The sparring Thread.

[RTKDCMB]

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)

But do you have the same or equivalent training as the local police in regards to protecting bystanders from collateral damage and tactics etc?

 

[Chris Parker]

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.

Hmm. Not much here that I agree with... yes, you can talk your way out of conflict with a predator, but not in the way most think of as "talking your way out of things". A blindside attack is one launched from an unseen position, and negates any pre-emptive striking (you've already been hit, nothing pre-emptive about what you'd do), so it's not the right context for "hit first", or anything else mentioned. As far as the threat being recognised, I also wouldn't say there's no good excuse for a fight to occur... but we're really getting into the broader range of possible situations, and at that point, the only thing you can really say is that there aren't any absolutes.

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

Nah, none of those are "best" for self defence... you're getting focused on a physical action, which is not the way to approach it (I've mentioned previously that "the technique aren't the important thing"...). Within a self defence scenario, each of those might indeed be your best physical tool to apply... but the tool itself is really nothing. If you really know what you're doing, it won't matter too much what you use, as they can all have relatively equal value. For the record, I teach primarily open hand methods as well... but not for the reasons you've listed.

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.

Okay. Who's training BBT? You, or the guys on Sherdog? If it's not them, what does their opinion matter? You really might as well be asking the guys on Sherdog about their opinion of ballroom dance versus hip-hop.... it doesn't mean anything.

Look, even here I don't really care what anyone thinks of the training I do, I'm not doing what I do for them, I'm doing it for me (and some other reasons, but that's quite a different discussion). Mike asked about my training, and I gave a rough overview of two-thirds of a regular class I hold... but there was no need for any validation from him at all. Don't get me wrong, I hope Mike got something out of my explanation, but when all's said and done, it's my training, not his, so all that needs to be there is that I need to see the value in it.

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.

Hmm.

Very far from agreement with you here. To begin with, JKS was not saying that all CCW holders are wanna-be heroes, he was talking about those that do want to see themselves in that way (which is a particular sub-set, not an indictment of all holders), so you've really jumped the gun there and read something that wasn't in his comments. From there, you pull out "we train more than the cops do!"? Really? You do realise that that's just going to feed directly into the idea of the "hero mentality" that can be present, yeah?

And, yes, if you do find yourself in close proximity, you shouldn't engage. You should be looking for a way to escape safely. If you can't do that, you should do what you can to not escalate (remain safe). Only if specifically endangered should you even consider engaging. This idea of "Sorry that is dumb", combined with everything in your post, is exactly the mentality JKS was talking about, you know. So you've tried to complain that he made an unfair generalization, then you've lived up to it... hmm.

Psychologically speaking, this entire attitude is not a healthy one... it's based in a range of things, which I'm not going into here. But it's a follow on from what was seen in your post about your reasoning earlier.

 

[SteveNC]

Chris

Maybe I should just create a blog detailing every thought I ever had on the subject of self defense. You could read it once, tell me everything that sucks about it (probably the majority) and then be done with it.

 

[Kframe]

But do you have the same or equivalent training as the local police in regards to protecting bystanders from collateral damage and tactics etc?

Ya you do realize that most police here are woefully undertrained. When I said 17hours I was not joking. That is all the proficiency training they get here. That includes Tactics and marksmanship. How do I know, I have several family members on the force. The only ones with quality training are the swat and srt guys, and the rare few that do there own training.

No the police don't typically do a good job protecting civillians. Just look to NYC for gods sake. They kill Civvies by accident frequently there. The statistics show that cops typically have a HORRID hit percentage, on the order of 17% of shots fired hit the opponent.

 

[Kframe]

Chris non of that changes the fact that I put in more time and more rounds down range then most of the dept here.. Sorry nothing you say can change the reality of my firearms training.. I have been doing it for 10 years, with training from sources. Most cops put 200 rounds a year in training, I do that in aday when im on the ball seriously training. With regards to cops in my town, I DO TRAIN MORE. So no I didn't live up to your and JKS progressive BS.


Secondly Why in gods name, if im that close to a shooter would not take the shot? Just run away from him and let him continue shooting when I can do something right now and im close? By close im talking with in 20feet. Any further then that and im gonna run, simple as that.

Its nice to know you think im crazy. Sorry to burst your bubble but out side of some confidence issues im just fine. Unless your a Doctor in Psychology don't pretend to analyze me.. If you truly have some issue with me then PM me with it and lets work it out.

