How bad does not sparring effect you in a real street fight situation ?

[MJS]

Good way to put it. Let me see if I can approach the topic from another perspective. I'll use Drop Bear's video as a point of reference. And let me start by saying to DB, I'm not busting on your video. It is as a point of reference to expound my point(s).

Okay, sparring as demonstrated in the video or in general. What are the good points? Well to begin, we have a training tool that allows you to use the basic skills that you have learned. That could include striking, kicking, grappling, locks and/or a combination of those things. So that is a good thing. Next, it allows you to use it against an opponent that is resisting your attempts to control the situation (for whatever the desired result). So that is also a good thing.

So sparring does have a couple of things going for it. Can we all agree on this point?

Now, here are, in my professional opinion, where sparring (as presented in the video and in general) is less than optimal for the purpose of self-defense and other methods are superior (for this specific purpose). To be clear, that should not be taken as a slap in the head for sparring. But if we're to have a frank, open conversation on the topic we need to look at the good as well as the bad (or ugly).

Using the video as a point of reference:

• They are in a controlled environment. Can we all agree that you are not likely to get attacked inside of a school as opposed to other venues? Can we all agree that you and your attacker aren't likely to be wearing safety equipment? Can we all agree that your attacker may not be standing in front of you in a starting position and waiting for you to also get into a starting position? Can we all agree that an attacker may not be abiding by the same rule set that you are using? Can we all agree that the terrain is likely not going to include a dry, level, flat, padded surface (and padded walls) in a well lit venue?
• There is no opportunity or attempt at verbalization i.e. opportunity to de-escalate the situation before it begins. Now not every situation will provide that luxury, but some will. And it needs to be addressed and trained for accordingly. Any fight that can be avoided is a fight that was won. Otherwise no one wins and everyone loses.
• The video demonstrates normal sparring i.e. you stand here and he stands there and you start boxing and dancing and looking for an opening. They go to a point, stop and then reset. This is fine for competition, but is not reflective of how a real fight progresses. There is no reset, break, tap out or time out.
• No opportunity is utilized to escape the situation or place a barrier between you and the attacker.
• No attempt is made to draw attention to the attack as it is happening. Attracting the attention of bystanders or the public in general is good for you and bad for the attacker(s) that don't want to be identified.
• The video demonstrates attempts to go for a submission. While that may be fine to calm down your drunk uncle at the family BBQ because you're trying not to hurt him, attempts to purposefully go the to ground in an actual attack is fool-hardy at best and detrimental to your life at the worst. In a real world altercation you NEED to assume weapons are present and multiple assailants are present until the attack is over. The video does not address either real world consideration at all.
• While the training demonstrated may suffice for an untrained attacker, I honestly don't like your chances against a determined (trained or not) attacker(s) who may be armed and/or under the influence of a drug.
• The video does not address taking the situation to a specific conclusion. This is paramount! As detailed by JKS, under duress you WILL react as you train. As I've said before many times, you will NOT rise to the occasion...you WILL sink to the level of your training. In short, how you train is how you will react under extreme duress. That can be a good or bad thing.
• The video does not address self defense applicable laws and legal uses-of-force. It is only you stand there, I'll stand here and let's start duking it out and then we'll stop, reset and do it again. That isn't real life.

Scenario based training addresses all of the real world concerns detailed above in ADDITION to the things sparring addresses i.e. full contact with and from a resisting attacker. So where sparring has a limited use for SD, scenario based training takes all that sparring offers and takes it up several notches to an entirely different level. Sparring is not the tool to address these other consideration. Thus whereas one needs to spar for competition, one does not need to spar for SD as their are other tools that incorporate what sparring has to offer and adds elements that sparring (as presented in the offered video link and in general) doesn't include.

Very good analogy, and I certainly don't disagree! I think it's safe to say though that some people just aren't into this type of training, and not everyone that is interested in it, trains at a school that does it, despite the students desire to want it. Personally, I enjoy it, and I workout with people outside of the dojo, that do this type of training, so it's all good for me. IMO, guys like Peyton Quinn, Bill Kipp, two that come to mind, that do scenario training, are doing a very good thing, but of course, as it was said earlier, it needs to be done right. Mindset is key, otherwise, the scenario is a failure. Quite a few years ago, I had the chance to use one of the firearms training simulators that the PD that I dispatch for, had access to. Of course, the gun that I was using wasn't real, the bad guy on the scene that was playing out in front of me, wasn't 'real' in the sense that if I screw up, I'd literally get shot and killed, but it's imperative that you have it in your mind, that this is the real deal. Same thing with the scenario training. The scenario has to be 'real' enough to put the student in the right mindset.

