link to says anything whatsoever about sparring being an ineffective training tool. (In fact the last article you link to specifically advocates sparring as a training method in the next-to-last sentence.) I'm pretty familiar with the concepts of OODA and the effects of stress on performance.  I've never seen any studies saying that sparring is or is not an effective training method for real-world violence. (If I did, I would look carefully at the methodology and what they included under the rubric of "sparring".)  Unless you can point me to some such studies, I'm going to guess that your conclusion that sparring is inferior for self-defense training is apparently your interpretation of the implications of concepts such as stress response, OODA, Hick's law, and the like. I don't have a problem with that, but I wouldn't pretend that it means that scientists have proven your conclusions to be correct. For what it's worth, my interpretation of the implications of those concepts _supports _the use of sparring as a training tool.  I don't think anyone has ever done scientific  research on the effects of sparring on real-world violent outcomes to prove either one of us right or wrong.



			
				Kong Soo Do said:
			
		

> A private citizen is going to be more concerned with 'stun and run' principles.  A citizen (good guy) isn't looking to go rounds with someone in the street or in an alley.  They need to protect themselves by doing something to incapacitate the attacker(s) and getting to a place of safety where they can check themselves for injury and contact the authorities.  This may be the case for L.E. and Corrections as well, but we have to add the need for control when applicable.  Thus more often than not the LEO/CO is going to remain on the scene to take control or regain control of the attacker(s) unless it is tactically unwise to do so.  In either case, pure self defense isn't a pretty affair.  It is an ugly, chaotic event that happens in a short amount of time.



Additional considerations: LEO's are more likely to be armed. LEOs are more likely to be working as a team. LEOs have different legal authority for the steps they might take. LEOs are much more likely to be the ones initiating engagement on their own terms. LEOs are less likely to be targeted by predators looking for an easy target. Probably a lot more I'm not thinking of.

Anyway, my point is that real world violence comes in a wide variety of forms depending on the circumstances. There are important commonalities but also important differences. You have experience with real world violence as an LEO. Drop bear has experience with real world violence as a bouncer. That makes both of you worth learning from, but it doesn't necessarily mean that either one of you is an expert on (for example) the best self-defense options for a young woman faced with a date rapist.



			
				Kong Soo Do said:
			
		

> It all depends on the focus of the training.  If someone is in a martial sport then the 'typical' type of sparring is fine and in fact quite necessary.  And this again goes back to the 'train as you fight' principle.  If my plan is to be in a competition where I'm standing there trying to score point by hitting/kicking someone in certain spots (or knock them out or submit them) then I need to be well versed in sparring as it is very close to the way the competition is going to happen.  I don't need to be concerned with, and indeed bothered with all the other stuff cause I'll never use it.  I don't need to be worried about this guy having a weapon.  I don't need to worry about his ring man jumping in.  I don't need to worry about SD stuff because the other guy is an opponent and not an attacker.
> 
> In that vein, if SD is the goal then 'sport sparring' isn't needed.  However, if sparring is used, but implements many of the things I (and others) have suggested then they're just that much farther ahead of the curve.  In SD, we're not discussing a trophy or title.  Rather we're discussing your well being or the well being of a loved one (or even a stranger).  Thus anything that can be added to the training to make it as realistic as possible is a plus and I'm all for it.  Instructors have different levels of experience.  My view is simple, if I want to fight in a competition then I'm going to ask the advice of someone in that art/venue.  Conversely, if someone wants SD training but perhaps isn't all that well versed in it, then it makes sense to ask someone that regularly has to put their hands on someone.  What works in the ring might not be so good on the street just like what works in the street might not even be allowed in the ring.



??? I'm not quite clear on whether this is an answer to my question.  It seems like another retread of your "sport vs street" spiel.  To reiterate my question - a major part of your repeated objections to sparring is that it doesn't involve weapons or different environments or multiple opponents or starting at a disadvantage, etc, etc. Given our testimony that sparring can include any and all of those factors, do you still object to it as strongly? (BTW - when I spar with weapons or outside in the snow, I am not preparing for competition in the ring.)



			
				Kong Soo Do said:
			
		

> I agree with you.  As an example, if I'm teaching a specific strike or technique initially (or even review to master or stay refreshed with it) then I'll drill it specifically.  Then it can be used in a scenario.  I have no issue with isolated training to develop a specific skill or using it in mini-drills.  This is what I call the crawl-walk-run or building block approach.



Cool. To clarify, do you agree with me that sparring is an effective method for focusing on certain specific skills and attributes which can be used at the appropriate moment in either a real world or training scenario?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 8, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> None of the material you link to says anything whatsoever about sparring being an ineffective training tool. (In fact the last article you link to specifically advocates sparring as a training method in the next-to-last sentence.)



Then you're not understanding the material.  It clearly explains why we use one methodology over the other.  And you're incorrectly assuming the context of the term 'live-sparring'.  If you look just a few sentence back in that article you'll see the reference to simunitions.  One does not stand at the range and shoot paper targets with simunitions.  Range drills are akin to the 'focused' drills you're referring to in your post.  Simunitions training is live action scenario based training.  That is the context of 'live sparring'.  



> That makes both of you worth learning from, but it doesn't necessarily mean that either one of you is an expert on (for example) the best self-defense options for a young woman faced with a date rapist.



I disagree.  I've taught women's SD courses and have had participants that successfully used the training in real world attempts.  I've yet to see a sport program that teaches avoidance, escape, evasion, pre-attack indicators, stress response and the aftermath (legal and medical) of an attack.  



> I'm not quite clear on whether this is an answer to my question.  It seems like another retread of your "sport vs street" spiel.



I answered your question.  If you don't like my spiel then don't read anymore of my posts.  
:wavey:


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 8, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Then you're not understanding the material.  It clearly explains why we use one methodology over the other.  And you're incorrectly assuming the context of the term 'live-sparring'.  If you look just a few sentence back in that article you'll see the reference to simunitions.  One does not stand at the range and shoot paper targets with simunitions.  Range drills are akin to the 'focused' drills you're referring to in your post.  Simunitions training is live action scenario based training.  That is the context of 'live sparring'.




