So what's a better "test" for martial arts other than MMA?

[drop bear]

I think when drop is saying "manipulate the scenario" he means the "planner" manipulating it to get a desired result such as "see my way is best. If you would have done it the other way you would be dead."

Thing is I have never been in that kind of reality based training. Well that isn't actually true. Sometimes to prove a point I have been in scenarios that are all but Kobayashi Maru tests to wake you up and ram a point home so you can focus on the training ahead.

I think part of the problem is this. "Reality based Martial Arts" have become "a thing". The ones marketed to civilians do, imo, raise some concerns similar to what Drop is saying because, being new, and the fact people see them as an alternative to more "formal" training, I can see the people running these programs as allowing marketing to influence the curriculum.

That said, when I speak about reality based training I am talking about adding scenarios to an already existing curriculum. In short they already know X and you are simply putting them in scenarios to put them A) under pressure and B) to let people know what does and doesn't work in particular scenarios.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Oh man I did a knife defence course with textas and white t shirts. And I eviscerated the guy.(I taught hocks system for a year and a bit) He was more texta than shirt by the time I was finished.

It showed that no matter how good your knife defence was you are a shishkabab.

But then that did not fit the script the instructor was trying to show. As he was trying to sell a method that defends against knives.. And it was all excuse this and in the street that.

It was tragic.

 

[jks9199]

And just because there is no evidence of my lazer eyes being used doesn't mean i am not frying people to a crisp every day either.

I mean come on.

The objective is simple. you pick two win points. say one team has to rob a guy. one team has to prevent it. And then they go head to head and see what happens.

Testing is not defined by a script. that is movies.

Congratulations. That's a textbook example of crappy scenario training. Let's try to turn it to a better example...

So, your scenario is a robbery. Successful completion is defined as the defender isn't robbed.

Where is the robbery? Night, day? Street, home invasion... One robber or several? Armed, or unarmed? (See, work...) For convenience, let's simply use a straightforward street robbery, a single robber, armed with a knife, who will attempt to rob the student at some point as they walk down a path, time of day being whenever we're training. (This is pretty loose, by the way. Really, we'd probably define in the plan the timing and nature -- ambush, direct confrontation, etc-- of the robbery.) If the student avoids the robbery entirely, for example, somehow detects the robber lurking and changes their route, that's a win. If there's a confrontation, then the robber is going to back off and flee if the victim makes enough noise to attract enough attention to realistically get help. If it become physical... the rules of the fight are shaped by the safety equipment available. Thought point... is simply surrendering your wallet a win -- or will the robber then attempt to escalate to an abduction? H'mm, gotta think on that one, huh?

So, we get our plan together. Select a role player who can do the job, and stick to the plan, improvising enough but not too much. (Damn hard to find!) Appoint a safety monitor. You also have an evaluator/referee who stays pretty much on top of the scenario, calling red light when necessary for safety, and tracking what the student is doing. Maybe giving the role player cues, too.

Then we get everyone together. Safety checks -- make sure the area is controlled (don't want a cop wandering into the middle thinking it's real, for example. Which has happened...). Make sure nobody brings real weapons into the training area. Double check that, then check it again. Because that's one of the best ways to have a tragedy happen -- like someone getting shot in a supposedly safe scenario.) Finally... brief the roleplayers. Set them up. Brief the students. And, finally, we get to run the scenario.

Go out, see what happens. Get to the end. Stop everything, and talk it out. Why did you do A? What did the robber see? What if you did B? and... if the student got robbed... make a small change or two, maybe, and run it again. See if we get the positive result. In the end, we want the student to close with a success, not a failure.

You can, depending on what's going on, shortcut some of the steps in planning, or do some on the fly -- but the essence is there. What do I mean by shortcut? Well, on the fly, the recertifying Taser Instructor students assemble a series of scenarios for the first timers. We hit the key points -- each stage has a point (shoot/don't shoot, use this tactic or that tactic, etc.) Then we run the first timers through... and cover the lessons learned each way. In the end, everyone debriefs what was good, bad, could be better...

 

[drop bear]

So, your scenario is a robbery. Successful completion is defined as the defender isn't robbed.

Why. The robber has all the advantages. Most times you should get robbed.