I think it's safe to say that sparring and real SD are 2 different things. That's why I said what I did...that we need a little of everything. Of course, as long as the scenario training includes all that you mention, then you might not need the sparring.

 

[K-man]

Perhaps another way of looking at it is the intent of your training. If you are young and testosterone fuelled, competitive martial arts are a great outlet. Whether that be a sport that can take you to the Olympics like Boxing, Judo or TKD or many of the others like Japanese style karate that are outside of that sphere but still have international competition. On perhaps the next level of intensity would be full contact karate, Muay Thai and of course MMA. There is not one of those sports that you would dream of participating in without the type of 'sparring' most of us accept as sparring. So it produces fitness and conditioning and provides a competitive environment similar to the ring. Could any of those guys defend themselves on the street? Of course they could, especially against an alcohol affected untrained thug.

I would like to exclude all the MAs that have no relevance to 'real' fighting. My definition of those would be all those that Chris Parker would exclude.

On the other side you have things like the generally accepted TMAs, Krav, Systema, FMAs etc. that do not have the same type of sparring as in the first set but still have some form of heavy contact, full resistance training included in the syllabus. Now, I would argue that although it is not the same sparring as above, in reality it is still 'sparring'. It is still producing fitness and conditioning and to an extent is trying to reproduce the conditions under which it would be used in real life. Could these guys defend themselves on the street? In the same situation as earlier, of course.

If you took the 'sparring' out of either camp, would that make a difference to your ability to defend yourself on the street? Answer, it depends. In a real street fight situation there may not be the necessity to actually fight. If you can escape without fighting, the best alternative, then sparring of any form is totally unnecessary. Millions of people safely navigate particularly sensitive situations successfully every day without the need to fight.

Even our police force have given up on the sparring aspect of training. They used to include basic H2H in their training but it was stopped because they were suffering more injuries in the training than on the street so now they make distance and use other tools like spray, taser and gun, or they bring in the dog squad. Does the lack of 'sparring' adversely affect them? Obviously not and the police are likely to be involved in hundreds more street fights than any normal person.

Perhaps we could introduce weapons at this point. Years ago in the sport oriented environment we trained disarms against a weapon perhaps twice a year. In reality that was probably worse than not training at all because it gave students the sense of thinking that they could defend themselves against weapons when in fact they had a whisker more than no chance. Now we train against weapons for close to an hour every week. The knives are real knives, blunted. Is that training considered sparring? If yes, it is certainly different sparring to the sport sparring above, but more aligned to sport based Tomiki Aikido. If you don't classify it as sparring but 'scenario training' perhaps, where does that leave you on the street? The more RB systems would certainly have more going for them on the street if there was the possibility of a weapon, even an improvised one.

So I would say that sparring is essential for sport but maybe not as imperative for the rest of us. 'Sparring' means different things to different people, essential for some, not as essential for others, and in reality the chances of me needing the skills I teach and train in a street fight are next to zero because my SD training will probably keep me away from fighting anyway.

On that note, I take the advice of my esteemed colleagues above and stand back to watch with interest future discussion. (I do, however, reserve the right to wave my little flag on appropriate occasions.)
:s67:

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

For you SD guys, how will you develop your "hip throw (mother of all throws)"?

In

- "sport" approach, you 1st "develop" in your partner training, you then "test" in your "sport"?
- "SD" approach, you may "develop" it in your SD situation, but how do you "test" it?

So nobody cares to answer my question?

 

[drop bear]

So nobody cares to answer my question?

A lot of questions not being answered.

 

[drop bear]

The fact is that none of it is "real," and both are limited by the need for training without injury, and both are only as good as the way they are set up. Some sparring rule sets are much more inclusive than other. MMA has a very inclusive rule set. WTF Taekwondo has a very restrictive rule set by comparison, and the competitive rule set rewards things that I might find less than productive in actual self defence in order to make it resemble Taekkyeon and to differentiate it from sport karate.

Scenario training has the same limitations; it's only as good as it is set up to be. The same goes for kata, drills, etc.

