How important is contact sparring in MA?

[Balrog]

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]

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]

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, you 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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:

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]

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]

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.)

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 discuss 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

Is there some reason you couldn't find it?

didn't look for it. Did you?