sparring

[Cyriacus]

Nothing like what you're used to in TKD, my friend. Think of kicking in a door, slamming your foot through it... then apply that as a kick to the side of the knee, where it doesn't really bend.

...You pretty much just said, as I read it, Front Stamp Kick from the Side, to the Knee. We did that last week.
Side Kick to the Front of the Knee is more common though.

Let Me be the first to say, I have never learnt to use any given Kick with the Instep to the Knee.

I was mostly curious so as to get some context behind His statement.

 

[Chris Parker]

Scenarior Based Training fills the gap nicely. However, that does not negate the positives that ones gains through regular sparring, rolling, etc. (strong mental will, ability to relax, linking techniques together, etc., etc., etc.) You simply do not have to choose one over the other and Scenario Based Training does not provide some benefits that sparring, rolling does. However together they both work very well!

Brian, can you point out how scenario training does not cover those benefits? They definitely give you the ability to relax under pressure, the ability to strengthen your mental approach (with the added benefit of it actually being the proper mindset required for self defence situations, as opposed to sparring), the ability to link techniques together (failure of techniques is a big part of scenario training, so it'd not like you train that everything works every time...), and more.

Sparring has benefits. The thing is, scenario training has the same benefits, but none of the drawbacks or limitations. Both is not really the best idea when it comes to self defence unless you have some benefits that sparring gives that scenario or other training doesn't. So far, you honestly haven't given any.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

In my opinion Chris I do not think that Scenario Based Training is as good for linking techniques together or working on go to moves as Sparring or Rolling. Just for instance I have worked my sweeping skill sets thousands of times in submission grappling so much so it is second nature and highly developed. (yes a lot of two person technique work too ie. kata) In Scenarios I have rarely been put down in a guard position. Part of that is I have fast reflexes and a really good sprawl and even if surprised usually I can sprawl or evade with most people. I have isolated in Scenarios where I am already mounted, etc. surprised in bed (on a mattress in training no less) to negate some of that ability. However, if I relied on Scenario Based Training only to develop my guard sweeping skill sets they probably would not be as sharp. Not that I might not be able to do it just that but in my opinion I doubt it. The other aspect of linking is also I believe not as easy to develop as in sparring or rolling for the same exact reasons. I personally have also developed a couple of real go to moves during thirty plus years of initially point sparring, then kickboxing then into our style of full contact IRT sparring. Those go to moves I believe would have been harder also to develop doing only Scenario Based Training. Not that I might not have been able to develop them just that it probably would have been harder. Now these are my opinions based on having extensive practice with both Sparring, Submission Grappling (rolling) and of course Scenario Based Training. Once again I think it is better when they are both used together. I think then the practitioner develops better. I can observe my students and say they are farther along in their development than I was in a similar time frame to know that it works!

 

[Chris Parker]

Ha, surprisingly, Brian, I don't agree!

When it comes to linking techniques, there is just as much freedom in scenario training as there is in sparring, so the ability to link from one technique to another is just as prevalent. When done properly, aspects such as technique failure certainly form a large part of it, allowing linking from failed technique to new technique, from set-up to new technique, and many other forms.

With the idea that "go to techniques" are easier to work on in sparring, that I'd disagree with completely. The easiest, and best way to work on "go to techniques/tactics" is to set up a situation (scenario) where they can be applied in a consistent and repeatable fashion... which is not sparring. Besides, if you're working on "go to techniques" in your sparring, as methods that generate success, all you're really doing is working on techniques that generate success in the false reality of sparring... in other words, you're working on improving the way you act in a situation that isn't what you're wanting to improve in.

I also doubt that your skills improved more in sparring than in properly constructed scenario training when it comes to things such as sweeps from the guard if your takedown defense is solid enough to not get into that situation in sparring...

All that said, I didn't actually see an answer to Himura's question there: What is the format of your sparring exactly? Is it like the sparring in the clips seen above, or something different? Is it two people both trying to "score" against each other, or is there a designated attacker and defender? Is there a specific range it's limited to, or does it change? The reason we're asking is that I'm suspecting what you're referring to as sparring might be closer to what I'm describing as scenario training.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hey Chris,

We will just have to agree to disagree!

