Knowing the appropriate place of aspects of training.

[_Simon_]

Just found this written by someone and found it refreshing, that's all

---------------------------


"I'm not sure who needs to hear this...but there are levels and progressions to combat attribute development.

There is a difference between a drill and a demo.
There is a difference between sparring and fighting.

Demos look clean, often choreographed, and meant to display optimal circumstances. This is an unrealistic representation of fights but is a necessary teaching tool particularly for beginners and those whose intentions is to teach the art down the road.

Drills can formulaic, predictable and patterned. This is useful for those crafting mechanics, refreshing known concepts, or simply for movement and exercise. Drills have evolutions and progressions that lead into more challenging stages...but it still isn't fighting.

Sparring is closer to application but depending on what is being sparred --- it is still an inappropriate representation of real life. Sparring can be open format (all weapons free), or compartmentalized (just jabs, for example). It is still not a fight and the objective isn't to win...it is to learn, audit and test capabilities.

Everything you do has a limited value or an expiry date. Even full-blown scenario based training contain artificialities that don't manifest in real life. And guess what tough guy? You're gonna get old and you're gonna nurse injuries. Despite what you might want others to believe, you're not going 100% intensity all the time.

Final note: It is way too easy to identify the shortcomings, deficiencies, and artificialities in training. Too easy. It requires very little brain power actually. It require very little in terms of critical thinking. And it often manifests into trolling and overall negativity.

It is MUCH harder to stop, think, analyze and interpret the potential, but limited, value in martial practice. Much harder. And that's why, in forums, negativity and criticism occurs much more frequently. It's too easy.

Often times, when a criticism emerges in commentary, it isn't for a positive or constructive reason. The primary reason is to propose some kind of authority or superiority...which is pretty lame and played out.

However, when a criticism comes from a good place and is presented with a bit of logic, intelligence and civility...it can do us all some good. So be mindful of when these comments emerge and don't always be defensive and derogatory towards it.

Have a good day."

 

[skribs]

It's funny, because every demonstration video I see from arts like Aikido or Krav Maga, and you have people posting that it worked because the partner was fully compliant. Yet, every demonstration video I see from arts like Muay Thai or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, the partner is also compliant, because you have to be when you're going at lecture speed.

I've been tempted to take a BJJ technique video and repost it as "Krav Maga ground escape" or "Aikido groundfighting" and see if the BJJ guys would rip it to shreds. Even more tempted now that I'm taking BJJ and have experienced firsthand being the demonstration dummy. I love training BJJ, but man I can't stand the BJJ folks on Reddit.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

It's funny, because every demonstration video I see from arts like Aikido or Krav Maga, and you have people posting that it worked because the partner was fully compliant. Yet, every demonstration video I see from arts like Muay Thai or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, the partner is also compliant, because you have to be when you're going at lecture speed.

I've been tempted to take a BJJ technique video and repost it as "Krav Maga ground escape" or "Aikido groundfighting" and see if the BJJ guys would rip it to shreds. Even more tempted now that I'm taking BJJ and have experienced firsthand being the demonstration dummy. I love training BJJ, but man I can't stand the BJJ folks on Reddit.

Speaking as a BJJ instructor (among other things)…

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a compliant demo for purposes of instruction. There’s not even necessarily anything wrong with a compliant demo that simplifies or omits certain elements of real application in order to focus on core body mechanics. (As long as you explain what you are doing and why, and come back later to fill in the missing elements.)

There’s also nothing wrong with practicing compliant drills in order to rehearse technical details and body mechanics.

Every martial art on the planet uses these sorts of demos and drills for instructional purposes.

But if you want your martial art to be functional as a fighting system for you, then at some point you have to execute in a non-compliant context. If certain techniques are never seen working in a non-compliant environment, then that leads to skepticism about their validity. If practitioners of a given system are never seen performing their art in a non-compliant context, then it leads to skepticism about the quality of their training (even if some of their techniques are theoretically valid).

Furthermore, people who have spent enough time practicing training in non-compliant (but open ended) contexts can get a pretty good idea for what works and what doesn’t* in certain situations where they have a lot of experience. If you demonstrate techniques which experience tells them don’t work, then they will tend to be skeptical until you can prove them wrong.

*If I’m going to be precise with my language, almost any technique can work under the right circumstances. Sometimes the right circumstances are that your opponent is smaller, slower, weaker, a complete idiot, and has a stroke in the middle of the fight. Okay, I’ve only encountered a few techniques that bad, but there is definitely a spectrum ranging from “techniques which have been proven to work over and over again for the majority of people who train them, against a wide variety of opponents, in a wide range of contexts” and “techniques which might work under certain special circumstances if you have superior physical attributes and get lucky.”

