Misconceptions about non-contact sparring.

[MJS]

Not about me. That is what I am trying to say. You don't listen to me because I am cool. I am not cool I am just a nobody like everybody else.

Maybe this is simpler. How can I see if something you tell me that works actually does? How do I test any technique any idea you come up with?

How do you test it?

Do you expect a persons first test of a technique or theory to be a life or death street fight.

So on topic.non contact sparring has all of these misconceptions. Now the logic may be sound or it may be flawed. We could go back and forth all day.

Under what method is the system OP is suggesting validated? How could OP or myself validate it?

It just seems like I am expected to take massive leaps of faith.

So one point missed for full contact is I can go to my coach and say you are full of bs let's jump in a cage and really shake this idea about. Without risking it on a random street punk.

If I am wrong I don't pay for it by getting killed or crippled. If he is wrong he does not pay the same.

And that way neither of us have to be anybody. My bouncing career does not apply his fight record does not apply. Just what works works.

There are times where you cannot or should not do this. But if you can I think you should.

The point we're all trying to make is...Ballen, who is a LEO, who has probably had more confrontations than the average person, due to his line of work, is saying that badguy did A, Ballen did Y, and it worked. You deny everything he says. So, if you're going to deny that, say it won't work, it'd be nice to film yourself and show what you think is the better option.

 

[MJS]

You can also edit or keep doing retakes until you get what you want to see

Exactly! Another reason why I hate to see YT as the last word on what works or not.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Maybe this is simpler. How can I see if something you tell me that works actually does? How do I test any technique any idea you come up with?

How do you test it?

I and others have tired to explain it to you. You learn it in class and practice it slowly at first with a semi compliant partner, try it out in sparring or with a partner giving some resistance and then it is there if you need it.

Do you expect a persons first test of a technique or theory to be a life or death street fight.

Do you expect the first test of a competition technique or theory to be in a competition?

So on topic.non contact sparring has all of these misconceptions. Now the logic may be sound or it may be flawed. We could go back and forth all day.

Under what method is the system OP is suggesting validated? How could OP or myself validate it?

It is validated by being taught by people who know what they are talking about, by instructors who have had 35+ years of experience and by anyone who has used the art successfully to defend themselves, you can't just look at it for 5 minutes and expect to know if anything is valid or not

It just seems like I am expected to take massive leaps of faith.

You don't need to take a huge leap of faith, just listen to people who know more than you about the subject being discussed.

So one point missed for full contact is I can go to my coach and say you are full of bs let's jump in a cage and really shake this idea about. Without risking it on a random street punk.

If I am wrong I don't pay for it by getting killed or crippled. If he is wrong he does not pay the same.

And that way neither of us have to be anybody. My bouncing career does not apply his fight record does not apply. Just what works works.

There are times where you cannot or should not do this. But if you can I think you should.

The main problem is that you do not listen to anyone, every time someone tries to give you any kind of proof yo do not believe them. People on this forum have a lot of experience in the arts they study and you will not believe a word they say. If a doctor tells you that you are mortally allergic to peanuts do you go and try to prove if it is true or not by eating a jar of peanut butter or do listen to what the doctor is telling you and stay away from peanuts? You ask for proof that a self defence art works for self defence by testing it in the cage when that is not a accurate test. You ask for proof but provide none of your own other than random YouTube videos.

Oh and one final point, you do not test a technique, theory or strategy in a self defence situation, you apply it.

 

[Steve]

To a certain extent yes. In a sporting environment the object of, an arm bar for example, is to make the opponent tap out and win you the bout, for self defence the object is either to force compliance, in which case sport and self defence are similar, or to break the arm so that your attacker can not use it to attack you with, then it is different from sport where breaking your opponents arm is generally frowned upon.

But the timing and execution of the technique under pressure in order to get to the point where you can break the joint are the same. The only difference between a tap and a blown joint is a half inch or so, in most cases. Anyone who doesn't think an armbar is a joint finisher should look at the second Tate/Rousey fight.

Good question. Often when full contact combat sport martial artists talk about the traditional self defence orientated martial arts they usually only mention groin strikes and eye gouges like they are the only differences, it is much more than that. Some examples; side kick to the side of the knee to break the leg, elbow strike the jaw where the object is usually to break the jaw not just go for a knockout, spear-finger thrust or knife hand strike to the throat, knife hand strike to the base of the skull or the back or side of the neck, upset punch to the kidney, downward elbow to the back of the head, double palm strike to the ears etc. Most of these you will not find in a sporting competition for very good reason but I can do all of these during non-contact sparring.

