Only on Tuesdays.
Does training and sparring semi contact teach bad habits for self defence?
- Thread starter GU55
- Start date
Only on Tuesdays.
Cyriacus
Senior Master
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
And do you think that such methods (adding the unscripted) can only be seen in sparring? Or that it's not present in (well done) self defence training...? My biggest caveat, though, is that the "added actions" need to be realistic... I see, rather frequently, unrealistic additions, usually what people "think" might be possible, rather than what is realistically going to be encountered... so without taking that into account, there's really little point adding the extra aspects.
Again, I'd say that such things are also present in properly addressed self defence training... with the exception that the way they are addressed is specific to the needs of self defence itself, rather than having them there as a by-product of training designed with a different emphasis, and hope they transfer without the less-desirable traits. Personally, I'd rather do something that's 100% geared towards my aims, rather than something that is geared towards something else, with, say, 20% (being generous) that can transfer across.
Oh, and I might have something to send to you soon....
Hey Chris,
No, I do not believe that unscripted methods can only be done in sparring. I've personally said many times, that I'm a huge fan of spontaneous training, and that when I was teaching, I'd openly say to the students, not to fall back on the preset techniques, but instead to train your basics, get damn good at them, and be prepared to respond accordingly.
As for the need for the added things to be realistic...agreed 100%. IMHO, I think that grabbing someone and punching with the other hand, or grabbing and trying to slam them into the nearest wall, is more realistic than the badguy just grabbing and standing there like a statue, like we see in many cases.
Good points. So basically, in your opinion, sparring as we typically know it, is not good for anything?
Looking forward to it.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Sure... but that's not quite what I was meaning. Good scenario training can be completely unscripted... really, all that's needed there is a clear understanding of the aims (different for different people; attackers/aggressors will have a different aim to the defending student, for example)... but no need for anything to be set. No need for sparring at all, when self defence is the aim.
Sure... but you need to take into account what "realistic" actually is... what's often seen as "resistance" is just plainly unrealistic. Looking at the idea of "grabbing and punching" being more realistic than just "grabbing and standing like a statue", that really needs a lot more context. And it's up to the instructor to both understand what that context is, and how to ensure that the students understand it. There's a clip doing the rounds (you would have seen it on a facebook page we're both on....) of a Judo guy having a "bad day"... and, honestly, the "Judo" guy doesn't really get how what he's trying to show really works, and the BJJ guy is just being a jerk (and, well, it's obviously a set-up anyway). With both participants, there's a real disconnect of the context, which is why it goes so badly.
Within our arts, there are Kihon (basics) for a particular wrist lock/control, which is initially taught against someone "just grabbing and standing there"... and the context is learning the basic mechanics and principles. Then it gets trained against a grab-and-punch attack... and teaches another series of principles based on a different context. Often, when it's just "grab and stand", it's teaching methods of distracting and unbalancing, as well as teaching a timing (almost pre-emptive) of moving before any continuation of the attack can occur.... and, when it's "grab and hit", it's teaching to take advantage of the opening the attacker has provided, with less need of a distraction, and a different timing (between the attack, rather than before it). And, really, both are as realistic as each other.... but neither are really "realistic" representations of violence... more "symbolic" representations of it. Which is fine, provided the context is understood, and one isn't mistaken for the other.
Once these contexts, and reasons for such methods and the way they're designed, are understood, then you can move onto more "realistic" representations of violence... but it needs to be realized what is actually realistic in the first place. And grabbing and slamming you into a wall is... sometimes... but at other times, it's just not. Standing like a statue, though, just isn't.
For self defence? No, it's not. Bluntly.
Looking forward to it.
Give me a bit on that... gotta get my head around some technology a bit more advanced than a stick or sword... hmm....
Sparring is a means of practicing the learned techniques against an opponent. It does teach some things (timing, distance, continuing an attack or response in an unscripted manner situation for example), and it exposes the practitioner to some sorts of pressure. But it's NOT the only way to practice those things. And it is fun...
Sparring also encourages unrealistic ideas, based on the rules agreed on. Sometimes, things that work well in sparring are not practical or smart in responding to real violence. As I said previously, one of the biggest examples of this, in my opinion, is the idea of repeatedly re-engaging with the opponent.
Other ways to practice many of these things include partner drills done with appropriate intensity and increasing randomness, scenario training, slow training, and I'm quite certain there are others.
Sparring also encourages unrealistic ideas, based on the rules agreed on. Sometimes, things that work well in sparring are not practical or smart in responding to real violence. As I said previously, one of the biggest examples of this, in my opinion, is the idea of repeatedly re-engaging with the opponent.
Other ways to practice many of these things include partner drills done with appropriate intensity and increasing randomness, scenario training, slow training, and I'm quite certain there are others.
Agreed, and I didn't mean to imply anything when I was talking about the preset SD techs. My point in mentioning that, was simply that many times, people don't do any scenario/spontaneous training, instead, only relying on the set techs that're requred for each belt level. IMO, only doing that, is limiting the students ability to think outside of the box.
LOL, yeah, I've seen the clip posted but havent watched it. I'm going to have to do that now. But yes, I agree...the resistance needs to be realistic.
