The sparring Thread.

[MJS]

Scenario drilling as Chris mentioned above is the Alpha and Omega of self defense PERIOD, not only from a physical standpoint but educationally as well. Direct sparring is nothing more than fighting and fighting IS NOT self defense. From a tactical standpoint you want to apply the proper force to get the job done and leave and that is difficult to accomplish on a training partner fighting back. Pads and bags are for technique and confidence training. Partners are for feel and movement drilling

I agree with the scenario training. Problem is, some don't seem to see the value in it.

 

[SteveNC]

Lets just deal with the "I have no choice but to turn physical aspect". If somebody(s) attacks you and you don't see it for whatever reason you are looking at pure reaction plain and simple and your mindset, if you have prepared as you should will be ending the altercation in mere seconds. Sparring CAN NOT simulate that. If you have to use physical tactics, trading blows (fighting) is not in your best interest and "fighting" is what sparring is.

Now if you are dealing with a situation where somebody is in your face and avoidance just isn't going to work you enter a pre-emptive frame of mind where you strike first to get the job done and move on. If you end up "fighting" you are in essence "sparring" and something has gone wrong. I know people tell you to train for the worst case scenario but in my mind your efforts are best spent insuring that the worst case scenario isn't going to occur.

 

[MJS]

No, it really shouldn't. That might be part of your tactical response (physically), if it comes to that, but even then, it's not the only, or even primary approach that should be looked for.

I know you were addressing this to someone else Chris, but I'd be interested in hearing a bit more from you, on this.

 

[SteveNC]

I know you were addressing this to someone else Chris, but I'd be interested in hearing a bit more from you, on this.

Chris was responding to one of my post so until he gets back to you I will address it myself from a more detailed POV. When I comment on things I don't normally go into great depth and sometimes than can lead to vagueness on my part. My hit hard and hit first strategy is certainly not the only option but it's the most common option as far as physical tactics goes that you will face (from a blindside attack). That strategy could be a combination of lots of things including punch, palm heel, elbow, shin kicks but I like quick reactors that you can throw fast, with easy combinations and follow-ups and little risk to injuring yourself. I am very fond of sumo slaps to the face and side of the head in certain situations (its hard to accurately describe how I do this but it is effective). One thing I like to point out to people from the educational side is the legal ramifications that is always a part of the equation. You are less likely to face legal action if you strike someone open handed. It can be hard to convince inexperienced people the value of open hand when punch has been in their minds their entire life but I focus heavily on this.

Confrontations (drunks, punks, bullies)? You can and should be able to avoid 99% of those unless the ego is fragile. THIS is where self defense shines but it's also the most demanding aspect for anybody to understand and the most difficult to teach

Multiple attackers and weapons are just a different animal. Perhaps I will dive into that later

 

[Kframe]

Part of my brain understands what you guys are saying. How ever there is another part that I hear in my head that says. " If you cant do it in sparring what makes you think you can do it on the street?". I hear this all the time on sherdog and other forums with regards to arts of this flavor, be it any Aiki art, or most koryu arts, or krav maga or systema. Its that voice I am having hard time letting go of.

What they would ask is, "how often have you really kicked out a guys knee, or really gouged out a eye in your practice?" "How often do you apply those fancy standing armlocks against live resistance?" The questions usually follow this same vein. They usually reply with, "how many times does a boxer or Nak-muay actually hit someone a day in practice?" "How often does a BJJ guy actually crank a joint in practice?" "They do it with resistance, you do it with compliance".

Its those things I hear constantly and in the back of my head. I guess for me, I just need to trust my instructors. Why am I finding that so hard? They are all obviously skilled.(Check out my update post from a previous practice)

From my conversations there is resistance in what we do, just not at the lower levels. He stated that the basics class was for drilling the basics in a correct manner with out much resistance.

I have entered a non competing art, from a competitive back ground. I guess boiling it down to its barest level, Im having issue with the fact that the only person im competing with now is my self. No one to spar, no one to defeat, nothing really to prove. It just felt so good to win in sparring. It made some of the other crap in my head and life feel far away if only a for a bit.

Ok for other people in other arts that do spar competitively, how can they adjust portions of there sparring time so that they can add something that will add to there self defense capabilities?

 

[SteveNC]

Kframe

What does proving yourself in sparring "really prove" when it comes to self defense? Sparring from the POV you are coming from is fighting like myself and a few others have pointed out and that is exactly what you are trying to avoid. If I were asked to describe the majority of likely attacks and defense of those attacks the physical part would be less than 10 seconds period. How does that relate to sparring? It sounds to me that you pretty much enjoy the fighting and contact. The job of self defense purist is to first and foremost teach people to understand and control fear and violence (mainly their own). This "mental sparring" is of far more value than the physical end.

 

[Chris Parker]

How do you train your techniques Chris? I know you work scenarios, as do I. I assume that your partner is really trying to hit you. I assume that things are spontaneous, so you react to whatever is happening? ie: the guy grabs you, and as you're dealing with that, he then tries to punch, etc, or things of that nature? I gave an idea of what I did in class one day, where I picked a technique, had them go through it, and then slowly do something else, so as to break the pattern of the 1 attack, stand like a statue, while the other guy defends, mentality. They'd have to deal with the lapel grab, then whatever else the other guy did, be it a punch, adding in his other hand now making it a 2 hand grab, pulling, pushing, etc. This can easily turn into sparring, if it's not watched closely.

