Martial Sport VS Self Defense

[hoshin1600]

I look at it as whether you train SD or competition fighting you are learning individual skills and techniques and how to combine and utilize them in a fight. How well you do this will be different for every individual depending on the individual.

i cant really disagree with what your saying but how well you do is also dependent on the methodology of the training.

 

[CB Jones]

i cant really disagree with what your saying but how well you do is also dependent on the methodology of the training.

Is it? Or is it dependent on the individual?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I look at it as whether you train SD or competition fighting you are learning individual skills and techniques and how to combine and utilize them in a fight. How well you do this will be different for every individual depending on the individual.

And I don't think the two are necessarily separate. Some folks train for SD, using competition as one of their sharpening tools.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Is it? Or is it dependent on the individual?

Both. Good training is better than bad training. A committed individual will gain more, faster than an uncommitted one. And some folks are just better predisposed to fighting (not meaning predisposed to fighting, but having a better natural disposition toward it).

 

[CB Jones]

Good training is better than bad training.

Agree

I just don't see the point in arguing Sport v SD.

Both will give you skills you can rely on to defend yourself. But regardless of which one you train or even training in both....neither guarantees success when sugar turns to shat.

In the end, it comes down to the individual

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agree

I just don't see the point in arguing Sport v SD.

Both will give you skills you can rely on to defend yourself. But regardless of which one you train or even training in both....neither guarantees success when sugar turns to shat.

In the end, it comes down to the individual

I tend to agree with you. I see differences in focus, rather than a huge chasm between them. For me, there's plenty of room to discuss what we can learn from a pure-competition focus and what we can learn from a pure-SD focus, and how to blend those two. I teach specifically with a SD focus, but I've actually trained people who were competing. I wasn't their "coach" - they were looking for something new to work with to try to improve their overall game. They all seemed to profit from someone who looked at the problems from a different angle, though they had to correct me on things I might recommend that would violate rules or otherwise cause problems in that context.

 

[drop bear]

What has that to do with the difference between a hip throw in resistive sparring in a dojo versus resistive sparring in a competition?

In sparring in the gym you are formulating a game plan. And in competition you are applying it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In sparring in the gym you are formulating a game plan. And in competition you are applying it.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If I'm sparring full-resistance, I'm not formulating a game plan - I'm defending myself and trying to hit the other guy. That's the same thing I'd be doing if I entered a competition using similar rules. Of course, there are kinds of sparring I do that are about developing a game plan, but it's entirely possible for someone to spar in class in exactly the same mode they'd use in competition - whether it's grappling, striking, or mixed.

The distinction I see is one you've pointed out before: at a competition, I'm more likely to face someone I don't know (good thing) and a wider range of skills (good thing).

 

[drop bear]

I like the scientific method myself.
I would say however that there are certain inherent flaws and limitations on competitive sparring if you are applying that as the "experiment" for self defense. In SD training we use scenario training rather than competitive sparring. The two have completely different formats and what constitutes a "win". In competitive sparring each participant MUST remain engaged with the other for the duration of the "experiment". Reality and SD does not hold this as a rule. Both parties can withdraw at anytime. AND withdrawal is the primary goal for the non assailant participant. I would set the "experiment" up so the the combatants fight in a similar way to competition but the non assailant participant has the primary goal to reach a "safety point" like a doorway. Or place a gun on the ground 20 ft away and the two must fight to get the gun and subdue the other with it.
The complexity level of SD training is higher than just sparring. It's a matter of taking sparring and applying it to format where a "win" has more dimensions to it.

You can set any parameters you want though.

 

[drop bear]

I don't think that's necessarily true. If I'm sparring full-resistance, I'm not formulating a game plan - I'm defending myself and trying to hit the other guy. That's the same thing I'd be doing if I entered a competition using similar rules. Of course, there are kinds of sparring I do that are about developing a game plan, but it's entirely possible for someone to spar in class in exactly the same mode they'd use in competition - whether it's grappling, striking, or mixed.

The distinction I see is one you've pointed out before: at a competition, I'm more likely to face someone I don't know (good thing) and a wider range of skills (good thing).

Do you spar full resistance?

 

[hoshin1600]

I just don't see the point in arguing Sport v SD.

i dont see the point either. i am confident in what i know works for me. others are confident in what they do but because we differ in opinions some people dont believe there can be an alternative truth and this causes arguments.