Yeah, we have the same type of set up in Kenpo. The problem that I"ve seen, is that all that we ever see, is the statue. This is why, (and don't hit me on the head when you read this...lol) Ras was such an advocate of his training. Now, I may not agree with all of this methods, ideas, etc, but I think you see where I'm trying to go with this. Now, I'm not against the statue training. IMHO, that is needed in the beginning. But afterwards, it needs to expand.
Ok, thanks.
LOL..you got it.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Ha, yeah. To me, that's not self defence training, though... that's just learning by rote.
Just to let everyone else see what we're talking about, here it is:
But, more to the point, resistance itself actually isn't realistic. Reaction and response is. Resistance is something you get in a sporting competition and context.
I think I was on record a number of times telling Ras that he had some of the right ideas, but didn't have the education/ability to genuinely apply it. I liked his approach (frankly, I took it as more "standard", certainly not as rare as he made it out to be...), but his execution of it was lacking in many respects. That's where we had our issues, really. When it comes to the "statue" training, I think the biggest issue is that it's taken as "the way things are done", without any real understanding of the reasons it's done that way... such as the fact that it's not actually meant to be done "like a statue", when all's said and done.
Ok, thanks.
Ha, maybe a little more clarification....
Sparring does have a lot of benefits, a number of which have been listed... but it's a specific training method designed for a particular context, which makes it suited to some things, but not others. For example, it's a method of training against a similarly skilled person (or at least, one with a similar skill set), with both working towards the same aim. As such, it encourages constant engagement (and re-engagement), as well as engendering an (unconscious) expectation that the opponent will have a particular set of skills and tactics, employ a similar distancing, and so on. These aspects are actually the exact opposite of what is needed for realistic self defence training, when it comes down to it.
When it comes to the benefits that can be transferred from sparring to self defence (such as handling a less-predictable attack), stamina training (although I'd say that's less important than dealing with the "gassing" effect of adrenaline... related, but different), ability to apply techniques under pressure etc, they can all be achieved in properly done scenario training, which is a method that gives all of the benefits of sparring, but better suited to self defence, and removes all of the drawbacks. Again, though, it all comes down to context.... and, in the context of self defence training, sparring is just as harmful as beneficial. Possibly more so.
Last edited by a moderator:
Aiki Lee
Master of Arts
Sparring to me always elicits a sense of back and forth exchanges which is not condusive to self-defense training as that is not realistic. Having a committed attacker with some unpredictability fits more along the lines of randori to me.
We may actually be thinking of the same thing, I just find it necessary to differentiate the two because of how sparring is commonly used.
Last edited:
Aiki Lee
Master of Arts
Dude. What an *******. Of course you can resist things when you know exactly what is happening. That is the best example of being a horrible uke that I've ever seen.
Last edited by a moderator:
There are back and forth exchanges during sparring because it is a bit more drawn out than actual self defence where it is necessary to try to eliminate the physical threat on the first engagement, assuming of course you have not had the opportunity to avoid the conflict by other means in the first place. What sparring does for self defence is gives you experience at dealing with punches, strikes and kicks coming at you in an unstaged manner.
Cyriacus
Senior Master
Which can just be done as its own exercise, with benefits rather than expenses.
Cyriacus
Senior Master
Sparring doesn't cost anything - that's why it is called "free sparring".
That isnt what i was talking about, but hey. Free sparring costs whatever youre paying the instructor, if youre doing it in an outlet.
martial sparrer
Orange Belt
I was just thinking this today.....I agree yes it can effect self defense.....with self defense....YOU DONT STOP UNTIL! when my training partner is bent over clutching himself....I always remember....that if this was self defense I would keep on going with a thai plum and knees to his head....and then maybe ground and pound
Cyriacus
Senior Master
A position you put him in during an exchange of favorable conditions. *claps*
Aiki Lee
Master of Arts
If you end with a ground and pound it will no longer be self defense. It will be battery and you are now the attacker.
What I was getting at is that in self-defense the attacker should not be defending at any point. He may react to attempts to stop him, but he will not be thinking of defending. Self-defense is very one sided with the attacker focused only on what he wants to do to his victim. If the plan does not workout for him he will leave. Randori training is more appropriate for this than sparring in my opinion.
Situations that start as self-defense can change to mutual combat, and can look a bit like sparring as now both peopleĀs egos refuse to let them leave. ThatĀs where you get slug fests.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Yeah... as Himura said, that's not self defence. It's jail time here. Knees to the head can generate some major damage, and can easily be seen as disproportionate, ground and pound shows that you are already on top (dominant), and in control, in which case, you have moved from being the defender to the aggressor... again, that's jail time. Oh, and if your training partner is "bent over clutching himself".... you might need to reconsider the training methodology you're using. Finally, no matter what you consciously think you'd do (or what you "always remember"), that's very different to what you'd actually do. Such imaginings, which can be useful, are more about macho posturing and fantasy than any reality, I gotta say.
Just to clarify, randori can also mean different things... including the more usual "sparring".... so you know...
I won't categorically state that shifting to a ground & pound mode would move into assault -- but you'd have to be able to justify continuing your offense as being necessary to safely resolve the situation. Justifying use of force is a big topic, and it's covered in several other threads, so I'm not digressing too deeply into it here.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Sure... I can think of a few circumstances... but, as a "standard" go to as a self defence mentality, I feel it's quite a dangerous one to get towards.....
Similar threads