Well, the first question would be what part of my training you're talking about... we've kinda covered both my self defence training and my traditional training in this thread... so I'll cover both, as it really does use both sections (the martial arts side of things inform the self defence side of the training). Of course, the issue is that it can change to a fair degree based on the exact topic/theme I'm covering at the time, the experience level of the group (for that topic), and what I want to get across. To that end, let's start with the martial arts side of things...

The martial art side of things is a large repertoire of kata/techniques taken from some 6 or 7 (depending on how you look at it... although you could further break it down into some 12 or more distinct lines/arts if you really get technical about it...) martial systems, containing both unarmed and weaponry methods. The kata in each system are in a specific order, divided into sections, with each system having it's own particular idiosyncrasies, approaches, methods, concepts, distancing, timing, movement, preferred angling, and so on. And, as a result, there are a couple of different ways to approach these techniques. The first is the approach found in many of the Ninjutsu schools (Bujinkan etc) around the world, which is to look at the techniques separate from the system they come from, and use them as an exploration of mechanics and tactics in a more general fashion; the second is to separate the methods of each particular system out, and cover them in the defined order, in order to explore the mechanical and tactical approach of a specific system, as opposed to a more overarching skill set. This second approach is rarer, but is found in places (higher level training in the Genbukan, in the Jinenkan to a degree, and so on).

As a result, there are two ways of addressing the traditional martial art side of what I do, and I try to kinda straddle both. I teach the kata of the systems in order, from the first (basic) section to the last, highlighting the tactical and strategic preferences of whichever system as we go, while also using the kata as a way to further develop skills in particular throws/locks/transitions/strikes/kicks etc. But, because I'm dominantly following the Ryu's methods as they've been specified, the techniques are very much "this to that to this to that", with little random aspects thrown in (there are exceptions to this, most particularly when the system in question dictates as such... for example, one of our systems, the Kukishinden Ryu, has it's later kata done against a type of free-form striking attacks, rather than against anything specific). The big benefit, of course, is that both sides know what's going to happen, so the attacks can be done very much "for real"... throws are designed and applied to actually throw you (so you know when your counter/stopping of the throw works or not), strikes are aiming for their target, at speed and power (so you know if you've gotten out of the way or not, ha!), and so on. Of course, this is the later way of training it... initially the "attacker" simply moves into position with the throw, the strikes are slower (but still to target, of course), and so on. The "defending" student can then work on specific aspects (such as ensuring the timing, or distancing, or angling) are all correct (the evasion doesn't start too early, or too late, you don't avoid in a way that leaves you unable to counter, and so on), and mechanically sound. In other words, it's a way to fine-tune your technique... and, as you get better and better at them, your partner can add more and more pressure, speeding up the attacks, striking with full power, throwing properly, and so on, which then works to highlight where your technique goes off the rails.

What there isn't there is much in the way of "spontaneous" action... although that can be sometimes added in. For example, this last week we were training a kata that has a number of variations, depending on how your opponent reacts (you choke, they might escape to the left or the right, and you then change your grip and drop to throw them with a sacrifice throw, which changes direction depending on which way they escaped in the first place). After training both versions for a while, I got everyone to simply do the start of the technique (up to the choke)... then, the "attacker" would escape one way or the other (undetermined or announced). The "defender" would then spontaneously move and drop to throw in the right direction, with the idea being that the students didn't stop to think about which way to go, but simply responded to the impetus they were being given. The idea of adding strikes to a grab or similar are actually more often than not already dealt with in the systems themselves... so there's little reason for me to change anything in that way (as well as it being, in many cases, a redundant and impractical thing to add).

Of course, that's the martial art side of things... it's designed to give a specific education in the methods of a specific martial tradition, in the context of that particular system (in other words, you don't aim to just learn "how to strike, how to throw", you learn how to do such things in that systems methodology, you learn the timing and entering methods of that specific system, you learn it's reasons and beliefs, and so on). Self defence training, on the other hand, is a bit different to all that, as it is more about general skills and education in a context outside of the, I suppose, isolated context of a martial art. So let's look at the training of techniques there.

I guess the first thing to get around is the idea of there being techniques in the first place with my self defence methodologies, as, really, there aren't any. The techniques are all in the martial art side of things. What I have in the self defence curriculum is a range of topics, drills, scenarios, and adrenaline training methods. This is combined with education on psychology, body language, primal behaviour, different forms of violence and assault, legal realities, recognition of pre-fight indicators, and a lot more. These aspects are covered in class in discussions and demonstrations, as well as in emails and communication with the student body itself. All of this is held together with a simple, clear directive: Get Home Safe.

But what do I mean by there not being any "techniques"? Well, I don't mean that there aren't any mechanical methods taught... there are... but that they are more given as a framework, a guide to possibilities and potential expressions of the tactics we're exploring, and are by no means set in stone. I rarely, if ever, show the same thing more than once... there's always some variation... which might be moving to the opposite side, or applying a different grip, or altering my strike or target, or anything, really. The way a particular section is done is that, each month, I pick a topic to be covered (topics might be verbal de-escalation [passive and aggressive], pre-fight indicators, knife defence, group defence, pre-emptive striking, ground escapes, surviving the pre-fight, a tactical approach we call "Fight Science", street-applicable throws, street-applicable kicking, close-quarters brawling, body-guarding for family and friends, partner protection, protective driving, escape and concealment, anti-surveilance [to avoid being targeted, particularly useful for traveling], and more)... for an example, let's pick knife defence. From there, I'll decide on a particular aspect, or focus I want to work on (one month it might be working on control of the weapon hand, another it's looking at mugging-style threats [holding a knife to the throat, or at your back, or similar], and so on).