I don't believe I am incorrectly assuming the context of the term "live sparring".  The quote is "F_or handgun training, this could be achieved with simunitions or airsoft guns; *with hand-to-hand self-defense*, live sparring can give you similar stress levels as a real-life fight_." The statement is clear: simunitions/airsoft guns are for handgun training; live sparring is for hand-to-hand self-defense.


You can claim that I'm misunderstanding the material (although you haven't explained how). Maybe you're even right. I certainly won't claim to be infallible. What you can't honestly claim is that you have studies which have examined the real-world self-defense outcomes for folks who spar vs those who do not. Instead, you're taking a variety of concepts from studies which were looking at questions other than that one and extrapolating it to conclusions of your own. Maybe your conclusions on the question are correct, but they haven't been scientifically tested.



Kong Soo Do said:


> I disagree.  I've taught women's SD courses and have had participants that successfully used the training in real world attempts.  I've yet to see a sport program that teaches avoidance, escape, evasion, pre-attack indicators, stress response and the aftermath (legal and medical) of an attack.



Lots of people from a variety of very different systems and training methodologies (myself included) have taught students who later used that training successfully. That's not quite what I mean by "expert." Let me clarify:

As a long term LEO and LEO trainer, you've probably been personally involved with or privy to the details of hundreds of use-of-force incidents, yes? You've experienced things that worked and things that didn't work for you and adjusted your training accordingly and then seen the results of that adjustment in subsequent encounters. As a trainer, you've hopefully had the chance to do the same with the results your students have had. (I don't know how much detailed information you get to see about the results your trainees have had as you adjusted your training over the years, but I'm assuming you get at least some data to work with.)

Do you have anywhere near that amount of data for your women's self-defense class? Do you have hundreds of instances where you can look at outcomes and say "hmmm ... when I taught this way, 30% of the women successfully avoided an assault and 20% of them physically fended off an attacker, but when I added this drill to the class the percentages jumped to 40% and 25%."?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you teach an excellent class. I just don't think you have the data to be fully expert on the subject the way you are on LEO procedures or the way drop bear is on bouncing. Nothing personal - probably no one else does either.





Kong Soo Do said:


> I answered your question.  If you don't like my spiel then don't read anymore of my posts.
> :wavey:



I have no problem with your spiel. (Other than the fact that you've repeated it in this thread enough times for anyone who cares to be fully conversant with it.) I even agree with much of it.  It's just not an answer to my question. I re-read your comment three times looking for something that would be an answer and couldn't find it.  Honestly, I couldn't tell from anything you wrote that you even r_ead m_y question. We don't have to agree on everything (although if you look back in this thread you'll see that I've supported quite a lot of what you've said). But we can't exactly carry on a conversation if you just paste canned responses like a chatbot without responding to what I actually say or ask.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 8, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't believe I am incorrectly assuming the context of the term "live sparring".



I believe that you are, but don't blame you for the misunderstanding.  Now, I could be wrong in the authors meaning, however the term 'live' sparring to us is synonymous with 'street sparring' and 'scenario based' sparring (training).  I personally don't use sparring as a term to avoid confusion.  But if you asked any DT or combatives instructor I know they'd have a clear distinction between the 'sparring' methodology.  I understand the author to mean sparring in the context I've been discussing also due to him discussing it in the same paragraph as simunitions training which is only scenario based training.



> You can claim that I'm misunderstanding the material (although you  haven't explained how). Maybe you're even right. I certainly won't claim  to be infallible.



And neither am I.  And I don't want to give the impression that I am.  I am however very passionate about certain topics.  



> What you can't honestly claim is that you have studies which have  examined the real-world self-defense outcomes for folks who spar vs  those who do not.



I cannot claim something that is not realistically possible.  In order to have such as study it would need to be falsifiable and repeatable.  You would have to have the same type of attack, with the same factors, with the same person under the same stress.  And it would have to be repeatable.  That isn't within the scope of a scientific study.  What is (and are referenced in mine and others links) are studies behind the the methodology in which we train.  Training used to be simply by rote and nothing else.  That instilled bad habits.  Since training was changed to a scenario based format, using the totality of what I've described we haven't had any officers killed with an empty gun, full mags and a pocket full of brass.  We haven't had any officers disarm someone and then hand the gun back to the bad guy.  Call it anecdotal if you like, but it is real world examples that demonstrate one methodology was sub-optimal to the other.  Doesn't make the methodology perfect and bad things still happen but mistakes have been learned from.

If you're strictly looking for stats and % then I can offer two off the top of my head.  The first is with the Boatman edged weapon defense system.  Prior to it being instituted, officers were being injured 86% of the time in edged weapon altercation took place.  After implementation it dropped to 17% within two years.  Personally, for my women's SD course, no woman I've trained has ever been successfully raped and of those that had an attempt the attempt was defeated.  That is a small sampling in the totality of the overall population, but it is personal experience.

Beyond that, I've tried to answer your questions to the best I've understood them and to the best of my ability.  That's the best I can offer.  I maintain my position because it is what I've seen and experienced and experienced from others.  Sport sparring is best for sport, live/street/scenario 'sparring' is best for SD.  I've listed the reasons why already so I won't rehash the same thing.  

YMMV


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 8, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I cannot claim something that is not realistically possible.  In order to have such as study it would need to be falsifiable and repeatable.  You would have to have the same type of attack, with the same factors, with the same person under the same stress.  And it would have to be repeatable.  That isn't within the scope of a scientific study.




That was kind of my point. I could certainly design a study to address the issue, but it would be wildly impractical to ever get it done properly in the real world. That's why I take issue when you say that you have scientific research backing up your claim that sparring is counterproductive for developing self-defense skills.



