Scenario training...

[drop bear]

No, it's not. A good training partner, whether a scenario role player or partner in drills or even a sparring partner, doesn't just do their own thing and to hell with the training plan. They work with their partner in the context of the training so that both become better.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

So I fall down when I am supposed to. Not when I am made to? How much of a gift am I supposed to give my partner in training?

It is really hard to accurately descalate a situation that is not escalating anyway.

How often would you go physical to just verbal in one of these drills. The same amount as say you would on the job?

 

[drop bear]

I look at it like this. If it is my job to drop someone within the scenario. For example I play the role of a mugger. I am not conversing with any intent to be talked down. I am positioning myself for an ambush.

The victim is playing into my game by trying to talk me down because he is giving me that opportunity. Instead of just wacking me or running off.

So the preamble is good tactics for me and bad for him.

 

[MJS]

Yeah but a real life vs training difference. In real life you can talk someone down as they may be undecided as to what they want to do.
And probably goes 90 percent comply and 10 percent fight.

Very hard to reflect that in training as your partner is decided one way or the other. And I have never done combat scenarios that work on a 90 percent comply.

No I always fight. He is just not good enough at talking me down.

I have to agree with Ballen and JKS. Furthermore, what you said here, contradicts the other. Is he really not that good at talking you down...or do you just want to give the guy a hard time, which means being a lousy role player?

 

[MJS]

Scenario training is for the elite, not the beginner. The beginner has no understanding of how to interpret the training for the scenario. Which is why in Krav Maga, when they start with scenario's it is a ineffective method. However, the Krav Maga self defense itself, is VERY effective.

Not true at all. Someone just starting out....no, I wouldn't throw them into the mix. I'd show them the basic strikes, blocks, etc, and then they could be gradually introduced to this training. But no, you don't have to train for 30yrs before you can do scenario training.

 

[Steve]

I look at it like this. If it is my job to drop someone within the scenario. For example I play the role of a mugger. I am not conversing with any intent to be talked down. I am positioning myself for an ambush.

The victim is playing into my game by trying to talk me down because he is giving me that opportunity. Instead of just wacking me or running off.

So the preamble is good tactics for me and bad for him.

You're outlining one possible scenario. There are others. If the scenario you've been given is X and you choose to do Y instead, you're being a crappy training partner. The goal isn't to "win" the scenario and thwart your training partner. It's to react in a realistic manner so that your training partner can practice specific skills.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Here is a very interesting scenario that I have run a few times. I typically run it after having a few scenarios where verbal de-escalation techniques work.

Five participants. Boyfriend and girlfriend. Three drunk men or harassing men in a bar with them and the ruffians and the bartender as the only people there. I counsel the boyfriend and girlfriend team to try and use good verbal de-escalation techniques and if they can get out of there to do so. If violence happens then be quick and get away as soon as possible. However, I usually put the ruffians between them and any door. One ruffian the ring leader so to speak is told he is to be verbally abusive to the woman but that is it. If anything happens he is to be verbal ie. cheering on, etc. The next ruffian is instructed that his role is to be a grouper and or try to get the woman to come with them. He has the option to be physical or not. His choice. The third ruffian, I always say do whatever you want. You can be physical, verbal, hang back, etc. This typically makes for interesting dynamics. Some times verbal de-escalation works, some times they have been slick enough to get out the door to a parking lot, some times the lady gets grouped and all hell ensures. Some times the boyfriend and girlfriend are taken to the woodshed so to speak. Some times the boyfriend or girlfriend jack one of the assailants and get out the door quick. Plus more. (see below)

One ace in the whole is the person playing the bartender has options as well. Call the police, be verbal, baseball bat (padded of course but when he hits someone in the head they are out) and a training firearm under the counter.

I have on occasion mixed training knifes into the situation, gun's, etc.

As you can see this Scenario can go a lot of way's from verbal, to escape and avoidance, to mild violence to extreme violence. Last time I ran it the boyfriend had a concealed training pistol and the Third ruffian had a knife and was told if he wanted to brandish it he could and of course he did and threatened to cut the girl if she did not come with them. Boyfriend surprised three ruffians with the handgun and shot the knife wielding attacker. Bartender also pulled his gun but did not shoot. Girlfriend called the police as instructed by boyfriend. First aid was given by one of the ruffians friends.

I had myself, another instructor and a third person watching and we critiqued. One of the first critique was why did you not have a clear exit point set up so that you could get out quickly. Why not sit by the chairs nearest to the exit with a clear view of the room. Even though I directed them to a certain set of chairs if they had asked for the chairs by the exit door they could have had them. (that was part of their training and their first mistake) Having a clear view of entrances and exits and a quick exit plan should be part of your training when going into any building!

Lots of potential variables. Just one fairly simple scenario but you can see how it is laid out.