Strikes to the side of the knee are not illegal, nor are blows to the jaw. But the point remains that the skills development is the same. If nothing else, self defense is a skillset that incorporates many of the same skills used in combat sports. So, logically, if the sport athletes train to execute the skills successfully, it's because the training methods work.

 

[ballen0351]

, it's because the training methods work.

I haven't seen anyone say they don't work. We are just saying its not the ONLY way

 

[Steve]

Another thing that I think is being overlooked here is that the testing must at some point be done by you and me. As in, not someone else. I know this seems obvious, but, it's not. There is a difference between saying, "This technique is sound," and "I can execute this technique." Those are not equivalent statements.

One has to do with the integrity of the system, and the other has to do with the integrity of the training methods. Pointing to techniques and saying that so and so can do them, and my teacher does them and Bruce Lee does them and I can point to a handful (or dozens or hundreds) of people who have successfully transferred these skills from comprehension to application... doesn't mean that you can do them.

This is where, I think, the brains of a combat sport guy starts to go haywire, and where questions about testing come into play. I can GUARANTEE you that if you come into a BJJ school and train for 2 years (3 to 4 times every week), you WILL become proficient in the fundamentals. The techniques may or may not be the best for self defense. That's debatable. But the training methods are indisputable. If you (as in you, not someone), train for 2 years, you will become proficient. This is regardless of current fitness level, size, shape or athletic ability. Some will learn faster, some will get better, but everyone learns.

If you're in a style where you can only point to someone else as evidence that you can do something, you're on much less firm ground.

 

[ballen0351]

Another thing that I think is being overlooked here is that the testing must at some point be done by you and me. As in, not someone else. I know this seems obvious, but, it's not. There is a difference between saying, "This technique is sound," and "I can execute this technique." Those are not equivalent statements.

One has to do with the integrity of the system, and the other has to do with the integrity of the training methods. Pointing to techniques and saying that so and so can do them, and my teacher does them and Bruce Lee does them and I can point to a handful (or dozens or hundreds) of people who have successfully transferred these skills from comprehension to application... doesn't mean that you can do them.

This is where, I think, the brains of a combat sport guy starts to go haywire, and where questions about testing come into play. I can GUARANTEE you that if you come into a BJJ school and train for 2 years (3 to 4 times every week), you WILL become proficient in the fundamentals. The techniques may or may not be the best for self defense. That's debatable. But the training methods are indisputable. If you (as in you, not someone), train for 2 years, you will become proficient. This is regardless of current fitness level, size, shape or athletic ability. Some will learn faster, some will get better, but everyone learns.

If you're in a style where you can only point to someone else as evidence that you can do something, you're on much less firm ground.

Why do you think BJJ is the only style that can train people in 2 years? If its a sound style with proven training methods what difference does it make what style it is?

 

[Steve]

Oh and one final point, you do not test a technique, theory or strategy in a self defence situation, you apply it.

Here's the next question then. How many of your techniques have you applied? For most people, in a self defense context, the answer is zero.

 

[Steve]

Why do you think BJJ is the only style that can train people in 2 years?

I don't.

If its a sound style with proven training methods what difference does it make what style it is?

It doesn't.

Read again. Slowly. You'll figure it out if you care to.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Another thing that I think is being overlooked here is that the testing must at some point be done by you and me. As in, not someone else. I know this seems obvious, but, it's not. There is a difference between saying, "This technique is sound," and "I can execute this technique." Those are not equivalent statements.

One has to do with the integrity of the system, and the other has to do with the integrity of the training methods. Pointing to techniques and saying that so and so can do them, and my teacher does them and Bruce Lee does them and I can point to a handful (or dozens or hundreds) of people who have successfully transferred these skills from comprehension to application... doesn't mean that you can do them.

This is where, I think, the brains of a combat sport guy starts to go haywire, and where questions about testing come into play. I can GUARANTEE you that if you come into a BJJ school and train for 2 years (3 to 4 times every week), you WILL become proficient in the fundamentals. The techniques may or may not be the best for self defense. That's debatable. But the training methods are indisputable. If you (as in you, not someone), train for 2 years, you will become proficient. This is regardless of current fitness level, size, shape or athletic ability. Some will learn faster, some will get better, but everyone learns.