Kong Soo Do said:


> What is (and are referenced in mine and others links) are studies behind the the methodology in which we train.  Training used to be simply by rote and nothing else.  That instilled bad habits.  Since training was changed to a scenario based format, using the totality of what I've described we haven't had any officers killed with an empty gun, full mags and a pocket full of brass.  We haven't had any officers disarm someone and then hand the gun back to the bad guy.  Call it anecdotal if you like, but it is real world examples that demonstrate one methodology was sub-optimal to the other.  Doesn't make the methodology perfect and bad things still happen but mistakes have been learned from.
> 
> If you're strictly looking for stats and % then I can offer two off the top of my head.  The first is with the Boatman edged weapon defense system.  Prior to it being instituted, officers were being injured 86% of the time in edged weapon altercation took place.  After implementation it dropped to 17% within two years.




That's all excellent support for the idea that your current training methodology is sound, something that I've never questioned. I'm not sure how it demonstrates that sparring is _not _useful for developing skills and attributes for self-defense. Was the previous "rote" training which has been improved upon sparring based? If so, how was the sparring conducted? If not, how do your improved results say anything one way or the other about the usefulness of sparring? 



Kong Soo Do said:


> Personally, for my women's SD course, no woman I've trained has ever been successfully raped and of those that had an attempt the attempt was defeated.  That is a small sampling in the totality of the overall population, but it is personal experience.



How exactly do you determine that none of your former students has ever been raped? Do you conduct annual surveys of every woman who has taken your course to ask "have you been raped this year?" Regarding those students you know of that successfully fended off a rapist - how many incidents are we talking about? 5? 10? 20? 50? How does that compare to the number of LEO use-of-force incidents that you have studied or been involved in?

My point is this: 

If you have been personally involved in a large number of violent incidents and it's not required by your profession, then you are failing badly at the most important aspect of self-protection - staying out of trouble. You might be an expert in fighting, but not in actual self-defense.

If you have been personally involved in a large number of violent incidents and it_ is _required by your profession, then you may be an expert in handling violence within the context you professionally deal with - cop, bouncer, soldier, corrections officer, etc - but not necessarily in other contexts. (This is a point Rory Miller has made repeatedly: the world of violence is too big for any person to be expert in it all.)

The conclusion from the previous two facts is that no one can honestly claim to be truly expert in all the aspects of how to train for civilian self-defense the way that a veteran cop can be an expert in taking down a suspect or a veteran boxing coach can be an expert at how to prepare for the ring. The extensive data set just isn't there to draw from.  We can take the limited data we do have and extrapolate from the lessons learned in other contexts, but there's always going to be a degree of uncertainty.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Beyond that, I've tried to answer your questions to the best I've understood them and to the best of my ability.  That's the best I can offer.  I maintain my position because it is what I've seen and experienced and experienced from others.  Sport sparring is best for sport, live/street/scenario 'sparring' is best for SD.  I've listed the reasons why already so I won't rehash the same thing.
> 
> YMMV



In that case I'm wondering if you've actually understood my 3rd question in my 10:46 am post, because I haven't seen anything you've written that answers it one way or the other or even indicates that you even read it.  I thought I phrased it clearly, but perhaps I was mistaken. Let me know if I need to clarify what I'm asking.

And just in case I'm going blind and somehow missing the answer - if anyone else can spot where Kong answered my question, please point it out to me or translate if I'm just being too dense to understand.


----------



## K-man (Oct 8, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> You posited a certain limited conception of sparring. To back that up you gave a list of 12 questions regarding our sparring practices, clearly expecting certain responses. Some folks, such as myself, gave answers showing that sparring can include much more than you seem to think. Do you still object to sparring when it includes all those options (different environments, weapons, multiple opponents, etc)? If so, why?


I'm assuming that this is the question referred to.



Tony Dismukes said:


> That was kind of my point. I could certainly design a study to address the issue, but it would be wildly impractical to ever get it done properly in the real world. That's why I take issue when you say that you have scientific research backing up your claim that sparring is counterproductive for developing self-defense skills.
> 
> That's all excellent support for the idea that your current training methodology is sound, something that I've never questioned. I'm not sure how it demonstrates that sparring is _not _useful for developing skills and attributes for self-defense. Was the previous "rote" training which has been improved upon sparring based? If so, how was the sparring conducted? If not, how do your improved results say anything one way or the other about the usefulness of sparring?
> 
> ...


I think you are both arguing the same side to be honest and you are both making equally valid points. To me the confusion arises from the ambiguous definition of 'sparring'. 'Sparring' in this context means about 80% of my training, yet basically in the conventional sense we don't spar at all. Basically in the context of this thread you are both arguing that both your forms of training equip you for the street, that is a street fight. *KSD*'s training is designed with his profession in mind, your form of training equips you for the ring. Where some of us were arguing against against sparring in an earlier thread, no one is arguing against sparring in this one. What *KSD* is against are some forms of sport sparring and I would agree with him. To me, those forms of sparring would be against the principles of the training. I doubt there would be 'scientific' evidence on either side of the equation. I figure we are all going to have an opinion based on our own experience.
:asian:


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> I'm assuming that this is the question referred to.



Yep.



K-man said:


> I think you are both arguing the same side to be honest and you are both making equally valid points. To me the confusion arises from the ambiguous definition of 'sparring'. 'Sparring' in this context means about 80% of my training, yet basically in the conventional sense we don't spar at all. Basically in the context of this thread you are both arguing that both your forms of training equip you for the street, that is a street fight. *KSD*'s training is designed with his profession in mind, your form of training equips you for the ring. Where some of us were arguing against against sparring in an earlier thread, no one is arguing against sparring in this one. What *KSD* is against are some forms of sport sparring and I would agree with him. To me, those forms of sparring would be against the principles of the training. I doubt there would be 'scientific' evidence on either side of the equation. I figure we are all going to have an opinion based on our own experience.
> :asian:



Well, that's what I'm trying to get an answer to. Kong has declared that there is sport sparring for the ring and scenario training for the street. He has yet to acknowledge the existence of the non-sport oriented sparring that I have referenced. This type of sparring is not scenario training - it has a different focus and purpose - but it doesn't have all the limitations that he ascribes to sparring in general. I'm trying to determine if he still objects to this sort of sparring as one aspect of self-defense training or if his objections only apply to some forms of sport sparring as you say.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> I'm assuming that this is the question referred to.
> 
> I think you are both arguing the same side to be honest and you are both making equally valid points. To me the confusion arises from the ambiguous definition of 'sparring'. 'Sparring' in this context means about 80% of my training, yet basically in the conventional sense we don't spar at all. Basically in the context of this thread you are both arguing that both your forms of training equip you for the street, that is a street fight. *KSD*'s training is designed with his profession in mind, your form of training equips you for the ring. Where some of us were arguing against against sparring in an earlier thread, no one is arguing against sparring in this one. What *KSD* is against are some forms of sport sparring and I would agree with him. To me, those forms of sparring would be against the principles of the training. I doubt there would be 'scientific' evidence on either side of the equation. I figure we are all going to have an opinion based on our own experience.
> :asian:



See I don't necessarily think training against the principles is neccecarily a bad thing. As it can open you up to be more versatile. Anyone who does more than one style will train against their own principles.

Your argument is also the argument against kata. If it is not fighting it has no worth. 

It even shoots the non contact guys in the foot. Because that is not really fighting. 

And considering we really only have anecdotal it works for me arguments it is a big call to make to be honest.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

Fairly interesting commentary on mc map and the issues the practitioners had with it.

MCMAP Practioners: What do you view as the high and low points of your training? : martialarts

I am trying to find mcmap sparring but came across this first. This is kind of my issue with security guard training as well.


----------



## K-man (Oct 9, 2014)

drop bear said:


> See I don't necessarily think training against the principles is neccecarily a bad thing. As it can open you up to be more versatile. Anyone who does more than one style will train against their own principles.


Then I would argue that the main principles work across all styles. Maintaining your centre, not clashing, keeping relaxed, proper breathing etc. apply to all martial arts I have experienced. What opposite principle should I embrace? Should I tense up and hold my breath?


drop bear said:


> Your argument is also the argument against kata. If it is not fighting it has no worth.
> 
> It even shoots the non contact guys in the foot. Because that is not really fighting.


Kata per se is not fighting. Once you unpack the Kata and start working on the bunkai it is certainly within the definition of fighting and in the context of this thread it is part of sparring.



drop bear said:


> And considering we really only have anecdotal it works for me arguments it is a big call to make to be honest.


There is no 'science' either way. YouTube can be trash or treasure and proves nothing. It may well be an example of something but that is all it is.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Oct 9, 2014)

K-man said:


> Then I would argue that the main principles work across all styles. Maintaining your centre, not clashing, keeping relaxed, proper breathing etc. apply to all martial arts I have experienced. What opposite principle should I embrace? Should I tense up and hold my breath?
> Kata per se is not fighting. Once you unpack the Kata and start working on the bunkai it is certainly within the definition of fighting and in the context of this thread it is part of sparring.
> 
> There is no 'science' either way. YouTube can be trash or treasure and proves nothing. It may well be an example of something but that is all it is.
> :asian:



So what works? boxing's hunch or wing chuns straight back. How about wrestling's low hands and heavy legs vs Thai boxings high hands and floating front leg. Which of those martial arts is wrong?

Are you arguing kata from you own bias or are you applying it to the principle that if it is not realistic it is not relevant?  Own bias sure. I know guys who kata,who fight hard,who say kata helps. Fair enough, but that is not your test for legitimacy is it?

YouTube is the best we have at the moment short of me falling back on my fifteen years of bouncing and fighting people and training with guys who have fought people in the ring and on the street. And that the method I advocate is right because it is my head on the block all the time if it goes pear shaped. So if I am wrong then I am in a lot of trouble. 

And I can't because then everybody would just have to believe me due to some degree of worship rather than me actually having enough knowledge about the subject to put forwards an independent case.

And I am not here for that sort of validation.


----------



## K-man (Oct 9, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So what works? boxing's hunch or wing chuns straight back. How about wrestling's low hands and heavy legs vs Thai boxings high hands and floating front leg. Which of those martial arts is wrong?


Neither because that is not a principle that crosses styles. They are characteristics of those styles.



drop bear said:


> Are you arguing kata from you own bias or are you applying it to the principle that if it is not realistic it is not relevant?  Own bias sure. I know guys who kata,who fight hard,who say kata helps. Fair enough, but that is not your test for legitimacy is it?


If it wasn't realistic I wouldn't have it in my curriculum. I have invited anyone to identify any part of my curriculum that you couldn't use in a street fight and I will throw it out. If the kata bunkai was not a fighting system I wouldn't be training with Masaji Taira twice a year or visiting New Zealand later this month. In fact I wouldn't be bothered with it at all. Kata helps very little, at least what the average person sees of kata. Kata is like a zip file on your computer. Without expanding it, it does nothing. Do you need kata to be an effective fighter? No. Can kata make you a more effective fighter? Not really. Can the kata bunkai make you a more effective fighter? Most likely. But again, training kata is not a principle. Kata contain principles but kata training is methodology.



drop bear said:


> YouTube is the best we have at the moment short of me falling back on my fifteen years of bouncing and fighting people and training with guys who have fought people in the ring and on the street. And that the method I advocate is right because it is my head on the block all the time if it goes pear shaped. So if I am wrong then I am in a lot of trouble.


With respect, there is an enormous amount of crap on YouTube. Half the time it is not even labeled correctly. Who determines what is good and what is bad? Just because something is not on YouTube doesn't prove anything. Sorry that is one of the biggest load of brown stuff that we have to contend with on MT. 



drop bear said:


> And I can't because then everybody would just have to believe me due to some degree of worship rather than me actually having enough knowledge about the subject to put forwards an independent case.
> 
> And I am not here for that sort of validation.