Once I've chosen a topic and a focus, I start to put together exactly how I'm going to present it... most commonly I'll use a basic drill that might have a few variations, or simply stay the same throughout the month, which is used to develop a particular skill (in knife defence, it's a form of a box-drill, which teaches to move the body in past an attacking knife's optimal range, and to have a protective barrier inbetween the knife arm and your body, as well as teaching a redirecting flow) and is practiced at the beginning of each session that month, commonly with improvements/alterations to the execution each week (which could be simply speeding it up, or streamlining the action, or adding new aspects to make it a bit more complex). From there, we'll move into either a skill-development drill, or a scenario (or possibly the drill, then the scenario). Each drill or scenario is designed to build on the skills and scenario of the previous week, kind of in a similar way to the martial arts methods I was discussing earlier. An example would be the last time I did knife defence in class... the focus of the month was on evasive movement, so the box drill was altered to suit that concept. From there, we moved into a skill-building drill of evasive movement and angling against a series of continuous cuts from the attacker. Each week the drill was altered (the cuts being made were changed, and the angles used to evade were likewise adapted) to give a more complete skill set (the students weren't locked in to only a single evasive action being "right"), and the speed and intensity was raised, until at the end, the attacker would come in with random, free attacks (although a specific number of them, otherwise it could just keep going all night... and we have other stuff to cover, ha!), with the aim that the student could successfully employ evasive footwork against any incoming attack. Then, we put it in a scenario, where we had an aggressor approach, then pull a knife (we have other drills and methods that deal with before it's drawn, and so on, but this one started with an approach and draw/reveal), from which the student would move back to gain distance. The attacker would then come in with a series of cuts, and the defender would evade them, until the last one, where (it now being obvious that either you couldn't simply escape, or that the attacker wasn't stopping) the defender would move in, control the knife arm, and apply a takedown/control/disarm. Again, this was repeated each week with large or small variations to give a wide skill set, including moving to the inside, the outside, and a range of methods for the end of the scenario.

These scenario drills are done as a real encounter... in other words, the knifeman has a specific mandate given to them, and the psychology of the attack is understood. They don't simply stop when their arm is grabbed, but continue to try to maintain control of their weapon by pulling back, and other actions (which are a realistic form of response, but isn't really anything like resistance as found in sparring or competition), all of which have the basic aim of enabling the attacker to continue their attack. This type of understanding is crucial to an honest, realistic method of training such drills. You need to understand what the attacker is doing, how they're doing it, and why...otherwise your training simply won't be realistic. It's got far more to do with understanding the attacker than it does in having "realistic techniques".

The confusion can come in with regards to there not being any "techniques", as the physical methods are markedly different to what's seen in the "martial arts" side of things when you watch them. Of course, when it all comes down to it, they are most often just different cultural expressions of the same thing... a traditional expression of a particular posture, for instance, simply doesn't fit modern violence, so it's altered... but it's essence remains exactly the same. Striking is done differently, but the basic mechanics and ideas of power generation are identical. The attacks are different, which leads to the changes in the physical expression of the modern self defence methods, but it's really just a cultural thing. All of our "techniques" come, in essence, from the martial arts side of things... they just get a new application and expression in the self defence methodology... and the tactics are either subtly or overtly different.

So, how do we train these methods? Honestly. There might be some form of spontaneity, there might not. There might be "breaking of the technique" to add other things to deal with, or there might not (it'd depend on what I'm going through, but frankly, that's not a real priority). What we don't train, though, are techniques. We train tactics and principles which are expressed in certain collections of actions... but always with the freedom to realize that things can (and do) change in the moment, so provided the basic tactic is being applied, a variation/different "technique" is more likely to get praise than anything else... unless it's changed because the student couldn't get what was being shown (or, sometimes, when they've stumbled upon something that's going to be shown the next week or the one after... I'll often congratulate them on seeing the other possibility, then explain that I'll be giving that to the group in the coming lessons, so for tonight, work on what we're doing now).

Hmm, that might not have been what you were after, but it's the answer I can give.

Then it's simple...if the art doesn't benefit from it, then don't do it. Easy right! I just get the impression that you think that any art that includes sparring, isn't as good as one that doesn't. No offense to you but that's the impression I get, and of course, I might be wrong. My teacher sparred in class and fought in many tournaments back in the day, although now he no longer does. Despite that, I'm confident that he's more than capable of defending himself and would not be hindered in any way, because of his past sparring.

No, I just think that any art that includes sparring without a real context or understanding of it is lacking (more in their own understanding of what they're doing than anything else). Each art has it's own context, and some of those require sparring. There's nothing about any being "better" or "worse" than any other... just that you need to understand the reasons and application of whatever you're doing. And, in what I do, sparring really has little relevance or place.

Like you, I would have little to no doubt of your Kyokushin instructors ability to handle himself... or of an MMA competitor... or a Judoka... or a BJJ practitioner. And I'm sure sparring helps with some benefits in that regard. But when you're looking specifically at self defence, rather than fighting skill, there are far more direct and directly applicable methods to use... and I prefer more of a straight line approach, rather than a round about way that will help along the line.

I know you were addressing this to someone else Chris, but I'd be interested in hearing a bit more from you, on this.

Let's review what was said, first:

Your goal in defending yourself (mental and awareness training aside) should be to hit first with deception and how ever many times needed to escape and that's it.