If you're in a style where you can only point to someone else as evidence that you can do something, you're on much less firm ground.

That's basically what I see in every class, everyone is different and has different abilities, just because someone else can do something doesn't meant that I can and vice versa. Being able to say the technique is sound is a good start.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Here's the next question then. How many of your techniques have you applied? For most people, in a self defense context, the answer is zero.

Low section block, reverse punch, front snap kick, uppercut from one knee kneeling position, front thrust kick from my back (up kick), low turning kick, knee strike. All about 20 years ago.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Resistance training and pressure testing is crucial to martial development. Combat sports and many martial systems utilize full contact, submission grappling, technique training, etc. I am a huge proponent of pressure testing your training via full contact sparring, submission grappling, Scenario Training, etc. In my background I did a lot of point sparring as a youngster even competing and being first in my division at a state level as an adult, competed regionally and also placed 5th in the First NBL Super Grands way back in the day. During that same time frame I also kickboxed (the mma of the day) and was an amature champion at one point. I have also used my training in work related situations that involved violence. I said all of the previous to give you an idea of my background. In the system that I teach Instinctive Response Training when we pressure test it is full contact. Whether with padded sticks (where I start everyone), rattan sticks and Filipino Body Armor, rattan sticks and fencing masks or full contact empty hand and submission grappling. (with hand strikes, elbows, knees kicks, etc.) We also pressure test via submission grappling only, Scenario Based Training (where full contact is also involved), etc. The above of course does not mean we do not spend most of our time technique training. Just that when we pressure test it is full contact even if we do not do it every training session. Which brings us back to non-contact training. Even though my background as a young man was extensive in non-contact sparring or point sparring I am not a fan of it. I have seen to many point sparring people who had issues transitioning to full contact. (does not mean that some cannot as some certainly can) The one really good thing from point sparring is the explosiveness that the athletes develop. However, this can be easily developed through various drills.

Now if you point spar I am not saying what you are doing is bad just that in my opinion it is not the best training methodology. However it is a training methodology that can work. Yet I think there are better alternatives in the long run. Nor am I saying that you can't point spar most of the time and go full contact some of the time. (this has worked for quite a few) Each individual will find what works for them and there are some systems that simply do not spar at all and I know several individuals who practice them who have successfully defended themselves in a violent situation. Bottom line there is more than one way to get good in the Martial Sciences. Several paths can lead a practitioner to their desired goal. That is the question what is your goal? If it is mma then you need to train mma to be successful in it. Also to understand that mma is a sport that can be used for self-defense but.... that is not it's goal and self-defense is a different beast than stepping into a cage. If it is for self-defense then that also needs to be your primary focus yet that does not mean you shouldn't have contact in your training and or pressure testing of some sort. Drop bear has found his path in MMA good for him. The rest of us have or are finding our way. Good for us. We can disagree on techniques, sparring, etc. but in the end we are all trying to get better and achieve a goal in the Martial Sciences!

 

[ballen0351]

I don't.It doesn't.

Read again. Slowly. You'll figure it out if you care to.

I read it thanks. When you make the claim that BJJ anyone can be taught in 2 years your implying that isn't true for other styles. Otherwise why single out BJJ. Goju can be taught regardless of size shape conditions as well so can many other styles.

 

[ballen0351]

Here's the next question then. How many of your techniques have you applied? For most people, in a self defense context, the answer is zero.

Not only that most people never will.

 

[K-man]

Another thing that I think is being overlooked here is that the testing must at some point be done by you and me. As in, not someone else. I know this seems obvious, but, it's not. There is a difference between saying, "This technique is sound," and "I can execute this technique." Those are not equivalent statements.

It really does depend on the technique you are describing. In Krav for example a lot of the drills involve elbows (point of elbow) to the ribs, face or side of head. These are generally followed by multiple forearm strikes to the back of the head and neck. I really don't need to test those. I know that if those shots get through they will be devastating. What I do need to test is my ability to get into position to execute the technique. That is why I asked Brian if his sparring was continuous. In my training once you are in position to deliver those strikes you stop. It is no different to you applying an armbar and having your partner tap. You don't need to break his arm to prove the technique. I don't need to cave in my partner's face to show an elbow to the face is effective.