Sometimes Chris talking to you is like handling a double edged sword. On one hand you can be nice and great to chat with, then on the other you cut and sting. It makes conversation with you difficult.

 

[SteveNC]

Ya you do realize that most police here are woefully undertrained. When I said 17hours I was not joking. That is all the proficiency training they get here. That includes Tactics and marksmanship. How do I know, I have several family members on the force. The only ones with quality training are the swat and srt guys, and the rare few that do there own training.

No the police don't typically do a good job protecting civillians. Just look to NYC for gods sake. They kill Civvies by accident frequently there. The statistics show that cops typically have a HORRID hit percentage, on the order of 17% of shots fired hit the opponent.

Agree. I was a sniper in various recon units during my 20 year service and when I shoot with LEO's I am often amazed at the less than average ability of many of them to handle their service weapon. I take this sort of thing seriously........Not trying to bash the profession in any way, shape or form so hope nobody takes the comment negatively. I have seen some cops that handed me my **** on the "pistol" range

 

[Kframe]

Not to derail this thread with the 2a talk, ill start another thread on the Firearms section for us to discuss this issue separately.

I failed to return to MT in time to edit my previous post, so ill say im sorry to JKS and Chris Parker for calling their POV "progressive BS". I am very passionate about my 2a rights and when it comes to arguing for them I am not doing the cuase any favors. I have yet to learn how to debate and post effectively like the veterans here. I as you may know, tend to free type my thoughts, from my brain to my keyboard with little filter between. I must learn a filter and learn to not post emotionally for emotional posts are not helping my position nor any debate on either side of any issue. So for my part in overreacting I apologize.

I don't know what my issue is.. When I feel like I was insulted(like I felt with JKS and Chris Parkers post) I just let go my feelings from my head. I was angry and I needed to get it out. TBH though it added nothing to thread or the side discussion. So ya I still have much to learn about proper debate and as CP is quick to point out patience.

Back to the topic at hand.

So One thing that I hear on sherdog and other mma forums is that those that spar do better in real situations then those that don't. Now the discussion up to this point is that, that is not true. So does anyone have any numbers or facts to back either side of that argument up? Maybe some anecdotal evidence? Not just the differences between a real attack and sparring but something from people that have had both types of training and been in real situations?

 

[K-man]

So One thing that I hear on sherdog and other mma forums is that those that spar do better in real situations then those that don't. Now the discussion up to this point is that, that is not true. So does anyone have any numbers or facts to back either side of that argument up? Maybe some anecdotal evidence? Not just the differences between a real attack and sparring but something from people that have had both types of training and been in real situations?

I'll throw a couple of things into the mix. The biggest problem I find is the guys who spar tend to engage and disengage. What I teach is to get it, trap and use knees and elbows. In my style of fighting there is not much room for throwing punches or kicking.

The next problem is when a punch is thrown or even a kick the guys who spar, in the conventional sense, often move back and out of the way where I teach to deflect and enter. They tell me it is the hardest thing for them to change.
:asian:

 

[jks9199]

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.

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.

Read again. I think I made it at least reasonably clear that I don't lump all CCW holders in that category. You wanna deny they're out there?

Look through my history here. I'm pretty open that I believe the 2nd Amendment means just what it says -- that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I live and work in Virginia -- an open carry and shall issue state. Don't have a problem with the large majority of the folks who either open carry or have a CCW permit or both. The handful that have fantasies of saving the day? Yep. Because they're the ones who will cause a problem. There are even cops who are so locked into being the hero that they'll do stupid things... I haven't been able to dig up an article (I've looked several times), but I've heard of an incident where an off duty cop was in a fast food restaurant when a robbery went down. He jumped into cop role, and did get the bad guy. But in the fire fight, the cop's young son got killed. Even if it was just a story to drive the point home in training -- not a price I ever want to pay. Off duty, with my family, my "win" would be getting them out safe. Not making an arrest, not saving the day.

 

[Kframe]

Ya I noticed that as well. BBT, at least up to what I have seen from the seniors, is kinda the same way. Though from what I have been told we have a distance we prefer. It feels as if we don't want to be in the typical MMA clinch distance but just outside it. Kukan I think it is called, or as my instructor called it the tactical space between us and them.

