Martial Sport VS Self Defense

[Gerry Seymour]

That is a local place. I just have never been game to try it.

It is probably self defence based on pole fitness. Maybe with some Zumba thrown in.

But yeah. Strange mix

Man, why are you still training at an MMA gym?

 

[Steve]

I just realized I answered a different question than I think you intended. I blame it on sleep deprivation.

When I said sparring can be nearly identical to competition - no functional difference - I was speaking of it in general. My sparring (rolling, randori, whatever) isn't like Judo competition or BJJ competition. I can adjust the rules to accommodate my injuries when necessary - something I cannot do with competition.

Sorry for the delayed response. This thread has moved pretty quick, and you were getting a little sensitive. Somewhere back earlier, you asked a question about the difference between sparring and competition. I've been thinking about how to explain this in a different way, and I think it might help to go back and consider why the distinction matters in the first place. Why does it matter what training is for, and how it is applied?

I think the answer is because how it is applied answers the important question, what can YOU do with YOUR training? In other words, what are you good at? What are you bad at? No speculation. No guessing. You can or you cannot. If you use BJJ in class, you know you can execute the techniques on your friends and fellow students. If you compete in a BJJ competition and win, you have a measure of how you can do against people who are at your approximate skill level. If you compete in an MMA event and win, you have a measure of how well you can apply your skills in that context. If you don't compete, you really don't know. There are guys who do well in class, but suck in competition. There are guys who suck in class, but excel in competition. And there are guys who work hard, and perform like machines, executing their training to a tee. Which one are you? If you don't compete, you don't know.

If self defense is the goal, more application is better, not less. As I said many, many posts ago, the more (and more diverse) your experience, the better. If you're a guy who spars, you're going to be better off than someone who just watches videos. But application of some kind will be better yet. A BJJ competitor will be a competent grappler. A BJJ and Judo competitor will be more well rounded, and a guy who competes in any kind of grappling ruleset he finds will be more well rounded yet. The grappler who also competes in MMA is going to be very well rounded. Now, notice I didn't say the guy who TRAINS BJJ or Judo or Wrestling or MMA. Because training and competition are different. One is learning technique and the other is applying technique. Similarly, a guy who trains MMA, competes in various rulesets, and also works as a cop or body guard, will likely be more well rounded than the guy who isn't a cop or body guard.

The point is, if you train aikido and apply it in competition, you're going to have much more reliable skills than if you don't compete. If you train in aikido and use them on the job, whether that's as a bouncer, cop or whatever, you're going to be in much better shape than the expert aikido student. It's really very simple. If you apply your training, you will develop real skill. Guys who train WC and apply it do better than guys who don't apply it. Simply put, guys who fight are getting better at fighting. Guys who spar are getting better at sparring. Guys who compete are getting better at competing.

You're arguing that sparring in class is the same as competition. You say sparring is like piloting a plane. I disagree, unless being really good at sparring is your goal. See, this is where you lose your way. You think you're training for self defense, and by doing so, you are establishing the application for your training. Self defense. That's not something I'm imposing on you.

But you aren't training for self defense. You're training to be good at what you are actually doing.

Sparring is a component of training, and I don't think it's overly controversial to suggest that it is not equivalent to self defense, competition or the execution of a profession. In the same way a guy who competes is training to become a skilled competitor, you are training to become a skilled sparring partner. People spar in order to prepare for their goal. Sparring isn't generally the end game. But if that's the end of your road, then that's your application. So, going back to what I said earlier, more is better. A guy who spars might be a great sparring partner. A guy who spars and competes is a good training partner, and also aware of his skill level against opponents.

And so, sparring only... can you use those techniques in self defense? Maybe... but I am not overly optimistic, if you cannot compete in any ruleset, and do not apply the skills in some other manner. At the very least, you aren't as well prepared as possible.

 

[hoshin1600]

Sorry for the delayed response. This thread has moved pretty quick, and you were getting a little sensitive. Somewhere back earlier, you asked a question about the difference between sparring and competition. I've been thinking about how to explain this in a different way, and I think it might help to go back and consider why the distinction matters in the first place. Why does it matter what training is for, and how it is applied?

I think the answer is because how it is applied answers the important question, what can YOU do with YOUR training? In other words, what are you good at? What are you bad at? No speculation. No guessing. You can or you cannot. If you use BJJ in class, you know you can execute the techniques on your friends and fellow students. If you compete in a BJJ competition and win, you have a measure of how you can do against people who are at your approximate skill level. If you compete in an MMA event and win, you have a measure of how well you can apply your skills in that context. If you don't compete, you really don't know. There are guys who do well in class, but suck in competition. There are guys who suck in class, but excel in competition. And there are guys who work hard, and perform like machines, executing their training to a tee. Which one are you? If you don't compete, you don't know.