 

[jks9199]

So you are creating a script?

You want people to participate in a story of your design that appears to be a test.

You can manipulate any outcome you want. A scenario shouldnt be about that. because stories are not reality.

I understand honest training. And you are not giving a description of that.

You don't get it. Yes, there's a script. It's a TRAINING activity. There's a goal and purpose to it. We want the student to learn something, not simply get thumped around (or thump a role player). I said that's one of the flaws in scenario training -- it's a laboratory setting. If the student does A, the role player does B... Depending on the specifics of the exercise, there may be a lot of room for improvisation -- or very little. When recruits are doing a scenario intended to demonstrate their ability to gather the information for a larceny, the last thing the evaluators and academy staff want is a role player deciding to throw a monkey wrench like an emotionally disturbed victim at them... and it's happened. Good way for a role player not to be invited back. If the scenario is for experienced officers to respond to an active shooter, there may be a lot less structure and scripting.

When you spar or roll -- do you just bang, or do you work on some specific goals? Sometimes you work on defending from the bottom, or landing a right hook, right? Sparring could really be described as just one form of scenario training, for a boxing/kickboxing/whatever match.

 

[jks9199]

Why. The robber has all the advantages. Most times you should get robbed.

Well, I kind of presumed that we wanted to focus on the legal side of the equation -- but it can be quite educational sometimes to look at it from the crook's point of view.

But... just like you can't do good science with too many variables, you can't run a good scenario with both sides freely at play. That's a whole different type of force on force training.

 

[drop bear]

Well, I kind of presumed that we wanted to focus on the legal side of the equation -- but it can be quite educational sometimes to look at it from the crook's point of view.

But... just like you can't do good science with too many variables, you can't run a good scenario with both sides freely at play. That's a whole different type of force on force training.

Yeah its a different mentality. The sports approach.

 

[drop bear]

You don't get it. Yes, there's a script. It's a TRAINING activity. There's a goal and purpose to it. We want the student to learn something, not simply get thumped around (or thump a role player). I said that's one of the flaws in scenario training -- it's a laboratory setting. If the student does A, the role player does B... Depending on the specifics of the exercise, there may be a lot of room for improvisation -- or very little. When recruits are doing a scenario intended to demonstrate their ability to gather the information for a larceny, the last thing the evaluators and academy staff want is a role player deciding to throw a monkey wrench like an emotionally disturbed victim at them... and it's happened. Good way for a role player not to be invited back. If the scenario is for experienced officers to respond to an active shooter, there may be a lot less structure and scripting.

When you spar or roll -- do you just bang, or do you work on some specific goals? Sometimes you work on defending from the bottom, or landing a right hook, right? Sparring could really be described as just one form of scenario training, for a boxing/kickboxing/whatever match.

Sparring is a form of scenario training. It is not manufactured to produce an outcome. So you do a scenario like escape from mount. You may not escape.

 

[jks9199]

Sparring is a form of scenario training. It is not manufactured to produce an outcome. So you do a scenario like escape from mount. You may not escape.

It is "manufactured to produce an outcome." If you're working on escaping the mount, you start with a mount, and the outcome is a successful escape. You don't get out, you keep working.

You described attending a knife defense class where the instructor couldn't make the techniques work so he changed the rules. That's not scenario training, that's just bad training. A corresponding type of bad scenario training is when the role players or trainers make it no-win... even if the students do everything they're supposed to, the so-called instructors throw in a sniper out of sight over the hill, role players in class 4 body armor, or other craziness where the students just can't win. Y'know, the Kobayashi Maru stuff... Or a black belt in BJJ rolling with a student on their first night, and just plain smothering everything they do as they roll so that all they walk out with is the feeling that they're helpless.

 

[Druid11]

There are 6 pages for me to catch up on and I'm only up to page 2 or 3, so I may well repeat stuff that's been covered.

The question asked is really how do you test your training? I'd suggest rethinking that, and asking what aspect of your training do you want to test? If you're testing a car, you don't test the tires and the seats the same way, do you? Do you test a hammer and a screwdriver by the same standards? Of course not, and you don't test all aspects of your training with just one exercise.