I think that is partly why BJJ/grapplers do so well against pure strikers in a mma sense. Were the pure strikers are basically sparring but at full speed, staying to the outside and doing the engage/disengage dance, the grappler is covering and crashing. They don't screw around at that distance they cover their head, eat a few shots on the way in, and engage the deep clinch and take down. The Gracies actually only teach 2 ranges for fighting. One is the "outside" which is so far out your out of kicking range and then there is the "clinch". They don't stand in between. They are either so far out you cant hit them, or so far in that your strikes have less effectiveness, and they can use there takedowns on you. I honestly think that GJJ(not the same as BJJ) is a good system for self defense, at least for some situations.

You wont find it on youtube the the GJJ system actually spends a lot of time(for BJJ at least) on stand up street defense. Such as knife defense and stick defense, gun disarms and a smattering of standing arm locks. Here is a sample of the knife defense they teach.

Here is there standing armbar from there white to blue belt, from about 2.5 on from this video.

Here is a better video http://www.gracieacademy.com/news/gracie-instructor-attacked-in-road-rage-incident.asp

I guess what im saying is that, I am starting to see that sparring strategies are not all the suited to the street. Now I think the Cover and crash tactics of GJJ are good, but still it has a heavy sports emphasis. At least they are putting in time on street applicable things.

K man, it never occurred to me just why sparring was some times deleterious to street defense, until your post. It made me think about things we didn't do. We didn't use elbows or knees in sparring, or any other vicious tech. Our stand up was mostly the in out engage disengage quick bursts of striking bit that you see. Though sometimes we would clinch and instead of striking from clinch, we go for a hip toss and ground fight. So much we could be doing but, we don't. In fact im vary much aware of what im doing in sparring, and the things I cant do I just didn't even think of looking for openings for them. In fact that stuff never really entered my mind. I always had to be mindfull of my partner even though were trying to nail each other.

So I think im getting closer. To recap, I never really thought about the off limits stuff(for mma) during sparring. Our sparring followed a pattern(as outlined above), unless I was loosing badly to a instructor or competing fighter then it tended to end quickly. Then we disengage and step back, touch gloves and I try again. So hmm. I remember doing better as a pure counter fighter, but getting admonished for not being aggressive enough. So id move in to attack and get creamed. Of course my defense at that time was not fully developed.

I think its not the free sparring that is the issue, but the way it is utilized. They way we sparred, made us cautious in a aggressive way. Usually clinching only happened when someone was loosing the standup.

I do remember my most epic moment that didn't follow the typical sparring routine. TKD BB had joined us, he had like 4 years in tkd, and me at 6months. We were sparring full rules. I remember he came in with a front kick, and instead of backing up and playing to the outside like always, I side stepped and came in with a strike and forcefully took him down for gnp.. God it was awesome to dismantle him. Watch the look in his eye as I made it past his kick, with my strikes hitting home. That look of "OH ---".

So I guess for sparring to be more productive for self defense, I guess it needs to be changed a bit. So Lets assume a mma place wants to dedicate a few rounds of sparring to a more self defense orientation. What changes should they make first??

 

[Kframe]

JKS please see PM.

 

[SteveNC]

Self defense carries a different mindset on the tactical side. Like K Man pointed out elbows, knees, kicks to the shin become more of a focus than in traditional competition sparring. You also train to throw a strike or series of strikes that END IT quickly so you can get away (that doesn't mean a knockout). You can't simulate that on a friend and training partner nor can you simulate the state of mind you will be in during a real altercation with a friendly in front of you. One of the main reasons I have been migrating a bit towards Systema is that it does a great job of teaching feel and contact without the fighting.

 

[TKDTony2179]

I don't think that's the issue. Most martial arts incorporate sparring without doubt. Most people training a martial art expect there to be sparring. Most martial arts also have a competitive element and whatever sparring is done in a martial art reflects the competition that you are training to compete in.

I think this is seen in Kframe's posts. How can you know where you are at if you don't spar? When you have trained an MA that spars and you change to a system that doesn't spar I think most times you can accept it, especially if the instructor can explain why there is no sparring. Where it gets harder is where someone from a system that spars looks at a system that doesn't and immediately assumes that the system that doesn't spar is inferior or lacking. What is harder still is the concept that sparring, as most people think of sparring, can be counter productive. What ever physical testing method a style employs is specific for that style. If it employs the type of sparring people expect, well and good. If it doesn't, fine. That's the way it is.