In IRT our sparring generally consists of full contact empty hand, with weapons. (generally guy's pull off when someone is hurt so as not to hurt them permanently) We also have sparring drills. Guard vs. striking. One individual striking while the other is grappling for control, submission, etc. A variation of monkey in the middle where the defender never knows where the attack is coming from. Of course we have Scenarion Based Training as well. We train in street clothes, uniforms, etc. Hey we even train on the beach when we can. Very, very, very varied in our training approach. Guest instructors, intensives, seminars are the norm. Someone who has been with me for awhile will have been exposed to Budo Taijutsu, Brazilian Jiujitsu, Kuntaw, Arnis, Balintawak, Dekiti Tirsia Siradas, Kickboxing, Muay Thai, etc., etc., etc. from other instructors around the world. They will also have been taught the law by a lawyer in their state, have experience in hearing stories from LEO's, Security, Probation, Corrections, Military personnel, private citizens who have survived an attack or used their training to evade or avoid one. I know this varied approach works as it has been used successfully by LEO's, Security, Military, Corrections, Civilians whether in an engagement or avoiding a physical encounter. That avoidance part is so important and the ability to deescalate a situation. There is no doubt on my side as to the effectiveness of the approach as I have used it in the past professioinally as well. It has also been used in the ring and cage with a few people even earning a championship belt here or there. My youtube channel is here with a few video clips: http://www.youtube.com/user/IRTBrian?feature=mhee#p/u I just noticed though that I do not have any Scenario Based Training on the channel so that will have to be rectified in the near future! ;P) I do not see it as an either or situation. I understand your point though coming from a Takamatsuden art that if you spar the technique utilized in that particular system would have to be modified. Whereas if you Scenario Based Train only you can probably keep the technique closer to the ryu-ha. I just think you limit yourself in this approach and I do not like limitations!

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Chris if you are interested more in our appraoch I have a private channel that I can allow you in to see more video clips, etc.

Obviously once you see the movement in IRT you will see that it is heavily influenced by the Filipino Martial Arts and Brazilian Jiujitsu. that does not mean that Budo Taijutsu is not there as it is but my other background does seem to come out quite a bit!

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

With the idea that "go to techniques" are easier to work on in sparring, that I'd disagree with completely. The easiest, and best way to work on "go to techniques/tactics" is to set up a situation (scenario) where they can be applied in a consistent and repeatable fashion... which is not sparring. Besides, if you're working on "go to techniques" in your sparring, as methods that generate success, all you're really doing is working on techniques that generate success in the false reality of sparring... in other words, you're working on improving the way you act in a situation that isn't what you're wanting to improve in.

I also doubt that your skills improved more in sparring than in properly constructed scenario training when it comes to things such as sweeps from the guard if your takedown defense is solid enough to not get into that situation in sparring...

Hey Chris,

I would have to say that no way a practitioner would develop "go to moves" to the same level utilizing only Scenario Based Training. Just not going to happen. (though I am not saying it is impossible) One of my pet "go to" moves I have used in real life in a confrontation. Worked like a charm! I only used it that one time but everything happened just like I have used it in sparring. I would also say since I have a highly developed sprawl and rarely get taken down in Sparring or Scenario Based Training (unless put in that position) that my sweeps get consistent work every week in Rolling or Submission Grappling. Hard to replicate the amount of skill set development that you can get in those types of Sparring with just Scenario Based Training. (though I am not saying it is impossible)

The above is all testable though. Have a Scenario Based Training only practitioner face up against someone who Rolls and Spars regularly and see who would come out ahead in that matchup. (we pretty much both know who would win the outcome) You could of course reverse it and have someone who Rolls and Spars only then do Scenario Based Training to see how they do as well. You might be surprised to see how quickly they can adjust with just a tiny bit of experience. Yet in the other situation it would probably take a lot longer to catch up with someone of equal experience and attributes. However, the best for both practitioners would be to utilize both in their training. That way they get the best of both worlds!

There are a few more video clips here of a couple of guy's who have stepped into the cage: http://www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com/trainingnews.html

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I don't want to over exaggerate whom I have taught or that people might take it that way. I have taught some small groups of military personnel that were getting ready to deploy as well as quite a few one on one over the years. Quite a few Security personnel. Quite a few LEO's, some correction officers and probation officers. These are people who have sought me ought for extra training beyond what they were receiving. Several have been with me for quite a while or with another IRT instructor. I have also worked professionally where arrests were a pretty common place though I have a lot less experience in this area than a Law Enforcement Officer who has been working for fifteen to twenty years or so. Just trying not to over inflate my expeirence or anything!