MMA style sparring tests certain things -- like your ability to function while getting pounded, to actually deliver effective strikes to an opponent who isn't cooperating, and just plain how well you can hang in there. All good things to test, and assess. As one of my style's manuals puts it: Sparring is one way to test the learned techniques against an actual opponent. But there are still other things to assess in measuring whether your training is effective.

But it doesn't test some things, like knowing when to quit, whether to escape rather than fight, de-escalation techniques.... Scenario training lets you test some of those elements, if done well. With the right gear, you can go pretty close to full force even. But it's still a "laboratory" -- do the right thing, the role player gives the right response. So it's got (at least) a flaw, too.
h
Slow motion "One Step" drills allow you to move to targets that are hard to protect,with little risk of injury. They let you stop, back up, and reassess or try something different, too. But you're moving slow so there's no real impact or injury likely... (oopses do happen, people land badly, etc.)... and it's artificially slow.

So... rather than ask "is X a good test", ask yourself instead "what does X test --and does that test benefit my training?"

I agree. And would also add that MMA style sparring tests whether you can go toe to toe with someone in a cage (or ring) and I already know I can't, so why would I want to test that? I'm a woman and I've actually trained MMA and I can tell you I figured out very early on that I was never going to be able to go full contact with a guy. Skill may help to equalize size advantage, but it doesn't erase it and if the person is both bigger and just as skilled as you 9 time out of 10 you are going to your butt kicked. I originally picked a MMA school because I work nights and in an environment with some potentially dangerous people and I thought I should train something that would be the "most" effective, but I quickly learned nothing is effective if you don't like the training and I kind of hated training BJJ (once again nothing against the system, just not my cup of tea), so I trained Mauy Thai exclusively. I enjoyed it, but I am never going to stand there and trade blows with an attacker. If I did I'd be stupid...and dead.

For a few reasons (the potential for getting hurt and not being able to work not the least among them) I stopped training Mauy Thai. I recently found a traditional Karate (Isshinryu) school and I'm really enjoying training there. No we don't spar full contact. The instructor has said in class that sparring is part of the sport aspect and everything you would do in a real fight is illegal. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's a sport. I don't question why football players don't (or shouldn't) lead with their head, because it's a sport and there are rules to protect the participants. I train martial arts now, for fun, exercise, and to maybe learn some self defense. Mostly in that order. My instructor does teach some more practical self defense drills and the school incorporates Judo throws and wrist locks into their curriculum. In a real attack (and knock and wood I will never be in that situation) I will hopefully either be able to use something like that on the person or kick them very hard in sensitive spot and run away. I would never want to be in a protracted fight with anyone, because I know that if it's a guy who is bigger and stronger than me, no matter how much I train, I'm probably going to loose.

I am under no delusions that if I become a black belt in my particular current style that I will become some sort of ultimate fighting machine. I know people who are black belts in other traditional styles of martial arts and none of them think that they are some sort of fighting machine either. So, I guess what I took way too long in saying is, that MMA is a great test if you want to test how much punishment you can give and also take. I don't want to test that (I have a day job), so if would be a really crappy test for me.

 

[Juany118]

You don't get it. Yes, there's a script. It's a TRAINING activity. There's a goal and purpose to it. We want the student to learn something, not simply get thumped around (or thump a role player). I said that's one of the flaws in scenario training -- it's a laboratory setting. If the student does A, the role player does B... Depending on the specifics of the exercise, there may be a lot of room for improvisation -- or very little. When recruits are doing a scenario intended to demonstrate their ability to gather the information for a larceny, the last thing the evaluators and academy staff want is a role player deciding to throw a monkey wrench like an emotionally disturbed victim at them... and it's happened. Good way for a role player not to be invited back. If the scenario is for experienced officers to respond to an active shooter, there may be a lot less structure and scripting.

When you spar or roll -- do you just bang, or do you work on some specific goals? Sometimes you work on defending from the bottom, or landing a right hook, right? Sparring could really be described as just one form of scenario training, for a boxing/kickboxing/whatever match.

I think it's being missed how dynamic real life incidents are and that is what scenario training is about. Simply stumbling upon 3 bank robbers, you might as well just do this

Jump to 2:20.