Many discussions distil down to the question, "in a fight, would System A beat System B"? Hence competition and MMA. But when that 'fight' comes down to a fight like we watched in the earlier post ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=visioCFH7II&desktop_uri=/watch?v=visioCFH7II ) where neither side is using anything recognisable from their training, it shows the irrelevance of competitive sparring between people whose systems are not designed for competition.
:asian)

What about this one

? Some elements of the art is there but at the same time it kind of is lost and just look a fight at times.

 

[K-man]

What about this one

? Some elements of the art is there but at the same time it kind of is lost and just look a fight at times.

To me the Bagua guy didn't have a clue as to what was expected. He started ok but couldn't take advantage of what he had. After that he just wasn't there. The other guy was doing his TKD but his kicks would cause him grief in a non sporting arena. Even in that short scenario he lost his balance and fell. At times they both moved in to grab, great. Problem being neither had the faintest clue as to what to do next. I'm sure that if either of those guys fought an MMA guy or someone training Kyokoshin they would have had to call an ambulance. To me, if you enjoy that type of sparring go for it and have fun. After all that is why most of us train. Just don't confuse sport with the violence of a street fight.
:asian:

 

[Kframe]

I get the feeling that the Baqua guy was not a high level practitioner. From my reading on internal arts, they take a fair bit of time to get to the point you can use them and spar with them. You can see it in his movements. After he gets stood up from the suplex, he doesn't even assume the traditional fighting stance he came in with and was in a kick boxing type stance. Clearly he was not ready for that kind of training.

Now im not sure about Internal arts, and I hope the expert internal guys chime in. So far my reading says it takes a long time of training to make them practical for combat and sparing and what not.

 

[K-man]

Ya I noticed that as well. BBT, at least up to what I have seen from the seniors, is kinda the same way. Though from what I have been told we have a distance we prefer. It feels as if we don't want to be in the typical MMA clinch distance but just outside it. Kukan I think it is called, or as my instructor called it the tactical space between us and them.

I think that is partly why BJJ/grapplers do so well against pure strikers in a mma sense. Were the pure strikers are basically sparring but at full speed, staying to the outside and doing the engage/disengage dance, the grappler is covering and crashing. They don't screw around at that distance they cover their head, eat a few shots on the way in, and engage the deep clinch and take down. The Gracies actually only teach 2 ranges for fighting. One is the "outside" which is so far out your out of kicking range and then there is the "clinch". They don't stand in between. They are either so far out you cant hit them, or so far in that your strikes have less effectiveness, and they can use there takedowns on you. I honestly think that GJJ(not the same as BJJ) is a good system for self defense, at least for some situations.

You wont find it on youtube the the GJJ system actually spends a lot of time(for BJJ at least) on stand up street defense. Such as knife defense and stick defense, gun disarms and a smattering of standing arm locks. Here is a sample of the knife defense they teach.

Here is there standing armbar from there white to blue belt, from about 2.5 on from this video.

Here is a better video http://www.gracieacademy.com/news/gracie-instructor-attacked-in-road-rage-incident.asp

I guess what im saying is that, I am starting to see that sparring strategies are not all the suited to the street. Now I think the Cover and crash tactics of GJJ are good, but still it has a heavy sports emphasis. At least they are putting in time on street applicable things.

What you are looking at there is common to a number of styles. We have those types of things in Goju, Aikido, Krav and Systema. I'm sure the CMA guys would say the same as would Hapkido.

So I guess for sparring to be more productive for self defense, I guess it needs to be changed a bit. So Lets assume a mma place wants to dedicate a few rounds of sparring to a more self defense orientation. What changes should they make first??

I like the scenario based fighting best. Pick your poison, the guy standing beside you in the pub. The guy on the street asking for something, walking along and someone deliberately walking into you, straight out attack with a weapon etc. then do that against two guys etc. (Just don't forget the mouth guard and groin guard.) Then get a dozen guys together forming a circle. Initially taking turns to attack, then several at a time.
:asian:

 

[SteveNC]

Agree with K-Man. I call it line drill when it's individual on individual for short 10 second burst and I do a lot of multiples as well. We also do circles and snake drills where you attempt to better your chances by moving to turn (spread) that mob circle into a snake with a head and a tail. We do flanking, pinning drills and ground to feet drills. Anything I can think of I throw it out there including the clients work related situations. We use a lot of focus mitts, thai pads, shields and light mma gloves (until their hands get calloused). Granted this is just the physical tactical part. Verbal exchange is a part of almost every scenario

Sometimes I give them pre-determined strike sequences and other times they are masters of their own solution

 

[MJS]

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.