If you show me a video of some novel groundfighting technique, you don’t have to label it BJJ or Krav Maga or Systema or Dog Boxing or Silat or whatever. I can probably tell you with a fair degree of accuracy how effective the technique is likely to be and what attributes or circumstances you might need to pull it off. That’s because I’ve spent almost 30 years grappling and groundfighting with practitioners of BJJ, Judo, Sambo, wrestling, Aikido, Bujinkan Taijutsu, Capoeira, Kali, Karate, Kung Fu, etc, etc, etc. Sometimes I might not be sure: something might be plausible but unfamiliar enough that I need to try it out or watch a skilled exponent use it in real fighting or competition. More often I can tell you just how good or bad the technique is.

 

[Flying Crane]

Speaking as a BJJ instructor (among other things)…

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a compliant demo for purposes of instruction. There’s not even necessarily anything wrong with a compliant demo that simplifies or omits certain elements of real application in order to focus on core body mechanics. (As long as you explain what you are doing and why, and come back later to fill in the missing elements.)

There’s also nothing wrong with practicing compliant drills in order to rehearse technical details and body mechanics.

Every martial art on the planet uses these sorts of demos and drills for instructional purposes.

But if you want your martial art to be functional as a fighting system for you, then at some point you have to execute in a non-compliant context. If certain techniques are never seen working in a non-compliant environment, then that leads to skepticism about their validity. If practitioners of a given system are never seen performing their art in a non-compliant context, then it leads to skepticism about the quality of their training (even if some of their techniques are theoretically valid).

Furthermore, people who have spent enough time practicing training in non-compliant (but open ended) contexts can get a pretty good idea for what works and what doesn’t* in certain situations where they have a lot of experience. If you demonstrate techniques which experience tells them don’t work, then they will tend to be skeptical until you can prove them wrong.

*If I’m going to be precise with my language, almost any technique can work under the right circumstances. Sometimes the right circumstances are that your opponent is smaller, slower, weaker, a complete idiot, and has a stroke in the middle of the fight. Okay, I’ve only encountered a few techniques that bad, but there is definitely a spectrum ranging from “techniques which have been proven to work over and over again for the majority of people who train them, against a wide variety of opponents, in a wide range of contexts” and “techniques which might work under certain special circumstances if you have superior physical attributes and get lucky.”

If you show me a video of some novel groundfighting technique, you don’t have to label it BJJ or Krav Maga or Systema or Dog Boxing or Silat or whatever. I can probably tell you with a fair degree of accuracy how effective the technique is likely to be and what attributes or circumstances you might need to pull it off. That’s because I’ve spent almost 30 years grappling and groundfighting with practitioners of BJJ, Judo, Sambo, wrestling, Aikido, Bujinkan Taijutsu, Capoeira, Kali, Karate, Kung Fu, etc, etc, etc. Sometimes I might not be sure: something might be plausible but unfamiliar enough that I need to try it out or watch a skilled exponent use it in real fighting or competition. More often I can tell you just how good or bad the technique is.

I don’t think anything in what Simon and Skribs posted suggests otherwise.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I don’t think anything in what Simon and Skribs posted suggests otherwise.

I’m actually in full agreement with what Simon posted. I was responding to Skribs’ suggestion that BJJ practitioners were being hypocritical for criticizing certain compliant demos or that they would automatically attack demonstrations of a valid technique if he labeled it as coming from a different art.

 

[Flying Crane]

I’m actually in full agreement with what Simon posted. I was responding to Skribs’ suggestion that BJJ practitioners were being hypocritical for criticizing certain compliant demos or that they would automatically attack demonstrations of a valid technique if he labeled it as coming from a different art.

You make some good points, but I think Skribs’ note on the hypocrisy that he has seen within certain groups he has encountered, is likely well placed. From my own experiences on the forums, I agree with him, the hypocrisy does exist. People who use compliant partners as part of the teaching process and when doing demonstrations to an uneducated audience, are sometimes quick to criticize a demonstration they see for using compliant partners. There is a mythology among SOME groups that they only ever go full-bore and never use compliant partners. They are lying to themselves.

That does not negate the need for realistic and robust training. But nobody was trying to suggest otherwise.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I’m actually in full agreement with what Simon posted. I was responding to Skribs’ suggestion that BJJ practitioners were being hypocritical for criticizing certain compliant demos or that they would automatically attack demonstrations of a valid technique if he labeled it as coming from a different art.