Yeah I have been kind of spazzing around with this. But that becomes the basic core of the issue.

I could argue that if it does not happen in a fight then it is not realistic and therefore detrimental. I have read those argument as the basic premise against sparring. It is the core argument against sport.

But what happens then?

Bag work?. Well you are not going to fight a bag.

Kata? Not a real fight.

Conditioning? Nope.

Bare knuckle death matches? Well sorry but you are not covering being attacked by a sharknado so it is not applicable to self defence.

Nothing. All martial arts training that is not being attacked in the street by the worst case scenario is not applicable to self defence training. And you cannot work with that premises.

The justification is that the drills I like can be called as closely relating to a real self defence. But how am I coming to that conclusion?

Is that being just pulled out of the air?

It is nice people have real world experience. I have real world experience. But that is not a justification. I feel compelled to support my training based on its own merits.

I am not bashing a style but bashing a premises. I cannot see how anybody can reasonable work form this idea.

By the way how did I come to this conclusion.

Testing my ideas against a resisting opponent.

 

[drop bear]

The best training for self defence is not to train.

The best defence in self defence is to not be there in the first place.

So training to not be there is the most effective method.

I proved this by not going to k mans gym and was therefore undefeated.

I will in fact issue a challenge to the whole board that I will not go to all of their gyms and will remain undefeated. Demonstrating the power of my technique.

I have not been to Syria which is one of the most dangerous places on earth. That is how effective this technique is.

(I mean as a Stance I think it is almost unarguable)

 

[drop bear]

Good way to put it. Let me see if I can approach the topic from another perspective. I'll use Drop Bear's video as a point of reference. And let me start by saying to DB, I'm not busting on your video. It is as a point of reference to expound my point(s).

Okay, sparring as demonstrated in the video or in general. What are the good points? Well to begin, we have a training tool that allows you to use the basic skills that you have learned. That could include striking, kicking, grappling, locks and/or a combination of those things. So that is a good thing. Next, it allows you to use it against an opponent that is resisting your attempts to control the situation (for whatever the desired result). So that is also a good thing.

So sparring does have a couple of things going for it. Can we all agree on this point?

Now, here are, in my professional opinion, where sparring (as presented in the video and in general) is less than optimal for the purpose of self-defense and other methods are superior (for this specific purpose). To be clear, that should not be taken as a slap in the head for sparring. But if we're to have a frank, open conversation on the topic we need to look at the good as well as the bad (or ugly).

Using the video as a point of reference:

• They are in a controlled environment. Can we all agree that you are not likely to get attacked inside of a school as opposed to other venues? Can we all agree that you and your attacker aren't likely to be wearing safety equipment? Can we all agree that your attacker may not be standing in front of you in a starting position and waiting for you to also get into a starting position? Can we all agree that an attacker may not be abiding by the same rule set that you are using? Can we all agree that the terrain is likely not going to include a dry, level, flat, padded surface (and padded walls) in a well lit venue?
• There is no opportunity or attempt at verbalization i.e. opportunity to de-escalate the situation before it begins. Now not every situation will provide that luxury, but some will. And it needs to be addressed and trained for accordingly. Any fight that can be avoided is a fight that was won. Otherwise no one wins and everyone loses.
• The video demonstrates normal sparring i.e. you stand here and he stands there and you start boxing and dancing and looking for an opening. They go to a point, stop and then reset. This is fine for competition, but is not reflective of how a real fight progresses. There is no reset, break, tap out or time out.
• No opportunity is utilized to escape the situation or place a barrier between you and the attacker.
• No attempt is made to draw attention to the attack as it is happening. Attracting the attention of bystanders or the public in general is good for you and bad for the attacker(s) that don't want to be identified.
• The video demonstrates attempts to go for a submission. While that may be fine to calm down your drunk uncle at the family BBQ because you're trying not to hurt him, attempts to purposefully go the to ground in an actual attack is fool-hardy at best and detrimental to your life at the worst. In a real world altercation you NEED to assume weapons are present and multiple assailants are present until the attack is over. The video does not address either real world consideration at all.
• While the training demonstrated may suffice for an untrained attacker, I honestly don't like your chances against a determined (trained or not) attacker(s) who may be armed and/or under the influence of a drug.
• The video does not address taking the situation to a specific conclusion. This is paramount! As detailed by JKS, under duress you WILL react as you train. As I've said before many times, you will NOT rise to the occasion...you WILL sink to the level of your training. In short, how you train is how you will react under extreme duress. That can be a good or bad thing.
• The video does not address self defense applicable laws and legal uses-of-force. It is only you stand there, I'll stand here and let's start duking it out and then we'll stop, reset and do it again. That isn't real life.