No, it really shouldn't. That might be part of your tactical response (physically), if it comes to that, but even then, it's not the only, or even primary approach that should be looked for.

What I was meaning was that the idea of your goal in defending yourself being striking first (with deception) and continuing to attack wasn't actually the goal at all... the goal is to get home safely. That might (if things get physical) be best achieved by a pre-emptive strike (the deception isn't going to be necessary in all cases, unless you need to cover distance first... which isn't going to be the majority of cases), but the striking (initial and continuing) are not the goal or the aim. They are just a possible way of achieving the actual aim. Once you start looking at physical methods as being the "aim", you start to move into engaging in a fight, and start to look at "beating" the other guy.

Chris was responding to one of my post so until he gets back to you I will address it myself from a more detailed POV. When I comment on things I don't normally go into great depth and sometimes than can lead to vagueness on my part. My hit hard and hit first strategy is certainly not the only option but it's the most common option as far as physical tactics goes that you will face (from a blindside attack). That strategy could be a combination of lots of things including punch, palm heel, elbow, shin kicks but I like quick reactors that you can throw fast, with easy combinations and follow-ups and little risk to injuring yourself. I am very fond of sumo slaps to the face and side of the head in certain situations (its hard to accurately describe how I do this but it is effective). One thing I like to point out to people from the educational side is the legal ramifications that is always a part of the equation. You are less likely to face legal action if you strike someone open handed. It can be hard to convince inexperienced people the value of open hand when punch has been in their minds their entire life but I focus heavily on this.

Confrontations (drunks, punks, bullies)? You can and should be able to avoid 99% of those unless the ego is fragile. THIS is where self defense shines but it's also the most demanding aspect for anybody to understand and the most difficult to teach

Multiple attackers and weapons are just a different animal. Perhaps I will dive into that later

Okay. I'd still have a few alternate interpretations, but nothing too important for here.

Part of my brain understands what you guys are saying. How ever there is another part that I hear in my head that says. " If you cant do it in sparring what makes you think you can do it on the street?". I hear this all the time on sherdog and other forums with regards to arts of this flavor, be it any Aiki art, or most koryu arts, or krav maga or systema. Its that voice I am having hard time letting go of.

Bluntly, everyone can only make sense of something based on the their experience and frame of reference (as you are finding out here!), I really wouldn't put too much stock in the opinions of people who have no real experience or understanding of the alternate when they try to critique it. They have an opinion (based on no actual understanding), which is fine... but don't take it as an informed one.

What they would ask is, "how often have you really kicked out a guys knee, or really gouged out a eye in your practice?" "How often do you apply those fancy standing armlocks against live resistance?" The questions usually follow this same vein. They usually reply with, "how many times does a boxer or Nak-muay actually hit someone a day in practice?" "How often does a BJJ guy actually crank a joint in practice?" "They do it with resistance, you do it with compliance".

Yeah... compliance is used in BJJ just as much as anywhere else, you realise. It's a training and learning device. It's not the end of it, it's the beginning. I'd ask how often they break an elbow in training when they try the "how many times have you really gouged an eye?" type of defence....

Its those things I hear constantly and in the back of my head. I guess for me, I just need to trust my instructors. Why am I finding that so hard? They are all obviously skilled.(Check out my update post from a previous practice)

Yep.

From my conversations there is resistance in what we do, just not at the lower levels. He stated that the basics class was for drilling the basics in a correct manner with out much resistance.

Yep.

I have entered a non competing art, from a competitive back ground. I guess boiling it down to its barest level, Im having issue with the fact that the only person im competing with now is my self. No one to spar, no one to defeat, nothing really to prove. It just felt so good to win in sparring. It made some of the other crap in my head and life feel far away if only a for a bit.

Okay... how good did it feel to get the backwards roll, then? Or when the Ura Gyaku just "clicked"? My point is that you can get the "win" in a number of ways... sparring is just one.

Ok for other people in other arts that do spar competitively, how can they adjust portions of there sparring time so that they can add something that will add to there self defense capabilities?

The first thing is understanding the actual context and realities of modern violence... from there it all becomes rather obvious, I find...

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I have entered a non competing art, from a competitive back ground. I guess boiling it down to its barest level, Im having issue with the fact that the only person im competing with now is my self. No one to spar, no one to defeat, nothing really to prove. It just felt so good to win in sparring. It made some of the other crap in my head and life feel far away if only a for a bit.

Ok for other people in other arts that do spar competitively, how can they adjust portions of there sparring time so that they can add something that will add to there self defense capabilities?

Speaking as someone who does believe in the importance of sparring (see my earlier comment) and who left the Bujinkan in part because of my dissatisfaction with their training methods ...

For pure self-defense purposes (as opposed to fighting), I would say that realistic scenario drills are more useful than sparring. SteveNC and Chris are correct on that much. I have no idea if your Bujinkan instructor offers those or is even qualified to offer them, but you might be able to find that training elsewhere. Once you've been through that sort of training a few times, you'll start to see what aspects of your regular martial arts training are most applicable to those sorts of circumstances.

Your comment about proving things and sparring making you feel good makes me think that you were using sparring for emotional reasons unrelated to self-defense. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it's good to separate the emotional benefits of a competitive art from the combative and the self-defense aspects.