Tony,

I have seen it.
A group posts a video of art (TMA X) and they jump all over for compliant and not real and would not work in the ring or real world.
Then minutes later I can see a post by a MMA / BJJ demo of a technique and none of the comments you made are in the video , and the comments are :
Look how smooth they transition
this technique is broken down so nice for people to learn
...

I stopped trying to bring it to their attention.
As an old FMA instructor once told me when I asked why do I have this (insert technique or skill set) when others who started before me and I also train with do not have it from you.
They gave back to me the previous movements / techniques. So I could never get there with them.

So I have seen too much of the give back and the hypocrisy of their comments.

If they prefer to go around with a blinder on thinking their is the best because others have told them so, then they have fallen for the issue they complain about in others. (Or humanity in general).

So, I move on. Yes, I loose a little respect for them as I cannot have an completely open discussion with them. I have to coach it a way to not challenge their dogma.

NOTE: This is not true for 100% of any group. Just enough to make it worth making a comment.
I have also seen it with FMA, and with any group that only trains with their own. Yes MMA cross trains. Yet, many will "Give Back" a lesson because of the source.
I am not saying all sources are valid on all topics. I am saying each should be reviewed for its value.
Which I believe you have written similar comments in the past. So not a direct point to you personally.

I see the hypocrisy.
I tried to bring it up. If they review cool.
If they say I am full of BS and I don't understand or just a crazy guys who wrestles with a knife, so ignore him.
Then I move on from those discussions with those people.

 

[skribs]

Speaking as a BJJ instructor (among other things)…

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a compliant demo for purposes of instruction. There’s not even necessarily anything wrong with a compliant demo that simplifies or omits certain elements of real application in order to focus on core body mechanics. (As long as you explain what you are doing and why, and come back later to fill in the missing elements.)

There’s also nothing wrong with practicing compliant drills in order to rehearse technical details and body mechanics.

Every martial art on the planet uses these sorts of demos and drills for instructional purposes.

But if you want your martial art to be functional as a fighting system for you, then at some point you have to execute in a non-compliant context. If certain techniques are never seen working in a non-compliant environment, then that leads to skepticism about their validity. If practitioners of a given system are never seen performing their art in a non-compliant context, then it leads to skepticism about the quality of their training (even if some of their techniques are theoretically valid).

Furthermore, people who have spent enough time practicing training in non-compliant (but open ended) contexts can get a pretty good idea for what works and what doesn’t* in certain situations where they have a lot of experience. If you demonstrate techniques which experience tells them don’t work, then they will tend to be skeptical until you can prove them wrong.

*If I’m going to be precise with my language, almost any technique can work under the right circumstances. Sometimes the right circumstances are that your opponent is smaller, slower, weaker, a complete idiot, and has a stroke in the middle of the fight. Okay, I’ve only encountered a few techniques that bad, but there is definitely a spectrum ranging from “techniques which have been proven to work over and over again for the majority of people who train them, against a wide variety of opponents, in a wide range of contexts” and “techniques which might work under certain special circumstances if you have superior physical attributes and get lucky.”

If you show me a video of some novel groundfighting technique, you don’t have to label it BJJ or Krav Maga or Systema or Dog Boxing or Silat or whatever. I can probably tell you with a fair degree of accuracy how effective the technique is likely to be and what attributes or circumstances you might need to pull it off. That’s because I’ve spent almost 30 years grappling and groundfighting with practitioners of BJJ, Judo, Sambo, wrestling, Aikido, Bujinkan Taijutsu, Capoeira, Kali, Karate, Kung Fu, etc, etc, etc. Sometimes I might not be sure: something might be plausible but unfamiliar enough that I need to try it out or watch a skilled exponent use it in real fighting or competition. More often I can tell you just how good or bad the technique is.

You're one of the exceptions to my feelings on the online BJJ community. I have a feeling the vast majority of the ones I have issue with are not in the category of having enough time. I think many of them are white belts or I-watch-BJJ-on-youtube-but-have-never-been-to-class belts.

Even then, there are two main logical fallacies I see in these arguments all the time (again, not from you, personally).

• Because the video did not include a non-compliant demonstration, the school only practices with compliant partners.
• Because the person doing the technique is not a BJJ practitioner, they can't know how to do it correctly, because only BJJ teaches you how to do the technique correctly. Even if you train against non-compliant partners, because they are non-BJJ non-compliant partners, they aren't any better than compliant partners.

 

[skribs]

I was responding to Skribs’ suggestion that BJJ practitioners were being hypocritical for criticizing certain compliant demos or that they would automatically attack demonstrations of a valid technique if he labeled it as coming from a different art.