Well, as I've said, anyone is free to train however they wish. IMO, I'd imagine that if someone was serious about SD, then they'd ensure their training was realistic, or as realistic as possible, and that scenario training would certainly be a part of it, or at least something similar.

 

[oftheherd1]

I only read the first two pages. So I'm in no position to agree or disagree with all that has been said. I can only give my thoughts which will no doubt agree with and strengthen some comments, and disagree or weaken some comments.

Essentially I am a Hapkidoist. We are very defensive in nature. We tend to learn specific sets of defenses at a time; against punches, kicks, locks, throws, etc. So there is a legitimate argument of how do you learn randomness if you don't spar? I think that is something the student must do on their own. One, two, and three step sparring in TKD has its strength there. But even then, the student should learn indicators of the likely attack so they can better respond. We need to do those things if we are going to be effective, and we need to be able to adjust quickly, because we tend to move into attacks. Speed and accuracy are essential!

Could we better learn from one, two and three step sparring? Perhaps. But apparently the old masters didn't think so. My ideal consisted on never having a preferred defense. I was taught more than one defense against any type of attack, and I would just allow my mind to spring to one without thinking. I had no specific response that I would always use. I think it worked well for me, but YMMV.

When I studied TKD many years ago, and in my Hapkido training, we weren't taught to take any blows but blocks. Those were done full force. It hurt a lot for a while, and leg blocks with a leg tended to hurt anytime. But we coped. If we were striking or kicking, we learned control. From reading here, that doesn't seem to be taught much. The idea was that if we had sufficient control to stop 1/8 to 1/4 inch from a person, we could stop 1/2 to 1 inch inside a person. We learned to do that making adjustments quickly as we struck. It can be done. But it doesn't seem to be taught much these days.

A reason to use more than one opponent in free sparring is to learn how to confuse opponents in whatever way so you can pick and choose those you will do the most damage to. That I think has value. Why wasn't that done in the Hapkido I learned? I don't know, other than perhaps I hadn't reached a level where I could do that without hurting or damaging joints, or fellow students hadn't learned to protect themselves well.

But my personal belief is that sparring, all types of sparring (up to the second page I think I only saw one mention of one step sparring), has value, even in grappling arts. But free sparring is very dangerous in our art, and can only be done with great care, which might defeat its effectiveness.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay.

Chris

Maybe I should just create a blog detailing every thought I ever had on the subject of self defense. You could read it once, tell me everything that sucks about it (probably the majority) and then be done with it.

Do you really want to start travelling down that path, Steve? I've really been incredibly gentle so far, and only commented on what I disagree with... you're free to (hell, you're welcome and invited to) counter with anything you want. Kinda the point of a discussion forum, you know... not for you to just get upset when your ideas are challenged.

Ya you do realize that most police here are woefully undertrained. When I said 17hours I was not joking. That is all the proficiency training they get here. That includes Tactics and marksmanship. How do I know, I have several family members on the force. The only ones with quality training are the swat and srt guys, and the rare few that do there own training.

No the police don't typically do a good job protecting civillians. Just look to NYC for gods sake. They kill Civvies by accident frequently there. The statistics show that cops typically have a HORRID hit percentage, on the order of 17% of shots fired hit the opponent.

Have you considered that you're not quite getting what the police's job is? Despite having several family members on the force, you really seem to be expecting them to be what you think they should be, rather than looking at what they actually are.

Chris non of that changes the fact that I put in more time and more rounds down range then most of the dept here.. Sorry nothing you say can change the reality of my firearms training.. I have been doing it for 10 years, with training from sources. Most cops put 200 rounds a year in training, I do that in aday when im on the ball seriously training. With regards to cops in my town, I DO TRAIN MORE. So no I didn't live up to your and JKS progressive BS.

So? I'm actually serious here, what's the point you're making? It really isn't about who trains more, but who trains what, and why... the police have to train in a large and broad number of areas, from legal to clerical, from physical to academic, and more... and when it comes to firearms, the training needs to address the need, which is the job expected... and, here's a hint, a cops job is not to shoot people. So who cares if you fire more rounds? It's meaningless. It's such a tiny, low priority skill in the repertoire of an average police officers training that I'm not surprised you'd spend more time on the range. I'm also not impressed by it, either.