 

[MJS]

Chris was responding to one of my post so until he gets back to you I will address it myself from a more detailed POV. When I comment on things I don't normally go into great depth and sometimes than can lead to vagueness on my part. My hit hard and hit first strategy is certainly not the only option but it's the most common option as far as physical tactics goes that you will face (from a blindside attack). That strategy could be a combination of lots of things including punch, palm heel, elbow, shin kicks but I like quick reactors that you can throw fast, with easy combinations and follow-ups and little risk to injuring yourself. I am very fond of sumo slaps to the face and side of the head in certain situations (its hard to accurately describe how I do this but it is effective). One thing I like to point out to people from the educational side is the legal ramifications that is always a part of the equation. You are less likely to face legal action if you strike someone open handed. It can be hard to convince inexperienced people the value of open hand when punch has been in their minds their entire life but I focus heavily on this.

Confrontations (drunks, punks, bullies)? You can and should be able to avoid 99% of those unless the ego is fragile. THIS is where self defense shines but it's also the most demanding aspect for anybody to understand and the most difficult to teach

Multiple attackers and weapons are just a different animal. Perhaps I will dive into that later

Hey Steve,

First, not sure if I welcomed you to the forum before, but if not...welcome! I look forward to your posts!

Yeah, after reading your initial post to Chris, I kind of figured what you were talking about. As I've posted on other threads here, I'm a big fan of pre-emptive strikes, so I'm in agreement with you. Likewise, I'm also a fan of open handed strikes. Nothing wrong with the closed hand, but if your hands are up in a defensive, non threatening manner, open handed is the best bet.

Anyways, I was just a bit curious as to what Chris was getting at, as it seemed to me, that he was disagreeing with what you said. I'll wait for his reply.

 

[SteveNC]

Chris

Perhaps I should be clearer but I was referring to common blindside attacks where you might not be able to escape and you must resort to physical tactics. You dont talk your way out of conflict with a predator. Now if the threat is recognized and you have every opportunity to de-escalate there are no good excuses for a fight to occur.

 

[SteveNC]

Hey Steve,

First, not sure if I welcomed you to the forum before, but if not...welcome! I look forward to your posts!

Yeah, after reading your initial post to Chris, I kind of figured what you were talking about. As I've posted on other threads here, I'm a big fan of pre-emptive strikes, so I'm in agreement with you. Likewise, I'm also a fan of open handed strikes. Nothing wrong with the closed hand, but if your hands are up in a defensive, non threatening manner, open handed is the best bet.

Anyways, I was just a bit curious as to what Chris was getting at, as it seemed to me, that he was disagreeing with what you said. I'll wait for his reply.

I favor as much open hand as possible. Its best for self defense IMO along with hammer fist, forearms, elbows and knees

 

[MJS]

Part of my brain understands what you guys are saying. How ever there is another part that I hear in my head that says. " If you cant do it in sparring what makes you think you can do it on the street?". I hear this all the time on sherdog and other forums with regards to arts of this flavor, be it any Aiki art, or most koryu arts, or krav maga or systema. Its that voice I am having hard time letting go of.

What they would ask is, "how often have you really kicked out a guys knee, or really gouged out a eye in your practice?" "How often do you apply those fancy standing armlocks against live resistance?" The questions usually follow this same vein. They usually reply with, "how many times does a boxer or Nak-muay actually hit someone a day in practice?" "How often does a BJJ guy actually crank a joint in practice?" "They do it with resistance, you do it with compliance".

Its those things I hear constantly and in the back of my head. I guess for me, I just need to trust my instructors. Why am I finding that so hard? They are all obviously skilled.(Check out my update post from a previous practice)

From my conversations there is resistance in what we do, just not at the lower levels. He stated that the basics class was for drilling the basics in a correct manner with out much resistance.

I have entered a non competing art, from a competitive back ground. I guess boiling it down to its barest level, Im having issue with the fact that the only person im competing with now is my self. No one to spar, no one to defeat, nothing really to prove. It just felt so good to win in sparring. It made some of the other crap in my head and life feel far away if only a for a bit.

Ok for other people in other arts that do spar competitively, how can they adjust portions of there sparring time so that they can add something that will add to there self defense capabilities?

As it's been said, sparring and SD are 2 different animals. For me, I drill my SD techs a certain way. I'll work them in a static, cooperative fashion, and gradually add in more aliveness, resistance, other attacks, etc. When I spar during my Kyokushin class, well, it's just like what you see on YT. Sometimes, before we spar, our teacher will give us certain drills to work on, and then we try to pull those things off during sparring. I've had success with some, and others, well, not so much. But that all comes with time and practice. I've also done sparring that is more MMA like. I've found that when I train like that, the opportunity to work on some SD, presents itself a little more often.

You pretty much answered your own question...you went from a competitive art, to a non competitive one. I'm far from an expert on BBT, but from what I've seen and heard, while it is a good art (providing you've got a good teacher) the 'instant gratification' isn't there. What I mean is...it may take a while longer to be able to really be able to apply something, due to the way things are trained. Nothing wrong with this, but that may be one thing that's frustrating to you.

It seems like you're enjoying your new art, so my suggestion would be to stick with it. I'm sure with time, things will be a bit easier and more clear for you.

 

[Kframe]

TBH Chris, It felt really good to nail that back roll. I Still cant do it on the first try but I can get it now by the second or third. Now im looking at the proper side roll. We have several variants and this one that im working on is unique. Its trained in the basic sword evasion drill.. Its like a Side breakfall, then you roll over your shoulder while on your side.. He said its kinda like the same principals of the back roll. I don't think I described it right, but that's the best I can do lol.