Skribs’ note on the hypocrisy that he has seen within certain groups he has encountered, is likely well placed. From my own experiences on the forums, I agree with him, the hypocrisy does exist.

A group posts a video of art (TMA X) and they jump all over for compliant and not real and would not work in the ring or real world.
Then minutes later I can see a post by a MMA / BJJ demo of a technique and none of the comments you made are in the video

NOTE: This is not true for 100% of any group. Just enough to make it worth making a comment.

I'll reiterate: I don't think @Tony Dismukes is part of that cliquish behavior. He's been very fair in the conversations I've had with him.

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's just not Mr. Dismukes doing it.

 

[drop bear]

It's funny, because every demonstration video I see from arts like Aikido or Krav Maga, and you have people posting that it worked because the partner was fully compliant. Yet, every demonstration video I see from arts like Muay Thai or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, the partner is also compliant, because you have to be when you're going at lecture speed.

I've been tempted to take a BJJ technique video and repost it as "Krav Maga ground escape" or "Aikido groundfighting" and see if the BJJ guys would rip it to shreds. Even more tempted now that I'm taking BJJ and have experienced firsthand being the demonstration dummy. I love training BJJ, but man I can't stand the BJJ folks on Reddit.

Look up mma shredded.

 

[drop bear]

You make some good points, but I think Skribs’ note on the hypocrisy that he has seen within certain groups he has encountered, is likely well placed. From my own experiences on the forums, I agree with him, the hypocrisy does exist. People who use compliant partners as part of the teaching process and when doing demonstrations to an uneducated audience, are sometimes quick to criticize a demonstration they see for using compliant partners. There is a mythology among SOME groups that they only ever go full-bore and never use compliant partners. They are lying to themselves.

That does not negate the need for realistic and robust training. But nobody was trying to suggest otherwise.

There are people who will never show a resisted version of their technique ever under any circumstances.

The difference is a demo of a technique someone has done. Vs a demo of a technique someone has demoed.

I know people try to pretend that is the same. But it isn't.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

There is a mythology among SOME groups that they only ever go full-bore and never use compliant partners.

I've been around a lot of different martial arts groups in my time and have heard some crazy claims. I don't think I've ever heard anyone make that particular boast. I'm not saying you haven't, because human stupidity is boundless and someone somewhere may have said it. But I think there's the possibility that you may have misinterpreted the criticism of people who only train using compliant drills.

I have a feeling the vast majority of the ones I have issue with are not in the category of having enough time. I think many of them are white belts or I-watch-BJJ-on-youtube-but-have-never-been-to-class belts.

Because the person doing the technique is not a BJJ practitioner, they can't know how to do it correctly, because only BJJ teaches you how to do the technique correctly. Even if you train against non-compliant partners, because they are non-BJJ non-compliant partners, they aren't any better than compliant partners.

If you've seen claims like that, then you are quite likely correct that they're complete beginners, wannabees, or fanboys. Experienced BJJ practitioners know better. In fact, part of the reason BJJ has evolved as much as it has is because we are completely shameless about stealing moves, tactics, and ideas from other arts as long as they work.

Because the video did not include a non-compliant demonstration, the school only practices with compliant partners.

In general, that assumption doesn't come from seeing a video which only includes a compliant demo. The assumption generally comes either because
a) the art in question never produces videos or other evidence of non-compliant practice or
b) the technique in question looks highly unlikely to be effective in non-compliant practice, based on the experience of the viewers

 

[Flying Crane]

I've been around a lot of different martial arts groups in my time and have heard some crazy claims. I don't think I've ever heard anyone make that particular boast. I'm not saying you haven't, because human stupidity is boundless and someone somewhere may have said it. But I think there's the possibility that you may have misinterpreted the criticism of people who only train using compliant drills.

Ok, I’ll concede that I may not have actually seen that claim in a word-for-word utterance. But the way some criticisms of demonstrations are presented lead to that impression, that those making the criticism want us to believe that they would never sink to such “deception” of using a compliant partner. Come on Tony, you know this is true. You see it in the forums just as well as I do.

These videos that show a demonstration; of course they use compliant partners. The point of a demonstration is to demonstrate what the method is and how it works. A compliant partner allows for that highlighting. Using non-compliant partners, in a demonstration, turns it into a mash-up that is not an effective demonstration, does not allow an uneducated audience to see and recognize the concepts in action, even if it shows attackers being defeated.