And this sentence seems not to make sense! Are you saying that without YouTube we would just have to take your word for something? If that is the case I would agree. I can accept on face value what you claim to have done and what you claim to be. If push came to shove or the situation arose I could train with you and see first hand what you are talking about. I don't need YouTube. You could do the same with me. I know Chris Parker is genuine. I have trained with him. He would vouch for me. When it comes to others from overseas that put up fantastic claims there is no way that we can readily check them out. Every one of those guys who posted video of themselves proved themselves to be much less than they claimed. Then you have the same situation with DonnaTKD ...

Other guys like Brian VanCise or Rich Parsons have the runs on the board. They don't need to put something on YouTube for me to believe what they say. It doesn't take a lot to sort the wheat from the chaff.
:asian:


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 9, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I could certainly design a study to address the issue, but it would be wildly impractical to ever get it done properly in the real world. That's why I take issue when you say that you have scientific research backing up your claim that sparring is counterproductive for developing self-defense skills.



You would not be able to design a study on this issue at all.  As I mentioned, a scientific study, beyond a simple hypothesis, would have to be testable, demostratatable and repeatable.  In order to do this you would have to replicate the exact conditions of an altercation each and every time.  That just isn't possible.  You can take issue with what I've stated if you wish, but I'm talking about the totality of training methodology.  I maintain that how you train is how you react under stress.  I don't see how that is even debateable.  If what I and others have provided isn't sufficient for you to establish this as factual then either disregard it or continue your own research.  

So I will maintain that sparring (with the definition I've provided previously i.e. sport based) is sub-optimal because it trains only a limited response and does not address the totality of an altercation.  Does this mean it is useless?  No, and I don't believe I ever said it was.  My term is sub-optimal because it is limited training.  Let me see if I can use an illustration to explain my point.  Many people that own a firearm purchase a gun, buy some ammo, go to a range and shoot a paper target.  In this they can learn how the firearm works, learn it's parts, clean the firearm, learn trigger control and become quite proficient and accurate with the weapon.  Does this make them well prepared for an armed altercations?  No, not really.  Yes, it does help and can work successfully in many situations.  But it does not train one for other factors should they arise.  For example, it doesn't help with seeking cover or concealment or even differentiate between the two.  It doesn't train the person for clearing a weapon malfunction under stress.  It doesn't train them to shoot with the support hand, or reload one-handed under fire.  It doesn't teach them about 'slicing the pie' or any of the other tactical things we do i.e. tap-rack-access', 'rip and rack' etc.  So a person with only paper target shooting experience 'can' successfully defend themselves and indeed I would encourage anyone that owns a firearm to train as much as possible.  But it does not train for factors that can and do happen beyond 'the basics'.

As such, sport sparring does have useful training that I and others have detailed.  You learn how to move, counter punch, stay on balance, take a hit etc.  All good stuff.  But if that's all you do for dynamic training then you've not trained for the other stuff I've detailed multiple times that can and do happen.  So while 'sport sparring' has some good stuff, it is sub-optimal to training that includes all the useful stuff it contains plus adds training on all the other factors I've detailed.  And I've also used the term 'detrimental' and I stand by that as well.  Going back again to the guy putting the triangle choke on the other guy.  It worked.  And hooray for him.  But again, change one factor and it would have had a different outcome.  He's fortunate that there wasnt' a second (or third) attacker.  He was so dialed into getting the choke that he wasn't aware of anything around him (tunnel vision).  Doesn't mean scenario training would have saved him had the factors been different, but at least he would have be aware of options other than what he trained for.  

I think this is the question you're talking about:



> I'm not sure how it demonstrates that sparring is _not _useful for developing skills and attributes for self-defense. Was the previous "rote" training which has been improved upon sparring based? If so, how was the sparring conducted? If not, how do your improved results say anything one way or the other about the usefulness of sparring?



I think I've talked about the first sentence.  Second sentence would not be 'sparring' in the sport MA sense, but similar in that two people are doing a full contact drill concerning something.  Be it a punch defense, escape defense or whatever.  As to your last sentence, it has improved because the insufficient training has been eliminated which translates to different results in the field.  As mentioned prevously, we no longer have officers disarming someone and then handing the gun back to them.  The training is still the same full contact, still the same disarming method.  But the training doesn't 'stop' right there to take another turn.  The scenario continues until a full conclusion has been reached.  

Sport sparring could do the same thing by simply adding appropriate real world factors such as has been described.  But then it now becomes scenario based by defacto.  Anything addd to a 'sport' sparring session that more closely reflects real life would be of benefit.  The more the better.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 9, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Your argument is also the argument against kata. If it is not fighting it has no worth.



I'm not sure what you're saying here?  Kata is a valuable training tool.  Would you clarify please.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 9, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> You would not be able to design a study on this issue at all.  As I mentioned, a scientific study, beyond a simple hypothesis, would have to be testable, demostratatable and repeatable.  In order to do this you would have to replicate the exact conditions of an altercation each and every time.  That just isn't possible.



Actually, researchers in the medical and social sciences deal with this kind of problem all the time. Medical conditions and social interactions are never exactly the same from instance to instance. For example, no two cancers or cases of MS are exactly the same. Even so, we are able to test drugs for treating cancer and MS. 

The way researchers handle it is to work with large numbers of subjects and randomize the test condition that each subject is assigned to. This way, all the uncontrollable random variables in individual instances will balance out between the test groups.  (There are a lot of finicky details required to get things right, but that's the basic idea.)