If self defense is the goal, more application is better, not less. As I said many, many posts ago, the more (and more diverse) your experience, the better. If you're a guy who spars, you're going to be better off than someone who just watches videos. But application of some kind will be better yet. A BJJ competitor will be a competent grappler. A BJJ and Judo competitor will be more well rounded, and a guy who competes in any kind of grappling ruleset he finds will be more well rounded yet. The grappler who also competes in MMA is going to be very well rounded. Now, notice I didn't say the guy who TRAINS BJJ or Judo or Wrestling or MMA. Because training and competition are different. One is learning technique and the other is applying technique. Similarly, a guy who trains MMA, competes in various rulesets, and also works as a cop or body guard, will likely be more well rounded than the guy who isn't a cop or body guard.

The point is, if you train aikido and apply it in competition, you're going to have much more reliable skills than if you don't compete. If you train in aikido and use them on the job, whether that's as a bouncer, cop or whatever, you're going to be in much better shape than the expert aikido student. It's really very simple. If you apply your training, you will develop real skill. Guys who train WC and apply it do better than guys who don't apply it. Simply put, guys who fight are getting better at fighting. Guys who spar are getting better at sparring. Guys who compete are getting better at competing.

You're arguing that sparring in class is the same as competition. You say sparring is like piloting a plane. I disagree, unless being really good at sparring is your goal. See, this is where you lose your way. You think you're training for self defense, and by doing so, you are establishing the application for your training. Self defense. That's not something I'm imposing on you.

But you aren't training for self defense. You're training to be good at what you are actually doing.

Sparring is a component of training, and I don't think it's overly controversial to suggest that it is not equivalent to self defense, competition or the execution of a profession. In the same way a guy who competes is training to become a skilled competitor, you are training to become a skilled sparring partner. People spar in order to prepare for their goal. Sparring isn't generally the end game. But if that's the end of your road, then that's your application. So, going back to what I said earlier, more is better. A guy who spars might be a great sparring partner. A guy who spars and competes is a good training partner, and also aware of his skill level against opponents.

And so, sparring only... can you use those techniques in self defense? Maybe... but I am not overly optimistic, if you cannot compete in any ruleset, and do not apply the skills in some other manner. At the very least, you aren't as well prepared as possible.

This is pretty thought out and we'll written.
I can't disagree with it but I do think the jump from dojo sparring to competition is smaller than the jump from competition to self defense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sorry for the delayed response. This thread has moved pretty quick, and you were getting a little sensitive. Somewhere back earlier, you asked a question about the difference between sparring and competition. I've been thinking about how to explain this in a different way, and I think it might help to go back and consider why the distinction matters in the first place. Why does it matter what training is for, and how it is applied?

I think the answer is because how it is applied answers the important question, what can YOU do with YOUR training? In other words, what are you good at? What are you bad at? No speculation. No guessing. You can or you cannot. If you use BJJ in class, you know you can execute the techniques on your friends and fellow students. If you compete in a BJJ competition and win, you have a measure of how you can do against people who are at your approximate skill level. If you compete in an MMA event and win, you have a measure of how well you can apply your skills in that context. If you don't compete, you really don't know. There are guys who do well in class, but suck in competition. There are guys who suck in class, but excel in competition. And there are guys who work hard, and perform like machines, executing their training to a tee. Which one are you? If you don't compete, you don't know.

If self defense is the goal, more application is better, not less. As I said many, many posts ago, the more (and more diverse) your experience, the better. If you're a guy who spars, you're going to be better off than someone who just watches videos. But application of some kind will be better yet. A BJJ competitor will be a competent grappler. A BJJ and Judo competitor will be more well rounded, and a guy who competes in any kind of grappling ruleset he finds will be more well rounded yet. The grappler who also competes in MMA is going to be very well rounded. Now, notice I didn't say the guy who TRAINS BJJ or Judo or Wrestling or MMA. Because training and competition are different. One is learning technique and the other is applying technique. Similarly, a guy who trains MMA, competes in various rulesets, and also works as a cop or body guard, will likely be more well rounded than the guy who isn't a cop or body guard.

The point is, if you train aikido and apply it in competition, you're going to have much more reliable skills than if you don't compete. If you train in aikido and use them on the job, whether that's as a bouncer, cop or whatever, you're going to be in much better shape than the expert aikido student. It's really very simple. If you apply your training, you will develop real skill. Guys who train WC and apply it do better than guys who don't apply it. Simply put, guys who fight are getting better at fighting. Guys who spar are getting better at sparring. Guys who compete are getting better at competing.