You are right, it did feel good to nail URA blindfolded. Its like my eyes were screwing things up.. So focused on my hands that I found my self looking at them and not the opponent.

Ill admit part of the problem for me is the judgment I get from a community I was(and still consider my self) a part of. It seams the only people I associate with now that take this art seriously besides me and the Dojo gang is my wife, and father and family.

Im going to stick with it, MJS, I enjoy my self to much. I just need to find a way to come to terms with my self on this new training protocol.

 

[MJS]

Well, the first question would be what part of my training you're talking about... we've kinda covered both my self defence training and my traditional training in this thread... so I'll cover both, as it really does use both sections (the martial arts side of things inform the self defence side of the training). Of course, the issue is that it can change to a fair degree based on the exact topic/theme I'm covering at the time, the experience level of the group (for that topic), and what I want to get across. To that end, let's start with the martial arts side of things...

The martial art side of things is a large repertoire of kata/techniques taken from some 6 or 7 (depending on how you look at it... although you could further break it down into some 12 or more distinct lines/arts if you really get technical about it...) martial systems, containing both unarmed and weaponry methods. The kata in each system are in a specific order, divided into sections, with each system having it's own particular idiosyncrasies, approaches, methods, concepts, distancing, timing, movement, preferred angling, and so on. And, as a result, there are a couple of different ways to approach these techniques. The first is the approach found in many of the Ninjutsu schools (Bujinkan etc) around the world, which is to look at the techniques separate from the system they come from, and use them as an exploration of mechanics and tactics in a more general fashion; the second is to separate the methods of each particular system out, and cover them in the defined order, in order to explore the mechanical and tactical approach of a specific system, as opposed to a more overarching skill set. This second approach is rarer, but is found in places (higher level training in the Genbukan, in the Jinenkan to a degree, and so on).

As a result, there are two ways of addressing the traditional martial art side of what I do, and I try to kinda straddle both. I teach the kata of the systems in order, from the first (basic) section to the last, highlighting the tactical and strategic preferences of whichever system as we go, while also using the kata as a way to further develop skills in particular throws/locks/transitions/strikes/kicks etc. But, because I'm dominantly following the Ryu's methods as they've been specified, the techniques are very much "this to that to this to that", with little random aspects thrown in (there are exceptions to this, most particularly when the system in question dictates as such... for example, one of our systems, the Kukishinden Ryu, has it's later kata done against a type of free-form striking attacks, rather than against anything specific). The big benefit, of course, is that both sides know what's going to happen, so the attacks can be done very much "for real"... throws are designed and applied to actually throw you (so you know when your counter/stopping of the throw works or not), strikes are aiming for their target, at speed and power (so you know if you've gotten out of the way or not, ha!), and so on. Of course, this is the later way of training it... initially the "attacker" simply moves into position with the throw, the strikes are slower (but still to target, of course), and so on. The "defending" student can then work on specific aspects (such as ensuring the timing, or distancing, or angling) are all correct (the evasion doesn't start too early, or too late, you don't avoid in a way that leaves you unable to counter, and so on), and mechanically sound. In other words, it's a way to fine-tune your technique... and, as you get better and better at them, your partner can add more and more pressure, speeding up the attacks, striking with full power, throwing properly, and so on, which then works to highlight where your technique goes off the rails.

What there isn't there is much in the way of "spontaneous" action... although that can be sometimes added in. For example, this last week we were training a kata that has a number of variations, depending on how your opponent reacts (you choke, they might escape to the left or the right, and you then change your grip and drop to throw them with a sacrifice throw, which changes direction depending on which way they escaped in the first place). After training both versions for a while, I got everyone to simply do the start of the technique (up to the choke)... then, the "attacker" would escape one way or the other (undetermined or announced). The "defender" would then spontaneously move and drop to throw in the right direction, with the idea being that the students didn't stop to think about which way to go, but simply responded to the impetus they were being given. The idea of adding strikes to a grab or similar are actually more often than not already dealt with in the systems themselves... so there's little reason for me to change anything in that way (as well as it being, in many cases, a redundant and impractical thing to add).

Of course, that's the martial art side of things... it's designed to give a specific education in the methods of a specific martial tradition, in the context of that particular system (in other words, you don't aim to just learn "how to strike, how to throw", you learn how to do such things in that systems methodology, you learn the timing and entering methods of that specific system, you learn it's reasons and beliefs, and so on). Self defence training, on the other hand, is a bit different to all that, as it is more about general skills and education in a context outside of the, I suppose, isolated context of a martial art. So let's look at the training of techniques there.

I guess the first thing to get around is the idea of there being techniques in the first place with my self defence methodologies, as, really, there aren't any. The techniques are all in the martial art side of things. What I have in the self defence curriculum is a range of topics, drills, scenarios, and adrenaline training methods. This is combined with education on psychology, body language, primal behaviour, different forms of violence and assault, legal realities, recognition of pre-fight indicators, and a lot more. These aspects are covered in class in discussions and demonstrations, as well as in emails and communication with the student body itself. All of this is held together with a simple, clear directive: Get Home Safe.