So everybody uses compliant partners at times, as you yourself stated earlier. This has nothing to do with me inverting a criticism of those who only train with compliant partners. And let’s be honest: all training only uses compliant partners. Otherwise people would end up in the hospital after every training session. The resistance may be greater, the challenge may be higher to raise the skill level in using the techniques, but make no mistake about it, everybody who comes into the training hall is a compliant partner.


If you've seen claims like that, then you are quite likely correct that they're complete beginners, wannabees, or fanboys. Experienced BJJ practitioners know better. In fact, part of the reason BJJ has evolved as much as it has is because we are completely shameless about stealing moves, tactics, and ideas from other arts as long as they work.

The assumption generally comes either because
a) the art in question never produces videos or other evidence of non-compliant practice or

Honestly, I’ve got to say, so what? Many systems tend to not enter competition where their methods might be captured on video. If they ever get used in a real fight, it is highly unlikely to be captured on video. So instead, what you get to see are demonstrations. With compliant partners. See my comments above, regarding that. You know full well the fallacy of the “I can’t find it on YouTube, so it never happened/does not exist” argument. It is utter nonsense.

What I was originally commenting on was your initial comment came across as a bit patronizing, the adult in the room needing to step in and remind all of us kids that we can’t get away with poor training. I guess I just can’t understand why you felt the need to do that. The points that Simon and Skribs made were absolutely valid, and in no way needed the kind of correction you made. It just came across as rude, in my opinion. Which, if I am being honest, is uncharacteristic of you. So that is why I said something.

 

[Rich Parsons]

There are people who will never show a resisted version of their technique ever under any circumstances.

The difference is a demo of a technique someone has done. Vs a demo of a technique someone has demoed.

I know people try to pretend that is the same. But it isn't.

I have done and do joint locks and manipulations in stick sparring.
Why?
Because I practiced.
I broke it down to a single learned that.
Then I learned how it flowed in and out of the lock and where it is too late to get out.
Then I played with it .

Insert a bunch more techniques.

I used wrist locks and come-a-long locks and holds on real resisting people.
Where they could feel pain it worked.
Where they didn't feel pain it was a race to see if I could release of move to a different position before they broke themselves.

My point is that I have used the poking finger at me and locked them to the ground in real life.
I have done wrist locks and taken people down and or they got hurt.

Good Technique should not be unique to just one system / style.

Yet, I have seen as posted before those that will rip on the speed of a technique, but because it is not a BJJ Gi or no belt then is automatically sucks. ( Not you nor those who usually post here ) .

I understand your point that it still has to work.
I also get some local LEOs/ Corrections officers who stop in and get refreshers or tighten of their approved techniques.
I am ok with this. They go home after their shift.
They usually show up after an incident where someone broke free or countered there approved technique and want to understand how to better use what they have.

So be they BJJ, MMA, TMA if they claim it doesn't work because it comes outside of them, I walk away and ignore everything they have to say. To me it is the beginning of a cult mindset. I do not want to be involved with that at all. I do not want to be involved with that affecting my views over time slowly so I start to believe bad / wrong stuff works.

I do not think anyone is saying those systems / arts / styles don't work.
I think we (I) are(am) trying to say that it seems hypocritic, and like a cult.

If they keep it to themselves most of time and I can listen or watch or participate and learn I will. If it is what they are all about, I move on.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

What I was originally commenting on was your initial comment came across as a bit patronizing, the adult in the room needing to step in and remind all of us kids that we can’t get away with poor training. I guess I just can’t understand why you felt the need to do that. The points that Simon and Skribs made were absolutely valid, and in no way needed the kind of correction you made. It just came across as rude, in my opinion.

Well, if I came across as patronizing or telling people how they need to train, then I clearly failed to communicate clearly what I was trying to say.

As I said above, I completely agree with Simon's post and nothing I wrote was intended to argue with it at all.

I was reacting to Skrib's claim that the BJJ folks he was reading online were hypocritical for criticizing compliant demos or that they were criticizing techniques only because they don't come from BJJ. I'm sure you can find some of that out there. (Just like you can find any sort of stupidity online.) But I've spent some time over at Reddit myself and from what I've seen the majority of time I've seen people piling on a "compliant" demo it's not because it was a compliant demo. It's because the collective experience of the commenters tells them that the techniques won't work as shown, there's no evidence that they will work, and/or because they have experience of the art in question and know that it usually isn't trained with a non-compliant component. (BTW - this usually would be in the general r/martialarts subreddit. The r/bjj subreddit is generally too busy talking about BJJ to spend time trashing questionable videos from other arts.)

