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.
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.
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 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