But what do I mean by there not being any "techniques"? Well, I don't mean that there aren't any mechanical methods taught... there are... but that they are more given as a framework, a guide to possibilities and potential expressions of the tactics we're exploring, and are by no means set in stone. I rarely, if ever, show the same thing more than once... there's always some variation... which might be moving to the opposite side, or applying a different grip, or altering my strike or target, or anything, really. The way a particular section is done is that, each month, I pick a topic to be covered (topics might be verbal de-escalation [passive and aggressive], pre-fight indicators, knife defence, group defence, pre-emptive striking, ground escapes, surviving the pre-fight, a tactical approach we call "Fight Science", street-applicable throws, street-applicable kicking, close-quarters brawling, body-guarding for family and friends, partner protection, protective driving, escape and concealment, anti-surveilance [to avoid being targeted, particularly useful for traveling], and more)... for an example, let's pick knife defence. From there, I'll decide on a particular aspect, or focus I want to work on (one month it might be working on control of the weapon hand, another it's looking at mugging-style threats [holding a knife to the throat, or at your back, or similar], and so on).

Once I've chosen a topic and a focus, I start to put together exactly how I'm going to present it... most commonly I'll use a basic drill that might have a few variations, or simply stay the same throughout the month, which is used to develop a particular skill (in knife defence, it's a form of a box-drill, which teaches to move the body in past an attacking knife's optimal range, and to have a protective barrier inbetween the knife arm and your body, as well as teaching a redirecting flow) and is practiced at the beginning of each session that month, commonly with improvements/alterations to the execution each week (which could be simply speeding it up, or streamlining the action, or adding new aspects to make it a bit more complex). From there, we'll move into either a skill-development drill, or a scenario (or possibly the drill, then the scenario). Each drill or scenario is designed to build on the skills and scenario of the previous week, kind of in a similar way to the martial arts methods I was discussing earlier. An example would be the last time I did knife defence in class... the focus of the month was on evasive movement, so the box drill was altered to suit that concept. From there, we moved into a skill-building drill of evasive movement and angling against a series of continuous cuts from the attacker. Each week the drill was altered (the cuts being made were changed, and the angles used to evade were likewise adapted) to give a more complete skill set (the students weren't locked in to only a single evasive action being "right"), and the speed and intensity was raised, until at the end, the attacker would come in with random, free attacks (although a specific number of them, otherwise it could just keep going all night... and we have other stuff to cover, ha!), with the aim that the student could successfully employ evasive footwork against any incoming attack. Then, we put it in a scenario, where we had an aggressor approach, then pull a knife (we have other drills and methods that deal with before it's drawn, and so on, but this one started with an approach and draw/reveal), from which the student would move back to gain distance. The attacker would then come in with a series of cuts, and the defender would evade them, until the last one, where (it now being obvious that either you couldn't simply escape, or that the attacker wasn't stopping) the defender would move in, control the knife arm, and apply a takedown/control/disarm. Again, this was repeated each week with large or small variations to give a wide skill set, including moving to the inside, the outside, and a range of methods for the end of the scenario.

These scenario drills are done as a real encounter... in other words, the knifeman has a specific mandate given to them, and the psychology of the attack is understood. They don't simply stop when their arm is grabbed, but continue to try to maintain control of their weapon by pulling back, and other actions (which are a realistic form of response, but isn't really anything like resistance as found in sparring or competition), all of which have the basic aim of enabling the attacker to continue their attack. This type of understanding is crucial to an honest, realistic method of training such drills. You need to understand what the attacker is doing, how they're doing it, and why...otherwise your training simply won't be realistic. It's got far more to do with understanding the attacker than it does in having "realistic techniques".

The confusion can come in with regards to there not being any "techniques", as the physical methods are markedly different to what's seen in the "martial arts" side of things when you watch them. Of course, when it all comes down to it, they are most often just different cultural expressions of the same thing... a traditional expression of a particular posture, for instance, simply doesn't fit modern violence, so it's altered... but it's essence remains exactly the same. Striking is done differently, but the basic mechanics and ideas of power generation are identical. The attacks are different, which leads to the changes in the physical expression of the modern self defence methods, but it's really just a cultural thing. All of our "techniques" come, in essence, from the martial arts side of things... they just get a new application and expression in the self defence methodology... and the tactics are either subtly or overtly different.

So, how do we train these methods? Honestly. There might be some form of spontaneity, there might not. There might be "breaking of the technique" to add other things to deal with, or there might not (it'd depend on what I'm going through, but frankly, that's not a real priority). What we don't train, though, are techniques. We train tactics and principles which are expressed in certain collections of actions... but always with the freedom to realize that things can (and do) change in the moment, so provided the basic tactic is being applied, a variation/different "technique" is more likely to get praise than anything else... unless it's changed because the student couldn't get what was being shown (or, sometimes, when they've stumbled upon something that's going to be shown the next week or the one after... I'll often congratulate them on seeing the other possibility, then explain that I'll be giving that to the group in the coming lessons, so for tonight, work on what we're doing now).

Hmm, that might not have been what you were after, but it's the answer I can give.

Well, that was one hell of a post Chris! LOL! That's one thing that I can always count on with you...I ask a question, and I get a thorough, detailed reply!!! Yes, that answered my question perfectly!!

No, I just think that any art that includes sparring without a real context or understanding of it is lacking (more in their own understanding of what they're doing than anything else). Each art has it's own context, and some of those require sparring. There's nothing about any being "better" or "worse" than any other... just that you need to understand the reasons and application of whatever you're doing. And, in what I do, sparring really has little relevance or place.

Like you, I would have little to no doubt of your Kyokushin instructors ability to handle himself... or of an MMA competitor... or a Judoka... or a BJJ practitioner. And I'm sure sparring helps with some benefits in that regard. But when you're looking specifically at self defence, rather than fighting skill, there are far more direct and directly applicable methods to use... and I prefer more of a straight line approach, rather than a round about way that will help along the line.