Honestly, I’ve got to say, so what? Many systems tend to not enter competition where their methods might be captured on video. If they ever get used in a real fight, it is highly unlikely to be captured on video. So instead, what you get to see are demonstrations. With compliant partners. See my comments above, regarding that. You know full well the fallacy of the “I can’t find it on YouTube, so it never happened/does not exist” argument. It is utter nonsense.

Well, it's hard to prove the non-existence of something. There certainly could be arts which include non-compliant training but only ever post videos of compliant demos for instructional purposes. (This is more likely for arts which have a smaller number of practitioners and thus have less online video presence in general.) But there are arts which are widely practiced and their training methodology is known. I spent more than a decade in the Bujinkan and have talked to plenty of people who continued in that system after I left. They do not include any sort of non-compliant training and that fact has an effect on what comes out of the art. They have a foundation of valid principles (including some ideas which still inform my training), some techniques which could be valid under the right circumstances ... and I've also seen the headmaster of the art teaching techniques which would pretty much require the opponent to have a stroke in the middle of the fight in order to work.

BTW - it's sometimes (not always) possible to tell when someone doesn't do non-compliant training based on the quality of their compliant demos. I've seen people demonstrating valid moves, but they are missing crucial elements which are required for the techniques to work. I'm not talking about deliberately simplified demos where, for example, the necessary setups are omitted for the sake of practicing the body mechanics. I'm talking about the fundamental body mechanics being entirely absent.

None of this is to say that I advocate bringing up questionable videos for the purpose of mocking and criticizing. I don't think that's really helpful unless someone is sincerely asking for an analysis of something they're curious about in a particular video. But I'm trying to clarify the perspective of some of the people who do.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, if I came across as patronizing or telling people how they need to train, then I clearly failed to communicate clearly what I was trying to say.

As I said above, I completely agree with Simon's post and nothing I wrote was intended to argue with it at all.

I was reacting to Skrib's claim that the BJJ folks he was reading online were hypocritical for criticizing compliant demos or that they were criticizing techniques only because they don't come from BJJ. I'm sure you can find some of that out there. (Just like you can find any sort of stupidity online.) But I've spent some time over at Reddit myself and from what I've seen the majority of time I've seen people piling on a "compliant" demo it's not because it was a compliant demo. It's because the collective experience of the commenters tells them that the techniques won't work as shown, there's no evidence that they will work, and/or because they have experience of the art in question and know that it usually isn't trained with a non-compliant component. (BTW - this usually would be in the general r/martialarts subreddit. The r/bjj subreddit is generally too busy talking about BJJ to spend time trashing questionable videos from other arts.)


Well, it's hard to prove the non-existence of something. There certainly could be arts which include non-compliant training but only ever post videos of compliant demos for instructional purposes. (This is more likely for arts which have a smaller number of practitioners and thus have less online video presence in general.) But there are arts which are widely practiced and their training methodology is known. I spent more than a decade in the Bujinkan and have talked to plenty of people who continued in that system after I left. They do not include any sort of non-compliant training and that fact has an effect on what comes out of the art. They have a foundation of valid principles (including some ideas which still inform my training), some techniques which could be valid under the right circumstances ... and I've also seen the headmaster of the art teaching techniques which would pretty much require the opponent to have a stroke in the middle of the fight in order to work.

BTW - it's sometimes (not always) possible to tell when someone doesn't do non-compliant training based on the quality of their compliant demos. I've seen people demonstrating valid moves, but they are missing crucial elements which are required for the techniques to work. I'm not talking about deliberately simplified demos where, for example, the necessary setups are omitted for the sake of practicing the body mechanics. I'm talking about the fundamental body mechanics being entirely absent.

None of this is to say that I advocate bringing up questionable videos for the purpose of mocking and criticizing. I don't think that's really helpful unless someone is sincerely asking for an analysis of something they're curious about in a particular video. But I'm trying to clarify the perspective of some of the people who do.

I did not misunderstand your message the first time.

That being said, there is common ground to be found. I reiterate, I am in agreement with Skribs’ comments on the hypocrisy. My experience online tells me it does exist. I am in no way trying to say that it exists across the board. But it does exist, and noting it as Skribs did, is a fair point, and nothing he said were in need of the comment you made. We have all heard those comments on these forum ad nauseum. Everybody gets it.

I will also go back and reiterate a point that I made: there really is no such thing as non-compliant training. Because that is a real fight. Compliance exists on a continuum and can vary from school to school, but everybody who walks into a school to train is a compliant training partner.

If you respect the tap, as was discussed in another thread, you are a compliant partner.