One has to do with the integrity of the system, and the other has to do with the integrity of the training methods. Pointing to techniques and saying that so and so can do them, and my teacher does them and Bruce Lee does them and I can point to a handful (or dozens or hundreds) of people who have successfully transferred these skills from comprehension to application... doesn't mean that you can do them.

I think this applies to complex techniques. Most SD techniques are simple. Almost all involve gross motor skill. I'm pretty sure it was Bruce Lee who said something along the lines of; "The long fight scenes are for the movies. In reality a fight is over in seconds but the people watching don't want that". What you see Bruce Lee doing in films is not what Bruce Lee was teaching his students.

I do agree with you about the techniques that I can do seamlessly but students struggle with. Rather than say they are likely to fail under pressure, I would say they would almost certainly fail. Until they are drilled to become second nature you won't even think to use them. By that I mean in the stress situation you don't plan ahead what you are going to do. You react instinctively to the situation you find yourself in. That is different to grappling where you may have time to think.

This is where, I think, the brains of a combat sport guy starts to go haywire, and where questions about testing come into play. I can GUARANTEE you that if you come into a BJJ school and train for 2 years (3 to 4 times every week), you WILL become proficient in the fundamentals. The techniques may or may not be the best for self defense. That's debatable. But the training methods are indisputable. If you (as in you, not someone), train for 2 years, you will become proficient. This is regardless of current fitness level, size, shape or athletic ability. Some will learn faster, some will get better, but everyone learns.

If you train Krav with me for half that time I will give the same guarantee. My guarantee will also be that the techniques will be 100% suitable for self defence.

If you're in a style where you can only point to someone else as evidence that you can do something, you're on much less firm ground.

To a point I agree because until you are in that situation you don't know how you will react when someone might be really trying to kill or maim you. But that works for all systems because none test to that level, not even the military. That is when scenario training comes into its own.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

The point we're all trying to make is...Ballen, who is a LEO, who has probably had more confrontations than the average person, due to his line of work, is saying that badguy did A, Ballen did Y, and it worked. You deny everything he says. So, if you're going to deny that, say it won't work, it'd be nice to film yourself and show what you think is the better option.

No he has never said that.

 

[drop bear]

I understand and can relate. I personally, just don't like to rely on or use YT, and the proving ground, the Bible, the final word, etc, on what works/what doesn't work. People survive encounters all the time, none of which are filmed. I mean, I could film myself doing a defense against a punch. I could have 10 different people or all shapes and sizes, punch me. It may work all of the time, it may work some of the time, it may work none of the time. If it worked 5 out of 10 times, does that mean that the tech sucks? I could grab 10 other people and it might work all the time. The variables, IMO, are too wide.

Not as the final word. But as a matter of degrees. So I say defence against punch. Worth sort of meh. I show defence against punch slightly better. Show resisted. Better. Show comp better. show fight better. Look for consistency.

Gives an idea of what may work. Short cutting from say to proof with nothing in between does not make sense. And that seems to be what I get.

So I could show that punch defence in a full contact fight between reputable fighters. Show it consistently but for some reason if someone says street. It is not applicable. Doesn't show street. Just says it. Might show a compliant drill and say street. Or tell me that they are a super street kill merchant. And say street.

I get. "A friend of a friend put someone in a lock in the street and the guy tapped. At which point he let go and got totally killed" now this is a common urban myth that goes around in circles untill people believe it. I would ask for proof of something like that.

I get adrenalin in a real fight makes people do ABCD. Sports do not have that. It is only life or death fights that create that response. So you must train whatever or in a fight for our cannot function. Now none of us are adrenaline experts and the worst person to be able to oblectivly talk about mind altering effects of chemicals is the guy experiencing the mind altering effects. So I would ask for proof on that.

I get in a street fight the greatest danger is going to the ground because a crowd of people are waiting to kick the crap out of you. Do we really know how likely that is? I could say anecdotally. But that would be my best guess not an absolute.

I use the term high low percentage to cover the variables. I use what works for me in testing for consistency. I try to apply that and then form the logic as to why something works. This black white works does not work is not my idea of posting opinion.

You have to understand I can't even pop into these gyms and spar. Because they don't. They don't feel the need. So any test seems to have dissapeared.