Both will give you skills you can rely on to defend yourself. But regardless of which one you train or even training in both....neither guarantees success when sugar turns to shat.

i do believe the individual is the most important factor, but to go back to my handgun training analogy. if we compare todays complex training to the old circle/ dot targets there is a big difference in results. EDIT: (look back at the way the FBI used to advise to stand and shoot before Weaver came along. it can make you giggle) silhouette is better than circle/ dot targets, 3D gel or rubber dummy is better than silhouette. target range practice is good but target practice with additional scenario training is better. the old karate masters did kata...kata..kata. if we compare that to the way modern MMA fighters train there is a big difference in results. how you train matters, that is all i am saying.


take a look at 10.00 min into the clip

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Do you spar full resistance?

Not often, but sometimes. More often than some folks compete, but likely less often than most competitors compete. Considerably less than I used to - I just don't tolerate the injuries well anymore.

 

[drop bear]

Not often, but sometimes. More often than some folks compete, but likely less often than most competitors compete. Considerably less than I used to - I just don't tolerate the injuries well anymore.

And these were guys you didn't know. And didn't care if you hurt them?

 

[drop bear]

i dont see the point either. i am confident in what i know works for me. others are confident in what they do but because we differ in opinions some people dont believe there can be an alternative truth and this causes arguments.

It is not a belief game.

 

[drop bear]

i do believe the individual is the most important factor, but to go back to my handgun training analogy. if we compare todays complex training to the old circle/ dot targets there is a big difference in results. EDIT: (look back at the way the FBI used to advise to stand and shoot before Weaver came along. it can make you giggle) silhouette is better than circle/ dot targets, 3D gel or rubber dummy is better than silhouette. target range practice is good but target practice with additional scenario training is better. the old karate masters did kata...kata..kata. if we compare that to the way modern MMA fighters train there is a big difference in results. how you train matters, that is all i am saying.

There is so much focus on training the wrong things that the individual gets blown out of proportion.

So for example. Really strong guys are going to have an individual advantage. And if you are not training strength in your martial art.

Of course the people who just happen to be strong tend to dominate.

And then it is "Oh it is not the art it is the guy"

 

[Steve]

okay, so that assumes a high stress level for the competition that isn’t in the dojo. That not entirely unfounded. While not everyone finds competition stressful, and some folks find observation stressful, regardless of the venue, there is a higher stress level for most folks. I just don’t see where is application and the other isn’t, which appears to be Steve’s assertion.

Yeah, I get that you don’t see it. If skill development is like normal and healthy digestion, training self defense is like pancreatitis. Normally, the training helps you accomplish skills in application, just as the pancreas releases enzymes that help you digest food. When working correctly, you are satisfied and prepared fo eat again.

Pancreatitis is an autolytic disorder, where the something goes wrong and the enzymes actually start digesting the pancreas and not the food. In a similar manner, training for more training, for more training, and measuring skill development in that vacuum is like that.

And it just seems wrong, which is why in martial arts, we see this debate recur over and over. Some are more comfortable with the cognitive dissonance than others. Generally, these are the people who actually have a venue for application (generally through competition or profession). Simply put, the people most comfortable with self defense training tend to be cops or competitors. Why do you think that is?

And the occasional training consultant.

 

[hoshin1600]

There is so much focus on training the wrong things that the individual gets blown out of proportion.

So for example. Really strong guys are going to have an individual advantage. And if you are not training strength in your martial art.

Of course the people who just happen to be strong tend to dominate.

And then it is "Oh it is not the art it is the guy"

I'm not really sure what your trying to point out here.
I already said the individual matters. There is no way I'm going to beat Bas Rutten in any venue at anything. But for me as an individual if all I ever did was kata I would not be as good as if I did a lot of other training that we know works. That's all I'm pointing out.

 

[Buka]

And I don't think the two are necessarily separate. Some folks train for SD, using competition as one of their sharpening tools.

I always did that, Gerry. Both as a sharpening tool and because it was fun. I competed into my fifties, sorry I ever stopped, actually. Time got in the way, then my wife kind of put the kibosh on it.

But I think I'm going to sharpen some more. I ain't quite done yet.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And these were guys you didn't know. And didn't care if you hurt them?

There’s no such person as someone I don’t care if I hurt, except an actual attacker. I’ve mentioned before that’s one of the reasons I never got into competition.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And it just seems wrong

This is the issue, Steve. It seems to be more about seeming.