Just as I know you have taught equally to these types of professions Chris.

 

[MJS]

Ah, I've been a bit busy to get back to this one, so this'll cover quite a bit at once...



I think what I'm talking about when I say "Scenario training versus sparring" might need some clearing up. Sparring I am using (as stated earlier) to refer to a one-on-one "duel", where both partners are going in with the same aim (attack and defend against the other persons' attacks, in order to "outperform" the other), with similar skill sets, and for an extended time period (in other words, you stay in till the sparring session is called over, the round is over, or whatever). This leads to habits of staying when you should leave, as well as a highly unrealistic expectation of what to expect from your potential attackers in the street (that's actually a good distinction there, the guy on the street is not an opponent, they're an attacker.... which leads to a range of changes in the behaviour of both sides).

Sparring typically looks like this:

Kickboxing

Karate

MMA

Now, each of these are specific and suited to the needs of the arts they are employed in... but the tactics, strategies, and habits formed go against the needs of actual defense or combative usage.

When I talk about Scenario Training (as free-form training), I am talking about a training method where there is an attacker (or more than one, depending on the scenario being drilled) against a defender (or more than one, for example in security training, bodyguard training, partner protection training, and so on). The defenders aims and the attackers aims are not the same thing (the attacker wants to attack, the defender wants to defend/escape... which can involve going on the offensive, but doesn't mean the same thing as being the attacker), the tactics and strategies are by necessity different as well (with the aim of leaving the situation as soon as safety allows, and not wanting to "stay and trade blows" as you would in sparring, and so on.

Here are some examples (Note: some language warnings):

Now, there are simply thousands of different scenarios that can be trained.... and, when done properly, it gets to the point where the attackers attack with random attacks, not stopping until they're "stopped", and the defender(s) have complete freedom of response as well, from slow all the way up to full pace (with safety equipment). The tactics employed are exactly what would be employed in self defense, the attacks are exactly what would be encountered in an actual self defense situation, and so on.

Simply put, scenario training is designed to mimic reality as closely as possible, whereas sparring is designed to mimic a competition as closely as possible. Which are you training for?



Er, actually, Oded, I'm not able to engage the conversation on you-tube... it seems my pointing out that the version of Itsutsu no Tachi from Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu that Yossi put up was missing parts, showed a desperate lack of understanding of the kata itself, showed large mistakes and gaps in timing, distancing, targeting, and more, and that, if, as Yossi said, the aim was to show respect for the art they were "teaching" with no authorisation, they would be best advised to stop showing it and remove the video, I was banned from making comments on any of the Akban clips. Whoops.

As for the video, up to about 34 seconds, it was recognisable as Ninjutsu (I saw some Gyokko Ryu mainly), but after that it was nothing to do with the art whatsoever. Especially for the section from 0:37-0:45... I mean, that was just the kickboxing stuff again. Nothing like anything found in Ninjutsu at all. And that's really been my point. If you're also teaching kickboxing, great... but if you're calling that part of the Ninjutsu teaching, you really need to have a closer look at what makes each art what it is.



Koku at every class? Why? I can see why you'd do the Kihon Happo, or Sanshin, but Koku? But, as Richard said, that ain't Koku. It misses pretty much everything that makes Koku Koku.



Yes, that's known in Japanese arts as Shu Ha Ri. But it doesn't mean that you train in one art, which gives you a particular postural concept, a particular usage of body weapons, a particular movement concept, a particular power source concept, a particular distancing concept, and a particular timing concept, and then doing something completely unrelated and saying "oh, well, we're doing the "Ri" approach to it". No you're not.



Hopefully the above examples will show clearer what I mean when I'm discussing Scenario training versus sparring... and how all the benefits that sparring gives are present in proper Scenario training, with an even closer analogue to a real situation/fight. Sparring really just isn't close enough for me.



Oh, absolutely train the technique... but the issue isn't when the choke is on, it's getting it on in the first place, which isn't always as clean as you might find in the dojo. If you do get it clean and fast, you will typically get a "panic" response from whoever you're putting it on... which can come out in different ways. Some more effectual than others, it must be said. But if you're still trying to get it on, not quite in position, and the other guy is seriously (realistically) trying to claw your eyes... and by that I mean that they actually will pull your eyes out, not that they are "replicating" the moves... it's quite a different situation. That's what Rory Miller was getting at. Until you've done it for real, against a real person with that amount of desperation, then it's still not "real" in your training.