To design a study of the type we are talking about, you'd have to do something like the following:

*Select the variables you wish to study* (let's say the effects of scenario training vs full contact sparring vs using both on outcomes in real world violent encounters)
*Select a population of interest *(let's say police officers)
*Gather a large sample of individuals from within that population* (here it starts getting tricky because you want the sample to be representative of the population you are studying. For example - officers who volunteer for extra training may not be typical of cops as a whole. Getting this right is a huge problem in the social sciences.)
*Randomly assign individuals into your test conditions* (Tricky again. You wouldn't want to let subjects volunteer for the type of training they prefer, because then your test groups will probably start out with different personality characteristics which may affect the outcomes. You wouldn't want to have divvy up the test subjects by departments because those departments might be operating in geographic areas with very different populations, crime statistics, etc. This is one of those steps that gets impractical unless you are a dictator who can just decree that law enforcement agencies cooperate fully with the scientists doing the study.)
*Make sure that subjects within each test condition get the same treatment*. This means your procedures for conducting scenario training or sparring have to be standardized in such a way that later researchers can duplicate it.
*Decide what outcomes you are looking at*. This gets tricky again. Suppose you just looked at "percent chance an officer sustains an injury during a use-of-force incident." Maybe you might find that officers in the sparring condition did better. On the other hand, maybe officers who sent through scenario training which included de-escalation techniques were less likely to have use-of-force incidents in the first place! Deciding what to look at is an important factor in research.

*NOTE* - You'll notice that we have nothing in place to replicate the exact conditions of each altercation. The way it works is that each test group will probably encounter thousands of altercations or potential altercations within the duration of the study. The details of each encounter will be different (belligerent drunk looking for a fight, professional burglar just trying to get away, disoriented mentally ill subject off his meds, etc, etc), but they will average out between the groups as long as you've done your job properly in randomly assigning individuals into your test conditions. It's not like physics where you can control every variable in an experiment. Medical science and the social sciences depend on this averaging effect to cancel out the myriad variables that cannot be controlled.

*Replicate and repeat with variations.* Suppose our study showed the sparring group had a better outcome. Does that mean sparring is better? Not necessarily. Maybe we just had a badly designed scenario training program.  Suppose our study showed the scenario training group had a better outcome. Does that mean scenario training is better? Not necessarily. Maybe we just had a crappy approach to sparring. That's why we need a clearly defined protocol for each test condition, so that later studies can come back and tweak the methodology.  After you've done a bunch of these studies with different approaches to sparring and scenario training, you'll hopefully have a clear idea of what type of training lead to what kinds of outcomes.

I think we probably agree that without a billionaire to fund this research and a dictator to order departmental cooperation, these studies are probably never going to get done.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 9, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Fairly interesting commentary on mc map and the issues the practitioners had with it.
> 
> MCMAP Practioners: What do you view as the high and low points of your training? : martialarts
> 
> I am trying to find mcmap sparring but came across this first. This is kind of my issue with security guard training as well.



This is a big issue with any training in a profession where it is mandated or required by a commanding officer or a boss.  Or it is just some thing you have to have to work in for that profession. (ie. whether police, corrections, security, military)  Quite often you get a bunch of people who just do not want to be there or it's priority is so low that nobody cares during the training.  At one of our Training Halls we routinely had army personnel coming in.  Without exception all of them were handled by guys who were regularly training with us for three months or more.  If one of our guy's had been around longer than six months they could do whatever they wanted when grappling.  The reality is that with physical skill sets like we utilize in the Martial Sciences you cannot get good with just a few hours of training.  You really need to put in the work.  

Now if someone really trains hard and I mean logs in a lot of hours in MCMAP or Army Combatives, etc. they can be very good at what they do.  They just need the training hours!

What is funny is that many military, police, corrections, security instructors whether they be in Army Combatives, MCMAP, Defensive Tactics, etc. have not really put in that much training time.  Sure some have (and they are the exception) but a lot of them are not really that good.  That is based on my personal experience with several of them.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 9, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think we probably agree that without a billionaire to fund this research and a dictator to order departmental cooperation, these studies are probably never going to get done.



Agreed, and thank you for the post.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 9, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I think this is the question you're talking about:



No, it was this one: 



			
				Tony Dismukes said:
			
		

> You posited a certain limited conception of sparring. To back that up you gave a list of 12 questions regarding our sparring practices, clearly expecting certain responses. Some folks, such as myself, gave answers showing that sparring can include much more than you seem to think. Do you still object to sparring when it includes all those options (different environments, weapons, multiple opponents, etc)? If so, why?



However, I think you've started to answer it with the following:






Kong Soo Do said:


> Sport sparring could do the same thing by simply adding appropriate real world factors such as has been described.  But then it now becomes scenario based by defacto.  Anything addd to a 'sport' sparring session that more closely reflects real life would be of benefit.  The more the better.



It sounds like you are saying you have less objection to sparring as a training method for the street when we include factors such as different environments, weapons, etc. Am I right?

I do disagree with this statement: " _But then it now becomes scenario based by defacto_." I regard sparring (even with outside, with weapons and multiple opponents) as being different in purpose from scenario training. As I said earlier, scenario training is ideal for developing the big picture - see the threat developing, try to avoid or de-escalate, decide whether to fight, decide when to fight, get away, deal with aftermath, etc. Sparring is better for developing specific skills and attributes necessary for certain aspects of a fight which can go by very quickly in scenario training.

Let's take an example. You set up a scenario where I am being set up by a couple of muggers. The first engages me in conversation while his partner comes up to grab me from behind. Ideally I would have seen the setup coming and positioned myself so that neither mugger got behind me and I had a clear avenue of escape. I messed up on that so now mugger #2 is coming up behind me while mugger #1 blocks my line of escape. I do manage to spot the setup before mugger #2 gets hold of me, so I hit mugger #1 with a quick strike into a takedown and take off running, get to a position of safety, and call the police.

How much time did I spend on the actual physical fighting part of this scenario? A few seconds perhaps? Even if we run a bunch of different scenarios in a row, I'm probably only going to get a very short time practicing the actual skills of hitting someone who doesn't want to be hit, throwing someone who doesn't want to be thrown, or escaping someone who has knocked you down and doesn't want to let you get back up. I could spend a whole afternoon doing scenario training and get a lot of practice in avoiding a fight, learning when to initiate a fight if I can't avoid it, learning the right moment to disengage and escape from a fight if possible, and learning how to handle the aftermath - but end up with only a few minutes working on the actual fighting skills. 