 

[wingchun100]

Here is a very interesting scenario that I have run a few times. I typically run it after having a few scenarios where verbal de-escalation techniques work.

Five participants. Boyfriend and girlfriend. Three drunk men or harassing men in a bar with them and the ruffians and the bartender as the only people there. I counsel the boyfriend and girlfriend team to try and use good verbal de-escalation techniques and if they can get out of there to do so. If violence happens then be quick and get away as soon as possible. However, I usually put the ruffians between them and any door. One ruffian the ring leader so to speak is told he is to be verbally abusive to the woman but that is it. If anything happens he is to be verbal ie. cheering on, etc. The next ruffian is instructed that his role is to be a grouper and or try to get the woman to come with them. He has the option to be physical or not. His choice. The third ruffian, I always say do whatever you want. You can be physical, verbal, hang back, etc. This typically makes for interesting dynamics. Some times verbal de-escalation works, some times they have been slick enough to get out the door to a parking lot, some times the lady gets grouped and all hell ensures. Some times the boyfriend and girlfriend are taken to the woodshed so to speak. Some times the boyfriend or girlfriend jack one of the assailants and get out the door quick. Plus more. (see below)

One ace in the whole is the person playing the bartender has options as well. Call the police, be verbal, baseball bat (padded of course but when he hits someone in the head they are out) and a training firearm under the counter.

I have on occasion mixed training knifes into the situation, gun's, etc.

As you can see this Scenario can go a lot of way's from verbal, to escape and avoidance, to mild violence to extreme violence. Last time I ran it the boyfriend had a concealed training pistol and the Third ruffian had a knife and was told if he wanted to brandish it he could and of course he did and threatened to cut the girl if she did not come with them. Boyfriend surprised three ruffians with the handgun and shot the knife wielding attacker. Bartender also pulled his gun but did not shoot. Girlfriend called the police as instructed by boyfriend. First aid was given by one of the ruffians friends.

I had myself, another instructor and a third person watching and we critiqued. One of the first critique was why did you not have a clear exit point set up so that you could get out quickly. Why not sit by the chairs nearest to the exit with a clear view of the room. Even though I directed them to a certain set of chairs if they had asked for the chairs by the exit door they could have had them. (that was part of their training and their first mistake) Having a clear view of entrances and exits and a quick exit plan should be part of your training when going into any building!

Lots of potential variables. Just one fairly simple scenario but you can see how it is laid out.

I think the hardest part about the scenario training is if you are in the role of the aggressor. It'd be difficult for me to think like one of these chest-thumping alpha male show-offs. And you can never tell which ones are all talk, and which ones will act on their boasting. Speaking of "act," you almost have to BE an actor to be on that side of the scenario...and I am a crappy actor. LOL

 

[jks9199]

So I fall down when I am supposed to. Not when I am made to? How much of a gift am I supposed to give my partner in training?

It is really hard to accurately descalate a situation that is not escalating anyway.

How often would you go physical to just verbal in one of these drills. The same amount as say you would on the job?

I look at it like this. If it is my job to drop someone within the scenario. For example I play the role of a mugger. I am not conversing with any intent to be talked down. I am positioning myself for an ambush.

The victim is playing into my game by trying to talk me down because he is giving me that opportunity. Instead of just wacking me or running off.

So the preamble is good tactics for me and bad for him.

Maybe I need to break things down a bit.

I wrote "A good training partner, whether a scenario role player or partner in drills or even a sparring partner, doesn't just do their own thing and to hell with the training plan. They work with their partner in the context of the training so that both become better."

What's a "good training partner"? Good means beneficial or of use. Training is practice aimed at improvement. A partner is someone who works with another person in an endeavor or exercise. So a "good training partner" is someone who helps another to practice so that they improve.

A "scenario role player" is someone who fills a particular function with a scenario in order to create a reasonably realistic training event. A "partner in a drill" is someone who works with another person while performing a training exercise focused on developing a skill (this is a drill). A sparring partner is someone who works with another person in a sparring exercise; sparring is a form of practicing the learned techniques against the pressure of an opponent.

A "training plan" is a set of directions, steps, objectives, or an agenda for practice aimed at improving.

So... putting the first sentence together -- a "good training partner" is someone who helps a student improve by following the following the steps or agenda for the practice aimed at improvement.

The key thing in the second sentence is "context of the training." Context is the set of circumstances or facts surrounding a particular event. Training is, again, practice aimed at improving. So... putting the sentence together again, a good training partner is someone who assists another person within the circumstances, plan, or agenda of a practice event aimed at improvement.

Given that...