Are their bystanders in the "cross fire" what environment is it? Simulated room, entire house, bar, street? Is the person physically aggressive from the jump or do they try to sucker you? Are they armed? If so with what? Are you allowed to be armed? if the training is happening in a "furnished" area are you allowed to use improvised weapons? Is the person "high" on something? This can be simulated, in part, with sparring body armor to simulate increased pain resistance?

Officers of course need less scripting because, in theory, everyone involved has enough training already where they can "riff" a bit.

 

[Juany118]

It is "manufactured to produce an outcome." If you're working on escaping the mount, you start with a mount, and the outcome is a successful escape. You don't get out, you keep working.

You described attending a knife defense class where the instructor couldn't make the techniques work so he changed the rules. That's not scenario training, that's just bad training. A corresponding type of bad scenario training is when the role players or trainers make it no-win... even if the students do everything they're supposed to, the so-called instructors throw in a sniper out of sight over the hill, role players in class 4 body armor, or other craziness where the students just can't win. Y'know, the Kobayashi Maru stuff... Or a black belt in BJJ rolling with a student on their first night, and just plain smothering everything they do as they roll so that all they walk out with is the feeling that they're helpless.

Hey I said Kobayashi Maru first!!!! That said I find that useful with shoot house training. You create it for the first guy or team through BUT only for that team. That wakes people up and kinda gets them to pay more attention for the rest of the day where you have the "real" scenarios. After the "no win scenario" people tend to pie the corners better, you have the person covering an area more apt to focus on the area rather than taking quick peeks to see what the other guy(s)/gal(s) are clearing etc.

 

[drop bear]

It is "manufactured to produce an outcome." If you're working on escaping the mount, you start with a mount, and the outcome is a successful escape. You don't get out, you keep working.

You described attending a knife defense class where the instructor couldn't make the techniques work so he changed the rules. That's not scenario training, that's just bad training. A corresponding type of bad scenario training is when the role players or trainers make it no-win... even if the students do everything they're supposed to, the so-called instructors throw in a sniper out of sight over the hill, role players in class 4 body armor, or other craziness where the students just can't win. Y'know, the Kobayashi Maru stuff... Or a black belt in BJJ rolling with a student on their first night, and just plain smothering everything they do as they roll so that all they walk out with is the feeling that they're helpless.

Or a mma fight if the other guy is just better than you.

It is a test you can loose. Even if it is not fair.

 

[Juany118]

So how much are you paying for this stuff?

I am not paying for it, the department does. But as an example, a "train the trainer course" can be $650 and that is cheap. Gracie Combatives is $995.00 for certification and $795.00 for recert for each level (one and two).

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[RTKDCMB]

If you can't beat one guy, I seriously doubt you'll be able to stop multiple attackers.

Especially if you never train against multiple attackers.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Where Is Delete?

Not there.

 

[BigMotor]

Not there.

Then where? I am dreadfully concerned that my faux pas is showing.

 

[BigMotor]

I'm simply saying people will do whatever they want to do whether or not its good in the eyes of the op

Then please accept my humble apoplexy....uhhh...apology. I can be too hard on people, it is a failing of mine.

 

[Hanzou]

Especially if you never train against multiple attackers.

Yeah, that made zero sense.

The point is this; if you're not capable of beating one guy, the goal of trying to take down multiple guys is kind of silly. If you can quickly and efficiently dispatch a guy in a fight, then we can start talking about more than one guy.

 

[Hanzou]

The instructor has said in class that sparring is part of the sport aspect and everything you would do in a real fight is illegal. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's a sport. I don't question why football players don't (or shouldn't) lead with their head, because it's a sport and there are rules to protect the participants.

No offense, but your instructor is blowing smoke up your behind.

 

[Steve]

Especially if you never train against multiple attackers.

If one thing is a critical, foundational pre-requisite for another, you can't just learn the other and expect it to work. If X is a pre-requisite for Y and you can't do X, then you can't do Y.

If learning to add is a prerequisite for learning algebra, then the contrapositive is also true. Right? You can't learn algebra if you can't add.

Only way I can make sense of it is that you're suggesting that defending against a single person is completely unrelated to defending against multiple people. Is that what you're saying? is there some other way that your response makes sense?