Ok, points taken! Makes sense, and I can agree with this!

Let's review what was said, first:



What I was meaning was that the idea of your goal in defending yourself being striking first (with deception) and continuing to attack wasn't actually the goal at all... the goal is to get home safely. That might (if things get physical) be best achieved by a pre-emptive strike (the deception isn't going to be necessary in all cases, unless you need to cover distance first... which isn't going to be the majority of cases), but the striking (initial and continuing) are not the goal or the aim. They are just a possible way of achieving the actual aim. Once you start looking at physical methods as being the "aim", you start to move into engaging in a fight, and start to look at "beating" the other guy.

Ok, that makes sense!

 

[Flying Crane]

With the style of Goju I teach now, that type of sparring goes against so much of our training you just don't do it.

this. yes.

 

[Flying Crane]

I agree with the scenario training. Problem is, some don't seem to see the value in it.

but is that really a problem? It's only a problem when people think that everyone else needs to do it the same way. People can train whatever methods they find value in. And likewise people can NOT train whatever methods they do not find value in.

 

[jks9199]

Okay... how good did it feel to get the backwards roll, then? Or when the Ura Gyaku just "clicked"? My point is that you can get the "win" in a number of ways... sparring is just one.

This is actually a really big piece... Understanding what a "win" consists of. As I type, police in Maryland are clearing a mall after an active shooter incident. There aren't many details available. For 90% of the people in that mall when the incident went down -- a "win" consisted of getting out of the mall, staying out of the way of responding authorities, and simply going home. For the cops, a "win" would be finding, isolating, and containing the shooter, with minimum casualties to themselves and the public. Where a really bad situation could develop in a scenario like that is when you get the CCW "savior" (I'm NOT saying that everyone with CCW has this mindset!!) who thinks his job and his win is to get the shooter -- and begins spraying rounds without regard to the others in the mall.

For my martial arts training, I generally describe a "win" as doing what I've been taught, especially under any sort of pressure, because we know that pressure makes the mind go blank. That pressure might be anything from demonstrating on the floor in front of my teacher, to a training partner throwing a punch that's going to take my head off if I don't block it, or a sparring match against someone I've never met. In a match, I don't care what the judges say -- IF my teacher says I did the lesson. The judges may give me the win or not... it just depends. They may like the other guy more, they may cheat against me (it's happened!), or they just might not have seen what I did. (In one match, I would have pretty much broken every rib of my opponent, but the judges give him the "point" because everything I did was inside and hidden by our bodies, but his looping hook that actually missed was more visible and on the outside...)

 

[jks9199]

One more thing... and this is getting philosophical and deep for a moment, but it's related to the whole idea of assessing progress and coming to terms with the differences in the arts. There are two broad ways to obtain satisfaction or motivation. One is externally oriented, the other is internally oriented. I can look for my satisfaction and motivation in rewards and recognition given to me (belts, awards, trophies, sparring wins, pats on the back, etc.) or I can look for it within myself (getting something right finally, understanding something, knowing something I didn't know yesterday...) I think a lot of people who look towards the more competitive stuff are externally motivated; in the context of this thread, they look for someone else to tell them that they won, that they did well, that it "worked." A lot of the more traditional training methods are really more internally geared, and they don't tend to have a lot of back pats and the like. You have to look at the technique, and really come to understand it and the training method to know that it'll work -- and sometimes, that may mean understanding that a kata isn't about a technique, but about the principle demonstrated.

Let me expand on that as I wander a bit... Our first basic form is the Point Form. It consists of several sets of 2 counts; the first count is a step & block, the second a strike. The first set is a forward full step with an upward block, then a punch. Pretty simple; someone punches at you, you step in, block, and punch 'em back. But... if you look at the entire form, you see the underlying principle of holding one spot and moving off the line of the attack, then returning a counter strike. So, keeping the principle intact, I can do that first set with a elbow cover/block followed by a kick or a downward block and a throw or a step, trap and joint lock... And I get my "reward" not from having someone tell me I did that form properly, but from finding the lesson within it.

Hope this makes a little bit of sense...

 

[Kframe]

JKS I find your characterization of CCW as hero wannabes that will spray and pray kind of insulting. You do realize many of us do train with our weapons more then 17hours a year?(which just so happens to be the average time the local police spend actually training with there guns here) Only someone with a mindset and agenda against CCW and carry laws would use that specific wording. You are correct that we CCW should move out when stuff like that goes down. How ever does that mean, if I happen to find my self in close proximity when it happens as in say 15 feet, that I shouldn't engage? Sorry that is dumb, especially if im literally right there and can do something.

Just the thing progressives want. Don't try to help people, just keep to your self and don't make a stir. Let the Government handle all your problems, we know better then you whats good for you.

 

[SteveNC]

JKS I find your characterization of CCW as hero wannabes that will spray and pray kind of insulting. You do realize many of us do train with our weapons more then 17hours a year?(which just so happens to be the average time the local police spend actually training with there guns here) Only someone with a mindset and agenda against CCW and carry laws would use that specific wording. You are correct that we CCW should move out when stuff like that goes down. How ever does that mean, if I happen to find my self in close proximity when it happens as in say 15 feet, that I shouldn't engage? Sorry that is dumb, especially if im literally right there and can do something.

Just the thing progressives want. Don't try to help people, just keep to your self and don't make a stir. Let the Government handle all your problems, we know better then you whats good for you.

In 100% agreement with you here my friend