How the hell is it beneficial to your training partner if you just jump them unless the point of the exercise is an ambush? If you're going to do a pre-assault interview, you have to do it properly and in a realistic context. If the student responds and can deescalate (even if it's just handing over their wallet)... you flow with it. You don't just jump them. If you're practicing a technique, you vary the level of resistance as familiarity improves. You don't give full resistance to someone the first time they try something, you let them feel it and work it. As they get better at it, you start to counter it or show points where they are vulnerable.

 

[Steve]

I think the hardest part about the scenario training is if you are in the role of the aggressor. It'd be difficult for me to think like one of these chest-thumping alpha male show-offs. And you can never tell which ones are all talk, and which ones will act on their boasting. Speaking of "act," you almost have to BE an actor to be on that side of the scenario...and I am a crappy actor. LOL

I do a lot of management training. Scenario training and role playing is the part they like the best, particularly for soft skills like coaching/feedback and for addressing LR/ER issues. The scenarios are very effective at conveying the subtle differences between conduct issues and performance issues, and it really helps the managers to practice the skills in a safe environment, where I can give them feedback, before they use them with their own employees.

You're right, though. Role playing IS a skill and takes practice.

In BJJ, we do a lot of conditional sparring and such. It's a little different than "scenario" training, but it's much the same. We also do a lot of drills and exercises that are designed to reinforce good habits. If we're working a particular submission chain and you don't react in the way that would allow the chain to continue, you're undermining the drill. Or, even simpler, if we're doing a drill where you attack an arm with a particular submission depending upon your arm's position. If you NEVER put your arm on the mat (a bad idea, I know), I'll NEVER develop the awareness to attack that arm with a kimura. So much of BJJ is timing. The window of opportunity just gets smaller and smaller. So, developing these responses and making them intuitive is critical, and you never get there without good partners.

 

[drop bear]

Maybe I need to break things down a bit.

I wrote "A good training partner, whether a scenario role player or partner in drills or even a sparring partner, doesn't just do their own thing and to hell with the training plan. They work with their partner in the context of the training so that both become better."

What's a "good training partner"? Good means beneficial or of use. Training is practice aimed at improvement. A partner is someone who works with another person in an endeavor or exercise. So a "good training partner" is someone who helps another to practice so that they improve.

A "scenario role player" is someone who fills a particular function with a scenario in order to create a reasonably realistic training event. A "partner in a drill" is someone who works with another person while performing a training exercise focused on developing a skill (this is a drill). A sparring partner is someone who works with another person in a sparring exercise; sparring is a form of practicing the learned techniques against the pressure of an opponent.

A "training plan" is a set of directions, steps, objectives, or an agenda for practice aimed at improving.

So... putting the first sentence together -- a "good training partner" is someone who helps a student improve by following the following the steps or agenda for the practice aimed at improvement.

The key thing in the second sentence is "context of the training." Context is the set of circumstances or facts surrounding a particular event. Training is, again, practice aimed at improving. So... putting the sentence together again, a good training partner is someone who assists another person within the circumstances, plan, or agenda of a practice event aimed at improvement.

Given that...

How the hell is it beneficial to your training partner if you just jump them unless the point of the exercise is an ambush? If you're going to do a pre-assault interview, you have to do it properly and in a realistic context. If the student responds and can deescalate (even if it's just handing over their wallet)... you flow with it. You don't just jump them. If you're practicing a technique, you vary the level of resistance as familiarity improves. You don't give full resistance to someone the first time they try something, you let them feel it and work it. As they get better at it, you start to counter it or show points where they are vulnerable.

By the time you hit resisted scenarios you should in theory have your gear together to be able to handle your partner being a bit of a prick though.

I do accept there are different levels of resistance. But for me at the level of resisted drills. I am really trying to stop you. As Steve mentioned though you can still give a feed.

At a pre fight level we position give the feed. Resist. Stop reset or do some sort of drill progression and go again. They are generally set up though that there is a very real risk the defender will fail.

 

[jks9199]

By the time you hit resisted scenarios you should in theory have your gear together to be able to handle your partner being a bit of a prick though.

I do accept there are different levels of resistance. But for me at the level of resisted drills. I am really trying to stop you. As Steve mentioned though you can still give a feed.

At a pre fight level we position give the feed. Resist. Stop reset or do some sort of drill progression and go again. They are generally set up though that there is a very real risk the defender will fail.

But if you're "being a bit of a prick" and you're not working within the context of the scenario -- you're not helping him.

Look, this is one of the things a lot of instructors do wrong with scenarios. They start building scenarios to show how they can get the drop on the student and how they can win Well, duh... You're setting the rules, you're setting the scenario up... Yep, you can set it up to beat the student every single time. How is that going to help the student?

 

[Steve]

My bjj coach said one time that here's a counter to every move and a counter to every counter. Today, we are practicing this one.

When a white belt gets too curious about what if questions, he'll often say something like, "if that happens, I'd do something different." And leave it at that.