To take this to the thread topic, I have no doubt whatsoever that a MMA competitor would eat me alive in an MMA match, because they spend more time training that. But, in my context, and with my needs, that's thoroughly meaningless and unimpressive... you spar more, so you're better at sparring? Good for you. I'll take my skills outside of that arena any day of the week. You shoot more than most police officers? Great, good for you. I'm still going to go with them for understanding when and why a firearm needs to be put in the equation in the first place, let alone all other areas of their job.

But I'm going to address something a bit off topic here... you've labeled both JKS and myself as "progressive"... not being American, not involved or really interested in American political terminology and rhetoric, I'm a little unsure of why being "progressive" would be a bad thing... I mean, the word implies someone who is looking to develop, progress, improve, and further the society around them, rather than staying lost in an archaic, outdated, staid, pointless, and dangerous practices of the past. But hey, I use a dictionary to define words... it seems sometimes that American politics likes to use diametrically opposed definitions... "Liberal" being the "enemy of freedom", when "liberal" refers to the ideology of liberty (freedom) and support of liberation (freedom) from close-minded attitudes and thinking... "Conservative" being the guys concerned with not infringing on any of these "freedoms", when "conservative" actually means safe, restrained, a lack of embellishment, holding to old (safe) ideas, and is fairly well the opposite of freedom, as it's constrained by it's own limitations (conserving it's ideals)... So, if you're going to label me "progressive" because I'm wanting the world to improve, and for you (as a culture) to move past the paranoia and violent fantasies of your culture, I'm pretty fine with that.

Secondly Why in gods name, if im that close to a shooter would not take the shot? Just run away from him and let him continue shooting when I can do something right now and im close? By close im talking with in 20feet. Any further then that and im gonna run, simple as that.

There are any of a number of reasons, ranging from you potentially putting yourself (and those around you) in more danger than you need to be, to the psychological trauma you are going to put yourself through whether you manage to hit him or not, to getting in the way of the actual law enforcement who are there to take care of it themselves (it's their job, not yours), to it being more of a "hero fantasy" than anything really based in reality, and far, far more. Oh, and any further than 20 feet, assess before you run. It might not be the safest option.

Its nice to know you think im crazy. Sorry to burst your bubble but out side of some confidence issues im just fine. Unless your a Doctor in Psychology don't pretend to analyze me.. If you truly have some issue with me then PM me with it and lets work it out.

Son, no-one has used the word "crazy" to describe you except you. I don't have an issue with you. But I can see yours. And that's fine, really... but you might not be aware of just how much you're actually saying. I really don't need a doctorate to be able to see this, by the way... but you might be rather surprised at just what I can see.

Sometimes Chris talking to you is like handling a double edged sword. On one hand you can be nice and great to chat with, then on the other you cut and sting. It makes conversation with you difficult.

What you get from me is honest responses, mate. You ask questions, you get answers. You make statements, you get corrections (if needed). You run rhetoric, you get an argument. There is no difference between what you think is me being "nice" and what you think is me "cutting and stinging" except in the way you read it. But yeah, the double edged sword analogy is fairly apt.

Agree. I was a sniper in various recon units during my 20 year service and when I shoot with LEO's I am often amazed at the less than average ability of many of them to handle their service weapon. I take this sort of thing seriously........Not trying to bash the profession in any way, shape or form so hope nobody takes the comment negatively. I have seen some cops that handed me my **** on the "pistol" range

Again, so? You were trained as a sniper (someone who's job is pretty simply to shoot other people, with specialist tools, in a particular context, with a high emphasis on the marksmanship), which police aren't (other than similar specialist in SWAT and the like), as it's simply not their job. The job of the police is not to shoot people.

Not to derail this thread with the 2a talk, ill start another thread on the Firearms section for us to discuss this issue separately.

I failed to return to MT in time to edit my previous post, so ill say im sorry to JKS and Chris Parker for calling their POV "progressive BS". I am very passionate about my 2a rights and when it comes to arguing for them I am not doing the cuase any favors. I have yet to learn how to debate and post effectively like the veterans here. I as you may know, tend to free type my thoughts, from my brain to my keyboard with little filter between. I must learn a filter and learn to not post emotionally for emotional posts are not helping my position nor any debate on either side of any issue. So for my part in overreacting I apologize.

Okay.