But if it's said that sparring is "preparation" for a real fight, then it must be seen as having properties similar to one, agreed? And the fact is that most of the aspects that most people look to to say "this is just like a real fight" are actually very far removed from a real defensive encounter... but are very close to the "real fights" that people see in MMA competitions....



Ha, I'm going to head back over to that thread, hopefully later tonight...

Yep, reaction is what happens, which is not the same as the reactions (or "resistance") found in sparring matches, say, BJJ rolling. In that encounter, one BJJ practitioner might have found themselves in a position where a particular armbar is available, so they start to attempt it... the other will then employ a defence directly against that lock, responding with a trained, skilled reaction, seeking to "defeat" the first persons lock. But against a "street attacker", starting to get the same lock on, the reaction will be quite different. There won't be the training to back anything up, so that skilled response won't be there... but what will come out will more likely be a direct attack towards the person trying the lock, whether that's hitting at them, kicking, scratching, or whatever. The difference is that the aim of the BJJ practitioner is to not be defeated, and preserve the opportunity to then "defeat" their opponent... whereas the street attacker just wants to attack, and is just looking to continue that attack. It really is very, very different.



The better version of Koku from Akban is this one:

This is not Koku:

But it does give a clue as to what Yossi was doing in the earlier one....

Oded, Koku is not about just outflanking and hitting the ribs (for the record, Yossi's target in the "ura gata" form was way too high as well, if he was a few inches lower he'd be getting the floating ribs, which might have an effect), and the "feel" of this movement is very different to Gyokko Ryu. It's slightly closer to Koto Ryu, or some aspects of Togakure Ryu, but it certainly ain't Gyokko Ryu or Koku itself.



Well, Yossi was a senior student of Doron Navon, so anything would presumably come through him. They are still part of the Bujinkan, according to Yossi.

Hey Chris,

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner. The threads moving along, but I did want to ask your thoughts on something. With the scenario clips you posted, which BTW, are very good. I actually saw those clips a while back on MAP. Anyways...yeah, definately some good stuff. As you know, I think scenario training is very important. Now, since we were talking about the different types of resistance one will face, let me ask you...what do you think about the resistance shown in those clips?

 

[MJS]

Chris if you are interested more in our appraoch I have a private channel that I can allow you in to see more video clips, etc.

Obviously once you see the movement in IRT you will see that it is heavily influenced by the Filipino Martial Arts and Brazilian Jiujitsu. that does not mean that Budo Taijutsu is not there as it is but my other background does seem to come out quite a bit!

Ohhh!! I'd be very interested in seeing that, if its ok with you.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hey Mike I will shoot you out the links later on today.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Chris,

We will just have to agree to disagree!

Honestly, I don't think we're disagreeing on much other than terminology.

In IRT our sparring generally consists of full contact empty hand, with weapons. (generally guy's pull off when someone is hurt so as not to hurt them permanently) We also have sparring drills. Guard vs. striking. One individual striking while the other is grappling for control, submission, etc. A variation of monkey in the middle where the defender never knows where the attack is coming from. Of course we have Scenarion Based Training as well.

Most of that is what I would class as scenario training, different sides have different aims etc. Sparring is, as I said, taken as two persons both aiming to outperform each other by having the same aim, which does not appear to be what you are describing here.

We train in street clothes, uniforms, etc. Hey we even train on the beach when we can. Very, very, very varied in our training approach. Guest instructors, intensives, seminars are the norm. Someone who has been with me for awhile will have been exposed to Budo Taijutsu, Brazilian Jiujitsu, Kuntaw, Arnis, Balintawak, Dekiti Tirsia Siradas, Kickboxing, Muay Thai, etc., etc., etc. from other instructors around the world. They will also have been taught the law by a lawyer in their state, have experience in hearing stories from LEO's, Security, Probation, Corrections, Military personnel, private citizens who have survived an attack or used their training to evade or avoid one.

Kay... honestly, Brian, this is fantastic, but training in 10 different arts doesn't have a lot of relevance when it comes to the idea of sparring or not specific to the Ninjutsu arts, wouldn't you say? As far as it working, it seems to be more scenario (what I've been discussing as scenario) training, rather than sparring, so, all good!