Scenario based training addresses all of the real world concerns detailed above in ADDITION to the things sparring addresses i.e. full contact with and from a resisting attacker. So where sparring has a limited use for SD, scenario based training takes all that sparring offers and takes it up several notches to an entirely different level. Sparring is not the tool to address these other consideration. Thus whereas one needs to spar for competition, one does not need to spar for SD as their are other tools that incorporate what sparring has to offer and adds elements that sparring (as presented in the offered video link and in general) doesn't include.

This is what got me thinking about the basic issue with the premis.

I did not agree with most of that critique and was going to eventually work through it picking it apart.

It would have been arduous and derailing.

Then I noticed the common core.

"I think in a real fight this would not happen. "

It is an unworkable idea.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Yeah I have been kind of spazzing around with this. But that becomes the basic core of the issue.

I could argue that if it does not happen in a fight then it is not realistic and therefore detrimental. I have read those argument as the basic premise against sparring. It is the core argument against sport.

But what happens then?

Bag work?. Well you are not going to fight a bag.

Kata? Not a real fight.

Conditioning? Nope.

Bare knuckle death matches? Well sorry but you are not covering being attacked by a sharknado so it is not applicable to self defence.

Nothing. All martial arts training that is not being attacked in the street by the worst case scenario is not applicable to self defence training. And you cannot work with that premises.

The justification is that the drills I like can be called as closely relating to a real self defence. But how am I coming to that conclusion?

Is that being just pulled out of the air?

It is nice people have real world experience. I have real world experience. But that is not a justification. I feel compelled to support my training based on its own merits.

I am not bashing a style but bashing a premises. I cannot see how anybody can reasonable work form this idea.

By the way how did I come to this conclusion.

Testing my ideas against a resisting opponent.

Only confining your training to exactly what can happen in a real fight situation and only what is realistic is a very limited way to train. Any training exercise that can help you in a real situation is useful. There are many training exercises that are not necessarily realistic and don't occur in a real situation that can be helpful. Bag work helps you feel the power in your technique and the feedback you receive (thanks to Isaac Newton). Kata, a great way to develop basic technique, among other things. Conditioning, if it stops you hurting your hand when you punch your attacker or hurting your arm when you block an attack then its applicable.

 

[RTKDCMB]

The best training for self defence is not to train.

More like the worst.

The best defence in self defence is to not be there in the first place.

100% correct. The best way to not get run over by a car is to not run out into peak hour traffic.

I will in fact issue a challenge to the whole board that I will not go to all of their gyms and will remain undefeated. Demonstrating the power of my technique.

I have never lost a fight to the death.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Any training exercise that can help you in a real situation is useful. There are many training exercises that are not necessarily realistic and don't occur in a real situation that can be helpful. Bag work helps you feel the power in your technique and the feedback you receive (thanks to Isaac Newton). Kata, a great way to develop basic technique, among other things. Conditioning, if it stops you hurting your hand when you punch your attacker or hurting your arm when you block an attack then its applicable.

Agreed.

This conversation may flow a bit over to methods other than sparring and their perceived usefulness in self-defense. Kata can basically be viewed two ways; one as a set block/punch/kick movements put together and the other as a catalog of movements that go deeper than b/p/k i.e. locks, throws, chokes, breaks, cavity pressing etc. I personally have not use for kata if it is trained under the first way. The second way is an extremely valuable tool for self-defense.

Bag work is useful for both sport and self-defense. For the same reason doing squats is beneficial for a body builder or football player. No, you don't squat weights on a stage or on the field, but the exercise helps in the presentation or the performance on the field. Same with sport or self defense. No, you don't fight a bag in the ring or street, but the use of the bag (speed, heavy etc) is useful for the development of speed and power which is useful in both venues.

Conditioning plays a huge roll in both venues. The obvious is being able to go the distance in the ring. Same for the street but for different reasons. In the street we aren't necessarily concerned with going 'rounds', at least we shouldn't be. But conditioning will play a major role in the ability to use your training under duress. Additionally, if you are injured, conditioning plays a major role in how you will fight through that injury as well as later recovery.