That's where sparring comes in. I can spend hours upon hours getting good at hitting someone who doesn't want to be hit, stopping someone else who is really trying to hit me, keeping my cool after someone has successfully hit me and rattled my brain, throwing someone who doesn't want to be thrown, stopping someone who is really trying to take me down, and escaping someone who is doing his best to hold me in a bad position. Then if and when it comes down to those few seconds of physical confrontation in a real encounter or a training scenario, I am much more likely to be successful.

That's why I view scenario training and sparring (note - I did not say "sport sparring") as complementary pieces of a whole, not exclusive options.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 9, 2014)

When I think scenario training, this comes to mind;


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 9, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> When I think scenario training, this comes to mind;



That's really not scenario training. It's cooperative technique demos with a few seconds of badly done play acting before uke launches his attack and is defeated.  Properly designed scenario training doesn't look like that at all.


----------



## Buka (Oct 9, 2014)

Tony nailed that right on the nose.

The bad thing is, I'm guessing the people participating don't realize that.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 9, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It sounds like you are saying you have less objection to sparring as a training method for the street when we include factors such as different environments, weapons, etc. Am I right?
> 
> I do disagree with this statement: " _But then it now becomes scenario based by defacto_." I regard sparring (even with outside, with weapons and multiple opponents) as being different in purpose from scenario training. As I said earlier, scenario training is ideal for developing the big picture - see the threat developing, try to avoid or de-escalate, decide whether to fight, decide when to fight, get away, deal with aftermath, etc. Sparring is better for developing specific skills and attributes necessary for certain aspects of a fight which can go by very quickly in scenario training.
> 
> ...



Okay, I see now where we were not on the same sheet of music before.  Your post did a good job of clearing it up.  Yes, I agree with what you're saying and I think we're only differing on some terminology.  Another good post


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 9, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> That's really not scenario training. It's cooperative technique demos with a few seconds of badly done play acting before uke launches his attack and is defeated.  Properly designed scenario training doesn't look like that at all.



So I'm guessing more like this;


----------



## Buka (Oct 9, 2014)

I have a question for you guys.

Does anyone know anybody, who isn't a Martial Artist, that would absolutely kick your *** in a fight?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 9, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So I'm guessing more like this;



That had more of the appropriate elements (environmental considerations, the victim who turned on her rescuer), but you'll notice the participants made no attempt whatsoever to verbally diffuse the situation before just attacking the abusive boyfriend out of the blue. Nor did they follow the scenario through to the aftermath (which could have been ugly considering how the participants handled the situation).  I think they had the beginnings of an idea for a good training scenario, but the trainer needed to develop it further to make it really useful for anything.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 9, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> When I think scenario training, this comes to mind;



Then you don't understand scenario based training (not stated sacastically but as a simple statement).  The video claimed to be a BB demo/test.

Let me give an example of a system that is a form of scenario based training.  It involves firearms and the LEO's on the board will understand I'm talking about the FATS machine (FireArms Training System).  This is a screen made of a type of neopren (sp?) that you can shoot live rounds at.  The screen is dialed into a computer that can branch-chain the scenario.  On the screen are actors, like being in a movie.  Some scenarios are shoot and some no-shoot.  You interact with the actors on the screen, such as verbal commands/direct orders etc.  Depending upon your actions, the computer changes the situation 'in-flight' so-to-speak to make it realistic and unpredictable.  If it is shoot situation, the computer records where the shots went, whether it was considered a good shot and the actors respond appropriately (perhaps they fall down, perhaps they continue to fight/shoot/attack, perhaps they fall down but still return fire etc).  There are thousands of scenarios and each one can change on the fly so you never know quite what to expect.  They could obey your commands and the situation is over.  That's realistic.  They could defy you or cuss you or attack you.  That's realistic.

This system has evolved to be so realistic that rookies literally come out of the room sweating and shaking due to the stress and adrenaline.  Sometimes where behind them with lights flashing and sirens blazing, or we're yelling at them or whatever.  Anything to make it as realistic as is safety possible and still provide valuable training.  

What this does is give them exposure to a broad variety of experiences that they can later draw upon if faced with someting similar.  As an example, if anyone has ever seen the training video, "Surviving Edged Weapons" they'll recall a training situation where an officer walks into a room but doesn't know the situaiton.  A man draws a knife and begins to violently attack.  Most officers backpeddled from the man and attempted to draw their sidearm despite not have enough distance to do so.  Many were even trying to draw their sidearm will falling backward over their own feet.  No one was successful in drawing their sidearm or successfully defending themselves.  So better training needed to happen such as not to be so dialed in on drawing the sidearm in situations in which there is neither time nor space to do so.  Looking for better, more viable options.  Perhaps going hands on, perhaps seeking a barrier between you and the attacker, perhaps using something else easily at hand as a weapon.  Often times we'll video tape training and the person will watch themselves afterwards for review and see what, if any, mistakes were made and what could have been done better.  Then run the scenario again.

Just as importantly is the situation that never starts.  By practicing de-escalation and having that as a viable tool when viable is preferable to fighting.  I remember a long time ago as a rookie I was charged by a violent EDP (emotionally disturbed person).  In my best command voice I loudly ordered him to stop and get on the ground, ya' know, like we do in all the movies.  Well the guy actually stopped and fell to the ground, spread eagle.  I didn't know what to do at that point!  I was all jacked up and ready to rumble and here this guy actually followed my commands.  Now what do I do?  Took a few seconds before I realized I should probably cuff him up.  The point is that prior to that there was not really any training in what to do if the guy actually stopped his attack and listened to you.  As a result, I insert this sort of stuff into what I teach.  So some scenarios don't necessarily have to go to a hands-on conclusion and that's good training.  Best way not to get hurt in a fight is for the fight not to take place.  Isn't as Rambo or sexy...but too be honest, I'd take it every time I could get it.  Same thing with evading the fight or simply moving to the side and shoving him as he barrels towards me.  When he lands on his butt, if I can get to a door and close and lock it...well, again, that's a viable option and the situation doesn't have to go any further as I'm safe.  And sometimes it's going to be a knock down drag out fight for you life.  