If you don’t respect the tap, and instead you choke your partner out and then stomp on his head for good measure, or you dislocate or break the joint and then stomp on his head for good measure, then you have non-compliant training. I doubt this happens on a regular basis in any school that lasts and doesn’t get sued or shut down for criminal assault charges.

So seriously, I think there is some fantasy that goes on in both camps.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I will also go back and reiterate a point that I made: there really is no such thing as non-compliant training. Because that is a real fight. Compliance exists on a continuum and can vary from school to school, but everybody who walks into a school to train is a compliant training partner.

If you respect the tap, as was discussed in another thread, you are a compliant partner.

If you don’t respect the tap, and instead you choke your partner out and then stomp on his head for good measure, or you dislocate or break the joint and then stomp on his head for good measure, then you have non-compliant training. I doubt this happens on a regular basis in any school that lasts and doesn’t get sued or shut down for criminal assault charges.

Ah ... I see where we are talking at cross-purposes. You are using a very different definition of "non-compliant" training than I am. Also different from what most people in my circles would use.

You are using "non-compliant training" to mean a no rules, life or death fight. Under that definition, then I totally agree. It doesn't really exist, because under that definition it isn't training. Personally, I don't think that's a particularly useful definition for a couple of reasons: first because I don't think many people use it that way and secondly because it's an oxymoron. If you're going to define "non-compliant" that way, then you shouldn't call it training. But we can discuss semantics and try to find a different term if that's the definition you're going to put on it.

What I (and most people in my circles) mean by "non-compliant training" is some sort of training exercise where you have a goal you are trying to achieve and you have a training partner or partners who have contradictory goals. Within whatever parameters or rules are set for that particular exercise, you are trying to accomplish your objective and your partner(s) are trying their best to prevent you from doing so while also achieving their own goals.

Some random examples:

• Two partners spend a set period of time trying to punch each other and not get punched in return. There can be different rules set determining the level of contact, what protective gear is or isn't used, what targets are allowed, what additional techniques are allowed or not allowed. As long as both partners are trying their best to hit the other person without being hit themselves, it's non-compliant.
• Run away! One person has to get across the training hall to an exit. Three other people are trying to catch them and tackle them to the ground without letting them get to that exit. You can set different rules (grappling only/strikes allowed/stop when you're grabbed/stop when you're tackled to the ground with three people on top of you/etc). But as long as one person is trying to get away and the other people are trying to stop them, then it's non-compliant.
• Escaping mount: Partners start on the ground, one mounted on the other. The bottom person has to try escaping, while the top person tries to keep them down. You can specify various rules (strikes allowed or not/submissions allowed or not/bottom person has to get on top/bottom person has to recover guard/bottom person has to stand up/one partner starts with a training knife in their belt/etc). As long as the bottom person is trying their best to escape and the top person is trying their best to prevent that, it's non-compliant.

Obviously, not all non-compliant training is created equal. You can come up with non-compliant training which is so far removed from real-world application that it doesn't tell you much about what might work in a real fight or self-defense scenario. Even then, it's not necessarily useless. Sometimes those exercises can just be fun games that help to develop certain attributes which then turn out to be useful once you return to a more realistic scenario. You can't ever get 100% realism in training, because that's a real fight. But you can definitely get close enough to discover a lot about what works and what doesn't in certain situations.

Anyway, that's what I (and most people in the BJJ/Wrestling/Judo/Sumo/Muay Thai/Boxing/etc communities) mean by "non-compliant" training. If you don't like the term for whatever reason, then maybe I can call it something different when we're talking to each other. "Resisted", maybe?

 

[drop bear]

I have done and do joint locks and manipulations in stick sparring.
Why?
Because I practiced.
I broke it down to a single learned that.
Then I learned how it flowed in and out of the lock and where it is too late to get out.
Then I played with it .

Insert a bunch more techniques.

I used wrist locks and come-a-long locks and holds on real resisting people.
Where they could feel pain it worked.
Where they didn't feel pain it was a race to see if I could release of move to a different position before they broke themselves.

My point is that I have used the poking finger at me and locked them to the ground in real life.
I have done wrist locks and taken people down and or they got hurt.

Good Technique should not be unique to just one system / style.

Yet, I have seen as posted before those that will rip on the speed of a technique, but because it is not a BJJ Gi or no belt then is automatically sucks. ( Not you nor those who usually post here ) .

I understand your point that it still has to work.
I also get some local LEOs/ Corrections officers who stop in and get refreshers or tighten of their approved techniques.
I am ok with this. They go home after their shift.
They usually show up after an incident where someone broke free or countered there approved technique and want to understand how to better use what they have.