We could include other drills as well in the discussion. I used to kick tires and use bowling pins on the shins. Same with hard body conditioning to the torso and arms. The payoff was the ability to inflict an injury without receiving an injury. All of these methods are useful for either the sport or self defense venue and don't have a trade off of instilling bad habits.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

A lot of questions not being answered.

I just have to draw the conclusion that SD guys don't bother to "test" their skill such as "hip throw".

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I just have to draw the conclusion that SD guys don't bother to "test" their skill such as "hip throw".

Maybe a better conclusion would be that your post got lost in the shuffle since there have been multiple pages in the last several day. As well as many posters responding to other posters on a continuing basis, on particulars of the conversation that have come up recently.

However, addressing your question, I'm not sure why it is even being asked. There has been numerous posts on multiple pages from 'SD guys' that have expounded on the utilization of various methods of litmus testing movements such as scenario based training against resisting opponents simulating violent real world encounters.

 

[K-man]

I just have to draw the conclusion that SD guys don't bother to "test" their skill such as "hip throw".

I'm not sure why you are pushing this barrow. I train a hip throw in my aikido, koshi nage ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NxlU0_7TkXI ), but in reality I wouldn't use it if I was fighting. The takedowns I use where the hip comes into play are much more effective and easier to execute under pressure. The throw I mostly use would be more like osoto guruma, without a lot of the backward leg thrust.

So perhaps you could show us the hip throw you think is so essential to SD training.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

Only confining your training to exactly what can happen in a real fight situation and only what is realistic is a very limited way to train. Any training exercise that can help you in a real situation is useful. There are many training exercises that are not necessarily realistic and don't occur in a real situation that can be helpful. Bag work helps you feel the power in your technique and the feedback you receive (thanks to Isaac Newton). Kata, a great way to develop basic technique, among other things. Conditioning, if it stops you hurting your hand when you punch your attacker or hurting your arm when you block an attack then its applicable.

Yes. And so the argument that training in an artificial environment or in a manner that does not resemble the shifting goal posts of self defence.

Is an incorrect argument.

To critique a method like sparring you need another yard stick.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not sure why you are pushing this barrow. I train a hip throw in my aikido, koshi nage ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NxlU0_7TkXI ), but in reality I wouldn't use it if I was fighting. The takedowns I use where the hip comes into play are much more effective and easier to execute under pressure. The throw I mostly use would be more like osoto guruma, without a lot of the backward leg thrust.

So perhaps you could show us the hip throw you think is so essential to SD training.
:asian:

I don't think it matters about the hip throw. I would double leg under most conditions. I have two hip throws in my arsenal they are used to achieve a specific result.

The issue is they are a bugger to pull off when someone is trying to stop you doing it. So how do you train to prevent them from preventing you?

The other question that follows that is now we have three different methods that can achieve the same result. If we assume the throws are basically equal.

How do you decide which one should be your go to throw?

Now I could just spar and find out which one is the highest percentage and easiest for me. That would be the throw that I would most likely use for self defence.

 

[drop bear]

Agreed.

This conversation may flow a bit over to methods other than sparring and their perceived usefulness in self-defense. Kata can basically be viewed two ways; one as a set block/punch/kick movements put together and the other as a catalog of movements that go deeper than b/p/k i.e. locks, throws, chokes, breaks, cavity pressing etc. I personally have not use for kata if it is trained under the first way. The second way is an extremely valuable tool for self-defense.

Bag work is useful for both sport and self-defense. For the same reason doing squats is beneficial for a body builder or football player. No, you don't squat weights on a stage or on the field, but the exercise helps in the presentation or the performance on the field. Same with sport or self defense. No, you don't fight a bag in the ring or street, but the use of the bag (speed, heavy etc) is useful for the development of speed and power which is useful in both venues.

Conditioning plays a huge roll in both venues. The obvious is being able to go the distance in the ring. Same for the street but for different reasons. In the street we aren't necessarily concerned with going 'rounds', at least we shouldn't be. But conditioning will play a major role in the ability to use your training under duress. Additionally, if you are injured, conditioning plays a major role in how you will fight through that injury as well as later recovery.

We could include other drills as well in the discussion. I used to kick tires and use bowling pins on the shins. Same with hard body conditioning to the torso and arms. The payoff was the ability to inflict an injury without receiving an injury. All of these methods are useful for either the sport or self defense venue and don't have a trade off of instilling bad habits.