 

[drop bear]

Resistance training and pressure testing is crucial to martial development. Combat sports and many martial systems utilize full contact, submission grappling, technique training, etc. I am a huge proponent of pressure testing your training via full contact sparring, submission grappling, Scenario Training, etc. In my background I did a lot of point sparring as a youngster even competing and being first in my division at a state level as an adult, competed regionally and also placed 5th in the First NBL Super Grands way back in the day. During that same time frame I also kickboxed (the mma of the day) and was an amature champion at one point. I have also used my training in work related situations that involved violence. I said all of the previous to give you an idea of my background. In the system that I teach Instinctive Response Training when we pressure test it is full contact. Whether with padded sticks (where I start everyone), rattan sticks and Filipino Body Armor, rattan sticks and fencing masks or full contact empty hand and submission grappling. (with hand strikes, elbows, knees kicks, etc.) We also pressure test via submission grappling only, Scenario Based Training (where full contact is also involved), etc. The above of course does not mean we do not spend most of our time technique training. Just that when we pressure test it is full contact even if we do not do it every training session. Which brings us back to non-contact training. Even though my background as a young man was extensive in non-contact sparring or point sparring I am not a fan of it. I have seen to many point sparring people who had issues transitioning to full contact. (does not mean that some cannot as some certainly can) The one really good thing from point sparring is the explosiveness that the athletes develop. However, this can be easily developed through various drills.

Now if you point spar I am not saying what you are doing is bad just that in my opinion it is not the best training methodology. However it is a training methodology that can work. Yet I think there are better alternatives in the long run. Nor am I saying that you can't point spar most of the time and go full contact some of the time. (this has worked for quite a few) Each individual will find what works for them and there are some systems that simply do not spar at all and I know several individuals who practice them who have successfully defended themselves in a violent situation. Bottom line there is more than one way to get good in the Martial Sciences. Several paths can lead a practitioner to their desired goal. That is the question what is your goal? If it is mma then you need to train mma to be successful in it. Also to understand that mma is a sport that can be used for self-defense but.... that is not it's goal and self-defense is a different beast than stepping into a cage. If it is for self-defense then that also needs to be your primary focus yet that does not mean you shouldn't have contact in your training and or pressure testing of some sort. Drop bear has found his path in MMA good for him. The rest of us have or are finding our way. Good for us. We can disagree on techniques, sparring, etc. but in the end we are all trying to get better and achieve a goal in the Martial Sciences!

I got routinely freaking smashed moving from semi and no contact to contact by guys I should have been technically better than. I got smashed moving from the slower pace of jap jits. Judo and a very small amount of bjj. To mma. By guys I was technically better than.

I struggled for a long time until I changed my more evolved techniques to counter bastard resistance.

 

[drop bear]

Another thing that I think is being overlooked here is that the testing must at some point be done by you and me. As in, not someone else. I know this seems obvious, but, it's not. There is a difference between saying, "This technique is sound," and "I can execute this technique." Those are not equivalent statements.

One has to do with the integrity of the system, and the other has to do with the integrity of the training methods. Pointing to techniques and saying that so and so can do them, and my teacher does them and Bruce Lee does them and I can point to a handful (or dozens or hundreds) of people who have successfully transferred these skills from comprehension to application... doesn't mean that you can do them.

This is where, I think, the brains of a combat sport guy starts to go haywire, and where questions about testing come into play. I can GUARANTEE you that if you come into a BJJ school and train for 2 years (3 to 4 times every week), you WILL become proficient in the fundamentals. The techniques may or may not be the best for self defense. That's debatable. But the training methods are indisputable. If you (as in you, not someone), train for 2 years, you will become proficient. This is regardless of current fitness level, size, shape or athletic ability. Some will learn faster, some will get better, but everyone learns.

If you're in a style where you can only point to someone else as evidence that you can do something, you're on much less firm ground.

You also have a quantifiable level of proficiency.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I got routinely freaking smashed moving from semi and no contact to contact by guys I should have been technically better than. I got smashed moving from the slower pace of jap jits. Judo and a very small amount of bjj. To mma. By guys I was technically better than.

I struggled for a long time until I changed my more evolved techniques to counter bastard resistance.

I know a number of people who like you were as you put it "smashed" as they transitioned as well. Some were never able to cope with it. I know a few others who moved flawlessly back and forth. They did not have a problem and they are probably the exception not the norm! Like you I believe in pressure testing and making sure that you can utilize your skill sets but I also acknowledge that it is not the only way to become effective in the Martial Sciences. Yet it is a piece of the puzzle that works for me!