I know this varied approach works as it has been used successfully by LEO's, Security, Military, Corrections, Civilians whether in an engagement or avoiding a physical encounter. That avoidance part is so important and the ability to deescalate a situation. There is no doubt on my side as to the effectiveness of the approach as I have used it in the past professioinally as well. It has also been used in the ring and cage with a few people even earning a championship belt here or there.

Training avoidance and de-escalation can only really be trained (freely) in scenario training, so that's another point there! The cage is where sparring training is what you're after.

My youtube channel is here with a few video clips: http://www.youtube.com/user/IRTBrian?feature=mhee#p/u I just noticed though that I do not have any Scenario Based Training on the channel so that will have to be rectified in the near future! ;P)

Some cool stuff there, nice work.

I do not see it as an either or situation.

It's not. It's a matter of picking the best option for the needs you have.

I understand your point though coming from a Takamatsuden art that if you spar the technique utilized in that particular system would have to be modified. Whereas if you Scenario Based Train only you can probably keep the technique closer to the ryu-ha. I just think you limit yourself in this approach and I do not like limitations!

I don't think scenario training is limited, in fact, it opens up more freedom than just sparring does. There's nothing in scenario training that limits what techniques can be used, but in sparring there often is.

Chris if you are interested more in our appraoch I have a private channel that I can allow you in to see more video clips, etc.

Obviously once you see the movement in IRT you will see that it is heavily influenced by the Filipino Martial Arts and Brazilian Jiujitsu. that does not mean that Budo Taijutsu is not there as it is but my other background does seem to come out quite a bit!

Sure, always good to see what others are doing.

Hey Chris,

I would have to say that no way a practitioner would develop "go to moves" to the same level utilizing only Scenario Based Training. Just not going to happen. (though I am not saying it is impossible)

Scenario training is about designing the exact circumstances you need to train exactly what you want to. Sparring gives you what presents itself in the moment. Why do you think that scenario training (designed to develop and sharpen a particular skill, say, a "go to" move) is less effective at it than sparring where you may never find yourself in a position to actually attempt such a go-to move, let alone train it consistently and effectively.

One of my pet "go to" moves I have used in real life in a confrontation. Worked like a charm! I only used it that one time but everything happened just like I have used it in sparring. I would also say since I have a highly developed sprawl and rarely get taken down in Sparring or Scenario Based Training (unless put in that position) that my sweeps get consistent work every week in Rolling or Submission Grappling.

And how do you train it? Do you and someone else just go for it, and if they try to shoot, you sprawl? Or do you have a training partner trying to take you down, and you try to stop them (which is a form of scenario training)?

Hard to replicate the amount of skill set development that you can get in those types of Sparring with just Scenario Based Training. (though I am not saying it is impossible)

Yeah... I don't get how you see that, honestly.

The above is all testable though. Have a Scenario Based Training only practitioner face up against someone who Rolls and Spars regularly and see who would come out ahead in that matchup. (we pretty much both know who would win the outcome)

What is the outcome you're after? If I want someone to have a solid, dependable skill (specific, such as your sprawl), is it better to constantly drill it, as well as having it in scenario training, or to have sparring where it might or might not turn up?

You could of course reverse it and have someone who Rolls and Spars only then do Scenario Based Training to see how they do as well. You might be surprised to see how quickly they can adjust with just a tiny bit of experience. Yet in the other situation it would probably take a lot longer to catch up with someone of equal experience and attributes. However, the best for both practitioners would be to utilize both in their training. That way they get the best of both worlds!

Again, really, it all comes down to what the result you want it.

There are a few more video clips here of a couple of guy's who have stepped into the cage: http://www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com/trainingnews.html

Cool, but that's where sparring comes into usefulness. And it's got nothing to do with Ninjutsu, so isn't really relevant.

Hey Chris,

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner. The threads moving along, but I did want to ask your thoughts on something. With the scenario clips you posted, which BTW, are very good. I actually saw those clips a while back on MAP. Anyways...yeah, definately some good stuff. As you know, I think scenario training is very important. Now, since we were talking about the different types of resistance one will face, let me ask you...what do you think about the resistance shown in those clips?

I don't class it as resistance, as they're not really resisting. They attack, then when the tables are turned, they cover up. That's a fair bit more realistic, in fact, my biggest issue is the amount of time taken by the defenders...