Exposure on the front end may mean a happier ending on the back end.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 9, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Then you don't understand scenario based training (not stated sacastically but as a simple statement).  The video claimed to be a BB demo/test.



Keep in mind, I'm not talking about LEO scenarios. I'm strictly talking about martial arts schools/clubs. I'm sure that the police and other law enforcement/military agencies have pretty solid scenario training. They kind of have to.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 9, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Keep in mind, I'm not talking about LEO scenarios. I'm strictly talking about martial arts schools/clubs. I'm sure that the police and other law enforcement/military agencies have pretty solid scenario training. They kind of have to.



I understand, but I also use to run a regular MA school with the same type of training.  Not all of my students were L.E. or C.O.'s.  And I've seen other schools have the same philosophy in their training.  

If the school has a focus on SD I'd like to see this concept expand.  I mean, we're talking about a person's well being and possibly their life.  I don't expect a soccer mom to be a SWAT badass but I think she deserves the best training possible to be able to defend herself against scumbags.  A lot of course depends on the person and their mind set, but schools should always strive to have the best cutting edge training that's possible to provide.


----------



## K-man (Oct 9, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> When I think scenario training, this comes to mind;





Hanzou said:


> Keep in mind, I'm not talking about LEO scenarios. I'm strictly talking about martial arts schools/clubs. I'm sure that the police and other law enforcement/military agencies have pretty solid scenario training. They kind of have to.


Regardless, that is purely a demonstration of defence against attack. Nothing to do with scenario training. How realistic the attack becomes depends on the skill level of the participants. The Krav one is scenario training. Whether they are doing what is optimal is a different argument. I would suggest that for basic training they did a great job.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 9, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I understand, but I also use to run a regular MA school with the same type of training.  Not all of my students were L.E. or C.O.'s.  And I've seen other schools have the same philosophy in their training.



Really? What style of MA would that be?


----------



## Buka (Oct 9, 2014)

This is how we used to do scenario training, and that's the guy I did it with. He's a JKD guy, and a purple under Rickson (maybe brown by now, haven't seen him in a couple years) Interestingly enough, he's also legally blind.

Anyway, this is one of the many scenario trainings we did.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 9, 2014)

The FATS machine sounds cool, but it doesn't go far enough. I want someone to invent a Star Trek-style holodeck so we can have actual training realism.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 9, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Really? What style of MA would that be?



Same as my screen name.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 9, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The FATS machine sounds cool, but it doesn't go far enough. I want someone to invent a Star Trek-style holodeck so we can have actual training realism.



Now wouldn't that be the ultimate! Hit as hard as you want and don't have to worry about actually hurting your partner.

Yeah...I'm a Trekkie!


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 9, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Same as my screen name.








Would that be this style?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 9, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Would that be this style?



No.  Never heard of them.  Not surprising though, Kwon Bup and Kong Soo Do are fairly generic and can be pretty much anything.  We're more like fighting in a phone booth.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 9, 2014)

Buka said:


> I have a question for you guys.
> 
> Does anyone know anybody, who isn't a Martial Artist, that would absolutely kick your *** in a fight?



Yeah I have an industry filled with them. Some people are more naturally suted to a physical endevor. Even in mma there will be guys come in and just be naturally good beating people who have trained considerably longer.

Kane hober the gangly goober fighter that he is. Wins fights.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O9SbGNLgdjo


----------



## drop bear (Oct 9, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying here?  Kata is a valuable training tool.  Would you clarify please.



You have got to be kidding me. Sparring is detrimental. Kata is a valuable tool.

Do you do kata in a car?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 9, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The FATS machine sounds cool, but it doesn't go far enough. I want someone to invent a Star Trek-style holodeck so we can have actual training realism.



FATS training was really cool when I did it.  I have quite a few opportunities in the police academy and afterwards.  Definitely not a holodeck but still pretty cool!


----------



## drop bear (Oct 9, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> That had more of the appropriate elements (environmental considerations, the victim who turned on her rescuer), but you'll notice the participants made no attempt whatsoever to verbally diffuse the situation before just attacking the abusive boyfriend out of the blue. Nor did they follow the scenario through to the aftermath (which could have been ugly considering how the participants handled the situation).  I think they had the beginnings of an idea for a good training scenario, but the trainer needed to develop it further to make it really useful for anything.



Sort of. They are given the lock and are finding the key. Yes sneaking up and choking the guy unconscious with no warning  was allways going to become the tactical choice unless you put emphasis on the other aspects.

Given my million years training dinosaurs to fight astronaughts king hitting the P.O.S. is probably the most common and most effective response.

And because if it didnt happen on youtube it diddnt happen. Here is the ATM prank and real responses by people. Same sort of idea we have a predito a victim and onlookers.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OUehfnUNLdM&has_verified=1&layout=tablet&client=mv-google

I am personally very hesitant to act on a guy who reacts that way.

And they spar by the way.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-H06zhWh2jo


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 9, 2014)

drop bear said:


> You have got to be kidding me. Sparring is detrimental. Kata is a valuable tool.
> 
> Do you do kata in a car?



If you're interested in kata and it's value and merits in the martial arts, my suggestion would be to begin a separate thread so as not to deter from this one.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 9, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> If you're interested in kata and it's value and merits in the martial arts, my suggestion would be to begin a separate thread so as not to deter from this one.



Lol consider it started.

This should be fun.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/17...imental-if-you-pro-kata-not-sake-realism.html


----------



## MJS (Oct 10, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> FATS training was really cool when I did it.  I have quite a few opportunities in the police academy and afterwards.  Definitely not a holodeck but still pretty cool!



I've used one of those machines before too! It was pretty cool.  IMO, the majority of it is the mindset.  Sure, the 'bad guy' isn't really going to kill you when he shoots at you, but like any RBSD type training, your head has to be in the right frame of mind.


----------