You're arguing that sparring in class is the same as competition. You say sparring is like piloting a plane. I disagree, unless being really good at sparring is your goal. See, this is where you lose your way. You think you're training for self defense, and by doing so, you are establishing the application for your training. Self defense. That's not something I'm imposing on you.

But you aren't training for self defense. You're training to be good at what you are actually doing.

Sparring is a component of training, and I don't think it's overly controversial to suggest that it is not equivalent to self defense, competition or the execution of a profession. In the same way a guy who competes is training to become a skilled competitor, you are training to become a skilled sparring partner. People spar in order to prepare for their goal. Sparring isn't generally the end game. But if that's the end of your road, then that's your application. So, going back to what I said earlier, more is better. A guy who spars might be a great sparring partner. A guy who spars and competes is a good training partner, and also aware of his skill level against opponents.

And so, sparring only... can you use those techniques in self defense? Maybe... but I am not overly optimistic, if you cannot compete in any ruleset, and do not apply the skills in some other manner. At the very least, you aren't as well prepared as possible.

We're going in circles, Steve. I don't feel like you're getting my point, so I'll just let it lie. You make some good points in this post and seem to think they are all counters to something I've said, which tells me I've not communicated to you what I hoped.

 

[Steve]

This is pretty thought out and we'll written.
I can't disagree with it but I do think the jump from dojo sparring to competition is smaller than the jump from competition to self defense.

Depends on the competition or variety of competitions.

 

[Steve]

We're going in circles, Steve. I don't feel like you're getting my point, so I'll just let it lie. You make some good points in this post and seem to think they are all counters to something I've said, which tells me I've not communicated to you what I hoped.

You believe you can fly. You believe you can touch the sky. You think about it every night and day. Spread your wings and fly away.

Seriously, though, you said sparring is application. You've said you train for self defense, or with self defense in mind. You've asserted that there is no real difference between sparring and competition. You've implied that your training better prepares someone for self defense than other models for training. You seem to have in mind that you are well prepared for a fight.

If that's not what you've hoped to communicate, then you're right.

 

[drop bear]

We're going in circles, Steve. I don't feel like you're getting my point, so I'll just let it lie. You make some good points in this post and seem to think they are all counters to something I've said, which tells me I've not communicated to you what I hoped.

The Geoff Thompson's concept of animal day was similar to Steve's argument. Personally I think a MMA fight would do the same result and be a bit better managed.

Otherwise one thing I have not mentioned here is pace. Flat knacker changes the basic mechanism of fighting.

And without familiarity with that pace the training starts to become unrealistic.

The issue is that pace makes training no longer fun. This idea you have said. That you don't want to hurt people or don't want to engage in that aggressive win or die style mechanic. Which is awful sometimes.

I think that is the part you don't get. I mean I did not want to sit in mount and punch a girl in the head while she is screaming and crying. She certainty did not want to do it.

But we had to do it to train that composure you saw.

And there had to be a bloody good reason to do it. And the vague concept of self defence is not reason enough.

 

[CB Jones]

LEO

Astrology sign

Leo traits

 

[Steve]

The Geoff Thompson's concept of animal day was similar to Steve's argument. Personally I think a MMA fight would do the same result and be a bit better managed.

Otherwise one thing I have not mentioned here is pace. Flat knacker changes the basic mechanism of fighting.

And without familiarity with that pace the training starts to become unrealistic.

The issue is that pace makes training no longer fun. This idea you have said. That you don't want to hurt people or don't want to engage in that aggressive win or die style mechanic. Which is awful sometimes.

I think that is the part you don't get. I mean I did not want to sit in mount and punch a girl in the head while she is screaming and crying. She certainty did not want to do it.

But we had to do it to train that composure you saw.

And there had to be a bloody good reason to do it. And the vague concept of self defence is not reason enough.

Can you sum up what animal day is, db?

 

[hoshin1600]

Can you sum up what animal day is, db?

It doesn't matter because Thompson is a self defense guy and DB already said that "self defense is a marketing tool designed to give the illusion of competence where non exists". So Thompson is obviously a snake oil sales man.

 

[Steve]

It doesn't matter because Thompson is a self defense guy and DB already said that "self defense is a marketing tool designed to give the illusion of competence where non exists". So Thompson is obviously a snake oil sales man.

So, then you aren’t going to tell me?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You believe you can fly. You believe you can touch the sky. You think about it every night and day. Spread your wings and fly away.

