Hey, Steve,
In essence, I agree with you completely. However in the specifics I disagree. It may help if I clarify what I mean when I talk about realistic attacks, to the degree that this medium allows, so I'll try that.
Lots and LOTS of drilling and practice in the gym with some good wrestlers to see how well it works and learn what you can and cannot get away with.
Ultimately, whatever you are training, if you aren't somehow incorporating this very important element, it's a crap shoot.
This is kinda getting at what I mean when I'm talking about specifics here. Let's see how we go.
Now, obviously that's a lot easier to say than to do, but it is something that we train relatively frequently, using specific skill-based drills against fast, realistic attacks.
The bolded parts are where a disconnect exists for me. Chris, you seem like a serious, very credible guy so please don't take this as a knock against you. I'm just pointing out a common problem I see.
Ha, no offence taken, Steve. And as I said, in essence I agree with you completely. As to the problem I think you're refering to here (people not quite understanding what realistic attacks and training is), I see the same thing in a lot of things, really, so I'm with you there as well.
If I were training in a "generalist" system where I'm banking on being able to avoid or neutralize my opponent's ground skills, training against legitimate ground fighters would be crucial. I've seen a lot of videos where guys are demonstrating takedown defense against "realistic" takedowns, but it was just their own guys doing what they thought was a good takedown.
Yep, seen the same thing. So let's see if I can get across what I'm talking about, and where my understanding comes from.
First off, our classes are very much reflective of our "generalist" philosophy expressed in our system. To that end the class is split into three primary sections, being Traditional Unarmed Combat (techniques/drills taken from the various classical schools we train), Weaponry (most commonly traditional again, but can be modern, such as baton, knife, knife and pistol defence, and so on), and Modern Self Defence (which covers a large range of concepts and topics... realistically, you would need to be with us for at least two years to go through everything at least once). These classes are 1 1/2 hours long (due to restraint on the availability of the rooms hired), which means that each section is between 20 and 25 minutes, including instruction/explanation/demonstration. Add to that the fact that the classes are held once a week (in two locations, should the students want more class-time... highly recommended!), with a three week break over December/January. To do the maths on that, it means that actual class time for any given topic (broad topic, such as Modern Self Defence) is 25 minutes x 49 classes, which is about 20 hours a year. If you take that to a single topic (ground defence, for example), that comes down to less than an hour a year if the topic isn't covered more than once, which it frequently isn't. As a result, it's important that I cover the highest probability aspects for the students in the Modern section, and the highest-return/benefit aspects in the less-practical sections of Weaponry and Traditional.
This is one of the realities of a generalist system, unfortunately, and why I tell my guys that home training is vital. Class time just isn't enough.
So with this restriction on time availablity to dedicate to a particular skill-set, the most important thing is that I don't waste time with training that is low-percentage, in terms of applicability, as well as in terms of what they will most likely come up against, should it ever get to a real encounter. And, very simply, the odds of the attacker being a trained, skilled grappler are minimalist compared to a less-skilled, but highly committed thug/street predator/drunken fool. So to train against skilled, trained attacks can honestly be wasting their time.
What is more likely to be encountered is a sudden rush-tackle, or similar, rather than a skilled double-leg take down. Now, although they are similar, there are key differences that mean that training against the skilled version does not necessarily transfer across. I'll cover the differences in a second.
IMO, if self defense is the goal and you're training specifically to avoid takedowns and to be able to get back up once on the ground, you need to be periodically pressure testing these techniques against legitimate grapplers. I'd also add that judoka, jiu-jitiero and wrestlers will share techniques but will approach combat differently, so periodically working with experienced grapplers in multiple disciplines would be important, too.
If self defence is indeed the goal, then the first thing that is needed is a clear unfiltered understanding of what that means. And what it means is to understand what the realities of your environment, what forms violence that may be encountered are present, what the laws in the environment are, having an understanding of the effects of adrenaline (on yourself, and just as importantly, on your opponent/s), understanding the psychology, and so on. And, honestly, that rules out the idea of training to defeat or win against a trained person, whether BJJ, Judo, Wrestler, or whatever, mainly because the odds of having that kind of person attack are simply not very high. But let's look at the differences.
A skilled attacker will, surprising, use skill. By that I mean they will have proper, strong grips, they will use a great degree of leverage, they will remain balanced, they will come in for specific movements/techniques. An unskilled "thug", to use that term to cover the vast majority of attacks and attackers, will rarely go for a proper grip, will use a barrowing momentum (a la a football/rugby tackle) rather than leverage, won't have specific techniques in mind, will not be balanced, and so on. What spoils a skilled takedown (from a Judoka, for instance) won't necessarily spoil that of a rush-tackle, and vice versa.
As a result, training with skilled experienced grapplers can get you good (or at least comfortable) against skilled experienced grapplers... but that's not why we train. We train for a street thug, who gets upset, shoves you hard in the chest, and dives in with a sudden rush tackle, ending with you both on the ground, whether by design or just as a result of the momentum. Typically, it's a control from them, and a way to ensure you don't go anywhere, or a way simply to avoid letting you hit them (a defensive action to stop themselves getting hurt). So it's a committed action, but the reasons for it are rather different to the reasons for an experienced grappler to attack, and as a result the actions are different as well.
When it comes to what we class as fast, realistic attacks, it is exactly what I said above. 110% committed to an action, sudden dive for a tackle, and so on. If you miss your strikes on their way in, you're going to get collected by the tackle, no two ways about it. And if that happens, you're probably going to go to the ground. But that type of attacker won't suddenly turn into a great ground fighter, they'll typically just start trying to hit you. Lots. So our ground work then centres on wearing/handling the incoming blows, and moving from there.
For the record, I'm not saying you have to train and become an expert in these systems. I'm saying that any techniques you are working on would need, at some point, to be trained against credible grapplers... not guys in your own gym who are faking it.
For the record, I've done my time in BJJ, as have our other seniors (in BJJ, MMA, Wrestling, and so forth, depending on the person), each time bringing aspects back, such as better mechanics, escapes, and so forth. So I've got a bit of experience with these systems, however something that has not been brought back was the attacking methods of these systems, as it goes against what we train for. Oh, and I ensure the attacks are realistic myself, if my guys aren't attacking properly, then it's demonstrated for them. Properly. As well, obviously, as any flaws in what they're doing. So the attacks need to be serious, they need to be realistic, they need to be committed, but they do not need to be skilled experienced grapplers if that is not what is likely to be encountered.
Did that make more sense to you?