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Honestly, I don't think we're disagreeing on much other than terminology.

Yes Chris on most things we probably agree.

Training avoidance and de-escalation can only really be trained (freely) in scenario training, so that's another point there! The cage is where sparring training is what you're after.

Agreed. Of course you can train avoidance and de-escalation in classroom but in practical application it is best trained in Scenario Based Training.

I don't think scenario training is limited, in fact, it opens up more freedom than just sparring does. There's nothing in scenario training that limits what techniques can be used, but in sparring there often is.

Agreed.

Scenario training is about designing the exact circumstances you need to train exactly what you want to. Sparring gives you what presents itself in the moment. Why do you think that scenario training (designed to develop and sharpen a particular skill, say, a "go to" move) is less effective at it than sparring where you may never find yourself in a position to actually attempt such a go-to move, let alone train it consistently and effectively.

In Sparring/Rolling there is no script. Just two or more people acting and reacting again and again. Because of this there is a lot of time to work techniques and "go to" moves over and over again. Very hard to replicate that amount of repetition in Scenario Based Training. Just not going to happen

And how do you train it? Do you and someone else just go for it, and if they try to shoot, you sprawl? Or do you have a training partner trying to take you down, and you try to stop them (which is a form of scenario training)?

No of course you start with solo training the sprawl again and again. Then you move onto partner training working the sprawl against a takedown again and again. Finally you work it in Sparring where it may or may not happen. Then you can work it in Scenario Based Training where it can be worked in or not. (depending on the goals of the Scenario) I think that this way you get the best of all training!

What is the outcome you're after? If I want someone to have a solid, dependable skill (specific, such as your sprawl), is it better to constantly drill it, as well as having it in scenario training, or to have sparring where it might or might not turn up?

All of the above! (rather than eliminating any of them)


I do not know how you can do this multi-quote thing so regularly as it takes so much time!

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

It is just like firearm training. You of course want technique training then application training of the technique at a range. However to take it further you then take those skills into Force on Force airsoft training. (one on one or more) just like in sparring. Then you take it into the Scenario Based Training to make the process complete. If you want to be at your optimum efficiency with a firearm you would include all of the above. You see you do not need to drop any of the steps just include them all and you get the best more complete training situation!

 

[Chris Parker]

Yes Chris on most things we probably agree.

Ha, yeah. Even when we disagree, we're usually agreeing in many ways!

That said, a few things here confuse me...

Agreed. Of course you can train avoidance and de-escalation in classroom but in practical application it is best trained in Scenario Based Training.

It's best taught as drills, but trained in scenario forms. You're agreeing with me there on a point for scenario training over sparring.

Agreed.

Uh, Brian, I completely disagreed with your comments, which stated that scenario training was limiting, and sparring wasn't, are you now saying you agree that scenario training is NOT limiting, whereas sparring is? That's a complete turn around, and I'm happy to have you on our side, but then you continue...

In Sparring/Rolling there is no script. Just two or more people acting and reacting again and again. Because of this there is a lot of time to work techniques and "go to" moves over and over again. Very hard to replicate that amount of repetition in Scenario Based Training. Just not going to happen

This really loses me in terms of logic, Brian. To be fair, let's look at even time given to each, sparring and scenario training, say, half an hour. If you're training for half an hour in a scenario-based training form, where the attacks are looking to attain a particular result (say, close and take you down, but can use any method to do so that they want), and the aim of the defence is to attain a particular result in response (say, stopping that takedown, working on your "go-to" sprawl), how many times do you think you could practice and rehearse your go-to sprawl? And, in half an hour of sparring, where there isn't the specific aim on either side, how many times do you think the attempted takedown and sprawl would be trained?

Really, your argument doesn't seem to make sense... can you clarify at all?

No of course you start with solo training the sprawl again and again. Then you move onto partner training working the sprawl against a takedown again and again. Finally you work it in Sparring where it may or may not happen. Then you can work it in Scenario Based Training where it can be worked in or not. (depending on the goals of the Scenario) I think that this way you get the best of all training!

How does sparring where it may not be a part of the training at all feature as an actual stage of training the method? Isn't that like learning, say, French, and then walking through the city, talking to people, some may speak French to you, but some might not, and say that that's you practicing speaking French, rather than finding a French club, and going there to practice with people in unscripted conversation? Really, you're arguing that there are benefits for training a method that might not even include what you're trying to practice over a method designed to specifically allow you to train and develop it, and that just confuses me.