So be they BJJ, MMA, TMA if they claim it doesn't work because it comes outside of them, I walk away and ignore everything they have to say. To me it is the beginning of a cult mindset. I do not want to be involved with that at all. I do not want to be involved with that affecting my views over time slowly so I start to believe bad / wrong stuff works.

I do not think anyone is saying those systems / arts / styles don't work.
I think we (I) are(am) trying to say that it seems hypocritic, and like a cult.

If they keep it to themselves most of time and I can listen or watch or participate and learn I will. If it is what they are all about, I move on.

Bjj has wrist locks though. Bjj is about the only place you can see a wrist lock done live. Which is kind of the argument they are subverting.

I do wrist locks. I do them in rolling all the time.


I think they are creating a strawman. If people are suggesting krav (I think was one? )Does a lot of demo techniques that you never see live. You never see bursting done live in Krav. Not just by posters but by anyone.

They honestly don't even see the need to present these techniques in any other way than demoes.

 

[drop bear]

Ah ... I see where we are talking at cross-purposes. You are using a very different definition of "non-compliant" training than I am. Also different from what most people in my circles would use.

You are using "non-compliant training" to mean a no rules, life or death fight. Under that definition, then I totally agree. It doesn't really exist, because under that definition it isn't training. Personally, I don't think that's a particularly useful definition for a couple of reasons: first because I don't think many people use it that way and secondly because it's an oxymoron. If you're going to define "non-compliant" that way, then you shouldn't call it training. But we can discuss semantics and try to find a different term if that's the definition you're going to put on it.

What I (and most people in my circles) mean by "non-compliant training" is some sort of training exercise where you have a goal you are trying to achieve and you have a training partner or partners who have contradictory goals. Within whatever parameters or rules are set for that particular exercise, you are trying to accomplish your objective and your partner(s) are trying their best to prevent you from doing so while also achieving their own goals.

Some random examples:

• Two partners spend a set period of time trying to punch each other and not get punched in return. There can be different rules set determining the level of contact, what protective gear is or isn't used, what targets are allowed, what additional techniques are allowed or not allowed. As long as both partners are trying their best to hit the other person without being hit themselves, it's non-compliant.
• Run away! One person has to get across the training hall to an exit. Three other people are trying to catch them and tackle them to the ground without letting them get to that exit. You can set different rules (grappling only/strikes allowed/stop when you're grabbed/stop when you're tackled to the ground with three people on top of you/etc). But as long as one person is trying to get away and the other people are trying to stop them, then it's non-compliant.
• Escaping mount: Partners start on the ground, one mounted on the other. The bottom person has to try escaping, while the top person tries to keep them down. You can specify various rules (strikes allowed or not/submissions allowed or not/bottom person has to get on top/bottom person has to recover guard/bottom person has to stand up/one partner starts with a training knife in their belt/etc). As long as the bottom person is trying their best to escape and the top person is trying their best to prevent that, it's non-compliant.

Obviously, not all non-compliant training is created equal. You can come up with non-compliant training which is so far removed from real-world application that it doesn't tell you much about what might work in a real fight or self-defense scenario. Even then, it's not necessarily useless. Sometimes those exercises can just be fun games that help to develop certain attributes which then turn out to be useful once you return to a more realistic scenario. You can't ever get 100% realism in training, because that's a real fight. But you can definitely get close enough to discover a lot about what works and what doesn't in certain situations.

Anyway, that's what I (and most people in the BJJ/Wrestling/Judo/Sumo/Muay Thai/Boxing/etc communities) mean by "non-compliant" training. If you don't like the term for whatever reason, then maybe I can call it something different when we're talking to each other. "Resisted", maybe?

But it isn’t even at cross purposes. I have held people down in life or death confrontations.

All the intent in the world doesn't help you if you can't get that fat guy out of kesa.

 

[drop bear]

None of this is to say that I advocate bringing up questionable videos for the purpose of mocking and criticizing. I don't think that's really helpful unless someone is sincerely asking for an analysis of something they're curious about in a particular video. But I'm trying to clarify the perspective of some of the people who do.

Here is the issue. I could present a demo and everyone could wax lyrical about whether it works or not until the cows come home.

You could mock. But you might be wrong. I could be wrong. And so we have this pointless discussion based on whatever fantasy we are comfortable with that goes nowhere.

See it done live and leave no doubt.

I can find some compliant demoes for people to mock.

Backflip escape from a single leg.

Cartwheel kick.