Point is, there's a happy medium between opening up the training at times to invite aliveness, but to keep it controlled enough at times to allow for skill development.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ballen0351]

By the time you hit resisted scenarios you should in theory have your gear together to be able to handle your partner being a bit of a prick though.

I do accept there are different levels of resistance. But for me at the level of resisted drills. I am really trying to stop you. As Steve mentioned though you can still give a feed.

At a pre fight level we position give the feed. Resist. Stop reset or do some sort of drill progression and go again. They are generally set up though that there is a very real risk the defender will fail.

Whats the point of that? There is no value in that type of training when the roll players always win. For example I went to a Drug investigator school once. One of the scenarios was to execute a warrant on a suspected drug house. We had a 4 person team and since I was SWAT trained and had been a Narcotics investigator for a while my team had 2 prosecutors that were taking the class and a new officer with little experience. We hit the house and there were 9 people in the house 6 had AK47s and were set up in an ambush. We were all dead before we got out of the living room. I went off on the instructors because the scenario was impossible to win. I could have sent SEAL Team 6 in and they would have lost. The instructors were "being pricks" because there were lawyers in the group. They got zero benefit from that. SO being a prick may sound fun to you but it benefits noone

 

[K-man]

When a white belt gets too curious about what if questions, he'll often say something like, "if that happens, I'd do something different." And leave it at that.

Point is, there's a happy medium between opening up the training at times to invite aliveness, but to keep it controlled enough at times to allow for skill development.

I have a guy with only a little experience who questions things all the time. "But what if I do this instead?" "OK mate, try it and see." That way he gets to find out for himself whether or not his technique works. I expect it will one day, if he keeps training long enough.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I have a guy with only a little experience who questions things all the time. "But what if I do this instead?" "OK mate, try it and see." That way he gets to find out for himself whether or not his technique works. I expect it will one day, if he keeps training long enough.

Sometimes with students like that, when they ask so many questions it slows down the teaching, I will say "there are many different ways to get out of any hold but unfortunately I can not teach you every thing at once so we will just concentrate on these for now".

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Sometimes with students like that, when they ask so many questions it slows down the teaching, ...

Sometime it may be better for students to ask questions than just to be quite. When students are quite, there are many possibilities:

- They are not interesting.
- They don't understand.

Sometime the whole class can be just Q&A for 2 hours. It's very challenge to teach this way.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

My bjj coach said one time that here's a counter to every move and a counter to every counter. Today, we are practicing this one.

It can be a good discussion which teaching method is better.

In one class,

1. Depth first approach - To teach 10 different counters that can be used to against the same technique (10-1), or
2. Breadth first approach - To teach 10 different counters that can be used to against 10 different techniques (1-1)?

One thing for sure is, it's always be better to teach the technique first and teach the counter afterward.

 

[K-man]

Sometimes with students like that, when they ask so many questions it slows down the teaching, I will say "there are many different ways to get out of any hold but unfortunately I can not teach you every thing at once so we will just concentrate on these for now".

The difference is that in your example the question is phrased in a way it has merit. Sadly, in my example it never has, at least not to date. I do live in hope.

My classes are always small and informal with black belts outnumbering kyu grades. With 2 1/2 hour classes there is always time for discussion. If I need to help one student I have plenty of skilled backup available.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

Whats the point of that? There is no value in that type of training when the roll players always win. For example I went to a Drug investigator school once. One of the scenarios was to execute a warrant on a suspected drug house. We had a 4 person team and since I was SWAT trained and had been a Narcotics investigator for a while my team had 2 prosecutors that were taking the class and a new officer with little experience. We hit the house and there were 9 people in the house 6 had AK47s and were set up in an ambush. We were all dead before we got out of the living room. I went off on the instructors because the scenario was impossible to win. I could have sent SEAL Team 6 in and they would have lost. The instructors were "being pricks" because there were lawyers in the group. They got zero benefit from that. SO being a prick may sound fun to you but it benefits noone

You are correct that situation was silly. Not at all what I am talking about though.

But being a prick also forces a reaction under pressure.

Real pressure exists when you can fail.

 

[drop bear]

But if you're "being a bit of a prick" and you're not working within the context of the scenario -- you're not helping him.

Look, this is one of the things a lot of instructors do wrong with scenarios. They start building scenarios to show how they can get the drop on the student and how they can win Well, duh... You're setting the rules, you're setting the scenario up... Yep, you can set it up to beat the student every single time. How is that going to help the student?

The best set up would be where the outcome is in doubt. So both sides are pushing each other.

There is no point doing a scenario that cannot be won and then the drivers of that have to cheat. You may as well just recognise that is a bad situation.

We do a drill where you have to escape from guard. Which a lot of people can't readily do.