Seriously, though, you said sparring is application. You've said you train for self defense, or with self defense in mind. You've asserted that there is no real difference between sparring and competition. You've implied that your training better prepares someone for self defense than other models for training. You seem to have in mind that you are well prepared for a fight.

If that's not what you've hoped to communicate, then you're right.

Some of that is close to what I meant (but not quite). Some of it isn't even close.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The Geoff Thompson's concept of animal day was similar to Steve's argument. Personally I think a MMA fight would do the same result and be a bit better managed.

Otherwise one thing I have not mentioned here is pace. Flat knacker changes the basic mechanism of fighting.

And without familiarity with that pace the training starts to become unrealistic.

The issue is that pace makes training no longer fun. This idea you have said. That you don't want to hurt people or don't want to engage in that aggressive win or die style mechanic. Which is awful sometimes.

I think that is the part you don't get. I mean I did not want to sit in mount and punch a girl in the head while she is screaming and crying. She certainty did not want to do it.

But we had to do it to train that composure you saw.

And there had to be a bloody good reason to do it. And the vague concept of self defence is not reason enough.

It's about choices. I've done things in training that weren't what I preferred, but were necessary for what I wanted to accomplish. Sitting in mount and punching someone will never be one of those things for me. Flat knacker I've done a few times (probably not as many as I should for my purposes) and I agree an MMA fight probably fits that need, too.

"Win or die" is not a part of training. If it were, people would actually die far more often.

Your comments about self-defense are all based on your own bias, so I generally ignore them. You often use it as a dirty word, when for many of us it's a reasonable description of why we train. You purposely use it that way to provoke - it's part of your "I gotta win" discussion style. I get that. You should know it doesn't really work the way you think it does. Your bias against the term just makes it harder for me to find the comments of real value you usually bring.

 

[Steve]

Some of that is close to what I meant (but not quite). Some of it isn't even close.

Which parts?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Can you sum up what animal day is, db?

IIRC, "animal day" is a session where the gloves come off, figuratively speaking. People attack with more raw violence and defend more completely. It brings more chance of injury (hence DB's comment that an MMA match probably fills the role with better control).

 

[drop bear]

It doesn't matter because Thompson is a self defense guy and DB already said that "self defense is a marketing tool designed to give the illusion of competence where non exists". So Thompson is obviously a snake oil sales man.

He has a legitimate sports background.

 

[drop bear]

Can you sum up what animal day is, db?

He does a video on it. I will hunt that down

 

[drop bear]

It's about choices. I've done things in training that weren't what I preferred, but were necessary for what I wanted to accomplish. Sitting in mount and punching someone will never be one of those things for me. Flat knacker I've done a few times (probably not as many as I should for my purposes) and I agree an MMA fight probably fits that need, too.

"Win or die" is not a part of training. If it were, people would actually die far more often.

Your comments about self-defense are all based on your own bias, so I generally ignore them. You often use it as a dirty word, when for many of us it's a reasonable description of why we train. You purposely use it that way to provoke - it's part of your "I gotta win" discussion style. I get that. You should know it doesn't really work the way you think it does. Your bias against the term just makes it harder for me to find the comments of real value you usually bring.

You know that fat guy who is always on a diet and never looses weight?

And you just can't tell him, regardless how many times you say that he doesn't get it. Or he is being dishonest with himself. That loosing weight is 99% Just doing things you don't want to do.

And they will argue with you that they have a metabolism or a bad back or anything that prevents them from doing the basic requirements that are necessary. Or that they are achieving a lifestyle change so they can still eat crap and be lazy.

That is my bias towards self defence. Every time I hear you say you just won't train the things that suck. I think of that fat guy.

With martial arts I have had a big cold slap of reality thrown in my face and had to go from what I wanted to do to what I had to do. From what I wanted martial arts to be to what is. And it sucked. And it was unfair and people were mean.

Pretty sure if you ask Steve he also would have had this big cold slap of reality thrown in his face as well.

Pretty much everyone who has gone from self defence to a combat sport cops this. Pretty much everyone who has been on a diet that worked went through hell to get there.

If you are not willing to do the things required to be a better martial artist that is fine.

I don't do them myself.

But to try to rationalize that it is validated because you do self defence isn't honest.

To try to save face and suggest that self defence that makes these excuses is some sort of equal method to any system that doesn't get to. Isn't honest.

And so when people say I use self defence as a bad word. Maybe they shouldn't fill my expectations.

 

[drop bear]

Can you sum up what animal day is, db?

 

[Martial D]

Sparring vs competition is easy..I mean, what separates them. It's the same thing that separates sparring vs self defense.

The stakes.

In competition, something is on the line(even if it's only your pride)

In sparring, there is nothing.

In self defense, it's your life.