All of the above! (rather than eliminating any of them)

Again, how does the sparring help if it may not even include the skill you're trying to train in the first place? It just doesn't actually make sense....

I do not know how you can do this multi-quote thing so regularly as it takes so much time!

Ha, call it a practiced hand...

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hey Chris,

First I would not say that a sprawl is not a "go to" move as it is reactionary or that it is a reactionary "go to" move that requires someone trying to take you down. Meaning that the other person has to attempt a takedown for you to utlize it. An action "go to" move might be some thing like knowing when and how to set up a cross, ridgehand, lunging punch, etc. You would utilize footwork, a fake, bait, etc. to put the other person physically and mentally off balance so that you could then take advantage of the situation.

In regards to limiting or not limiting both Sparring/Rolling and of Scenario Based Training have limitations. In the above instance Sparring has limitations in training avoidance or de-escalation. Hope that clarifies. Scenario Based Training has other limitations!

Almost invariably in Sparring you will have time to practice your sprawl and other defensive takedown maneuvers. Happens all the time! Literally all the time! One advantage in this instance is you do not know it is going to happen you just have to react. That is essential. This can also be replicated in Scenario Based Training to provided it is planned out and you of course keep the person not in the loop that there will be a takedown attempt!

As for the french language analogy. I would say that in Sparring your going to have to work your sprawl and takedown defenses repeatedly over time. A lot! So Sparring has within it the abilitty to work your Sprawl and "go to" techniques over and over and over and over and over again!

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I prefer what I would consider an overall more complete appraoch with technique training, partner training (ie. kata), Sparring/Rolling and then Scenario Based Training. I think the practitioner gets the best of all in this regard!

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Round and round we go!

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Chris,

First I would not say that a sprawl is not a "go to" move as it is reactionary or that it is a reactionary "go to" move that requires someone trying to take you down. Meaning that the other person has to attempt a takedown for you to utlize it. An action "go to" move might be some thing like knowing when and how to set up a cross, ridgehand, lunging punch, etc. You would utilize footwork, a fake, bait, etc. to put the other person physically and mentally off balance so that you could then take advantage of the situation.

Well, I'd consider a sprawl a "go-to" move when it comes to stopping a takedown! There's quite a range of "go-to's", when you get down to it, and I only used the sprawl as you'd already brought it up in earlier discussion.

In regards to limiting or not limiting both Sparring/Rolling and of Scenario Based Training have limitations. In the above instance Sparring has limitations in training avoidance or de-escalation. Hope that clarifies. Scenario Based Training has other limitations!

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! Can you elaborate on those limitations that you see scenario training as having over sparring, and how sparring (with different limitations) overcomes that to the end of furthering success in self defence?

Almost invariably in Sparring you will have time to practice your sprawl and other defensive takedown maneuvers. Happens all the time! Literally all the time! One advantage in this instance is you do not know it is going to happen you just have to react. That is essential. This can also be replicated in Scenario Based Training to provided it is planned out and you of course keep the person not in the loop that there will be a takedown attempt!

If your sparring involves takedowns, sure. But there's no guarantee. You might be up against someone who doesn't like the ground, so they don't try them as much. But the thing is that the sprawl is just an example, the point was that the idea of hoping that something might have the opportunity to be trained in sparring doesn't mean that there are, as you said, more time to work on it than in a training form (scenario training) which is specifically geared towards training that skill set.

As for the french language analogy. I would say that in Sparring your going to have to work your sprawl and takedown defenses repeatedly over time. A lot! So Sparring has within it the abilitty to work your Sprawl and "go to" techniques over and over and over and over and over again!

Sorry, Brian, how is that anything to do with my French analogy?

I prefer what I would consider an overall more complete appraoch with technique training, partner training (ie. kata), Sparring/Rolling and then Scenario Based Training. I think the practitioner gets the best of all in this regard!

Ha, lose the sparring, and I'm with you!

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think we will have to agree to disagree Chris. I think your missing a building block in not sparring while you think your not by attempting to get all you need from Scenario Based Training. I think it is better if you combine them. In the end we will just continue to go around and around in circles.

How about next time I am down your way we train and I will buy the beers!
If you get up here we can train and I'll let you buy!