But how do you justify training in an artificial controlled manner?

 

[K-man]

I don't think it matters about the hip throw. I would double leg under most conditions. I have two hip throws in my arsenal they are used to achieve a specific result.

The issue is they are a bugger to pull off when someone is trying to stop you doing it. So how do you train to prevent them from preventing you?

The other question that follows that is now we have three different methods that can achieve the same result. If we assume the throws are basically equal.

How do you decide which one should be your go to throw?

Now I could just spar and find out which one is the highest percentage and easiest for me. That would be the throw that I would most likely use for self defence.

So what do you think we do at training? Just standing round with beer in hand talking about the weather?

For me a throw is not top of mind. By double leg I am assuming you are shooting. For me that is only an option if I am already on the ground because I don't want to be on the ground from choice, and that is where I practise it from. My preferred takedowns are high percenters for me, maybe not for everyone, which is why I encourage my guys to explore what works best for them and work to improve their application. We practise those against full resistance and you have to be able to get into position to begin with. That is, in effect, no different to anything that you have shown, just we don't do all the hoppy hoppy, bouncy bouncy stuff that happens in competition.

I am really happy for you that your sparring works for you. The fact that it is not my preferred method of training doesn't seem to register with you. I have some guys in their 60s training with me. They have no interest is sport sparring. They are never going to fight in the ring, so why do you think that everyone has to train the way you train to be effective? There are many training methodologies. Yours is just one and for what you are trying to achieve it is great. Good for you.

 

[drop bear]

So what do you think we do at training? Just standing round with beer in hand talking about the weather?

For me a throw is not top of mind. By double leg I am assuming you are shooting. For me that is only an option if I am already on the ground because I don't want to be on the ground from choice, and that is where I practise it from. My preferred takedowns are high percenters for me, maybe not for everyone, which is why I encourage my guys to explore what works best for them and work to improve their application. We practise those against full resistance and you have to be able to get into position to begin with. That is, in effect, no different to anything that you have shown, just we don't do all the hoppy hoppy, bouncy bouncy stuff that happens in competition.

I am really happy for you that your sparring works for you. The fact that it is not my preferred method of training doesn't seem to register with you. I have some guys in their 60s training with me. They have no interest is sport sparring. They are never going to fight in the ring, so why do you think that everyone has to train the way you train to be effective? There are many training methodologies. Yours is just one and for what you are trying to achieve it is great. Good for you.

So how would you practice a fully resistant throw?

 

[K-man]

So how would you practice a fully resistant throw?

I would wait for you to attack me, any way you want, I would clinch as most of my training dictates, most likely after a strike, and I would take you to the ground if and when appropriate. To practise the actual throw I would just get into position and ask my partner to resist by any means available. But you have to realise, your training and my training is totally different. In every situation I am not looking to go to the ground. If the opportunity arises I will take my opponent to the ground but my objective is not to follow. If I do end up on the ground, my aim is to regain my feet ASAP.

My ground work would be no where near as good as yours but my Krav and Systema training give me a reasonable chance of success against most people.

 

[drop bear]

I would wait for you to attack me, any way you want, I would clinch as most of my training dictates, most likely after a strike, and I would take you to the ground if and when appropriate. To practise the actual throw I would just get into position and ask my partner to resist by any means available. But you have to realise, your training and my training is totally different. In every situation I am not looking to go to the ground. If the opportunity arises I will take my opponent to the ground but my objective is not to follow. If I do end up on the ground, my aim is to regain my feet ASAP.

My ground work would be no where near as good as yours but my Krav and Systema training give me a reasonable chance of success against most people.

So someone is tryng take you down and then you are resisting you try to take them down they are resisting. They try to hold you down you try to get up and vica versa.

You are describing the same principles as sparring.


In regards to mma ground work because off the added hitting on the ground the method is becoming very self defency.
I will do a thread on it when I can put it together properly.

As a taste
I have never seen an rbsd style push this.

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

But it falls into the rbsd method like a charm using the principle that standing up is better even the blocking is weapons based open blocks. It is super effective. Real ground fighters struggle to combat it. It is simple to learn you could add in bicycle kicks which I do and they work well from there.

And things like eye gouging actually works in your favour rather than engaging in a game where the person on top who has their entire body weight to eye gouge you back is a game I would not want to play.