I don't know what my issue is.. When I feel like I was insulted(like I felt with JKS and Chris Parkers post) I just let go my feelings from my head. I was angry and I needed to get it out. TBH though it added nothing to thread or the side discussion. So ya I still have much to learn about proper debate and as CP is quick to point out patience.

The only insults were ones you imagined, you realise. JKS didn't insult you, or CCW holders, and I simply gave you some observations about the things you are revealing in your posts. You jumped the gun in both cases, reading attacks and implications where there weren't any. So I'll offer a bit of advice that has served me well... most people just don't listen. Most people, when you're talking to them, aren't listening to what you're saying past the first few words, as they're already deciding what they're going to say in response. In order to do that, they have to decide first what's going to be said by the first person... which could easily be very different to what they're actually saying... and stop listening to what's really being said. So, take a moment when someone is saying something, and try to listen to what's actually being said, rather than what you expect is being said. When it comes to the written word, as tone is so hard to convey, try to read it in as many different tones, with as many shades of meaning as you can... then see if you can figure out which is the most likely to have been meant. That might help in how you respond... and can help by giving the filter time to kick in, so to speak.

Back to the topic at hand.

So One thing that I hear on sherdog and other mma forums is that those that spar do better in real situations then those that don't. Now the discussion up to this point is that, that is not true. So does anyone have any numbers or facts to back either side of that argument up? Maybe some anecdotal evidence? Not just the differences between a real attack and sparring but something from people that have had both types of training and been in real situations?

Right, back to the thread...

Okay, some anecdotes... I guess we'll start with me, yeah? I'll give a couple of my experiences, as well as some of the experiences of some of my students, and from there you can make up your own mind as to the usefulness of such stories (to my mind, anecdotal evidence is only evidence that something might have happened once, so it's not a big thing for me... and, as for stats, well, that's simply not realistic in this regard... we'll hopefully see why). Let's start with my two best self defence situations, then go to a few other "successes", and go from there. Thing is, most of my stories don't actually feature violence... which is one reason that stats aren't really something that's possible to get in any meaningful way.

First off, my favourite story... A number of years ago, a friend of mine (who was a singer with a band) invited me to see them play. I didn't know where it the venue was, so asked about dress code, and was told that it was a "nice place, kinda upmarket", so I dressed appropriately (suit, shirt, nice shoes... I looked great). Thing is, the bar was actually in our Western suburbs, which is not a particularly upmarket place... and my suit looked rather out of place with the black jeans, metal band t-shirts, and tattoos on show. Hmm... So, knowing full well that I stood out pretty badly (my house was around an hour away, and I didn't drive, so going home to change wasn't an option), I did what I could to stick to the walls and not get too noticed, which worked until after the gig. As my friends band was finishing, three guys came in, went straight to the bar, ordered beers, and began looking around. The band finished, my friend came over for praise, and the group packed up... which took about 20 minutes or so. While they were loading the van, my friend and I were talking (she was being congratulated on the gig), and over her shoulder, I saw one of the guys split off and circle around in our direction. Past us was the ladies bathroom, a pool table (which had been switched off for the night, as well as the light above it)... the door to the gents was about 30 feet directly in front of me. This guy, watching us from the corner of his eye, circled around, going straight past the entrance to the guys bathroom (without stopping to look), getting closer and closer to us... so I stopped acting like I didn't notice him, and stared directly at him, catching his eye. He stopped dead, stared back, then started to yell abuse ("What the f you lookin' at, huh?") as he backed off. I mentioned to my friend it was time to leave, and, once we were out, I explained why we had to leave so suddenly. "Oh, yeah, those guys... they're here most weekends, they always pick someone and gang up on them to beat the hell out of them". Thanks for the heads up, sweetheart...

So, no violence, but an attempted ambush averted due to awareness and removing the element of surprise used by a predator. Good result in my book.

Second one... same friend, different bar, watching another friend's band. An hour or so in, a guy comes in and keeps trying to ingratiate himself with all the girls, including my friends... they're all early 20's, he's probably nearing 50 and drunk. I keep my eyes on him, and run interference by joining in the conversations he's trying to start. As he turns around and leans over to get his drink, I notice the handles of a couple of knives in his belt. So, he's drunk, leering all over my friends, and carrying knives... what do I do? I get my friends, and tell them it's time to hit another bar (our friends band has finished playing). On the way out, I grab the security there, and give them a heads up in case anything happens with the guy.

So, no violence, but awareness and calm action removed myself and my friends from a potential situation, and the people who's job it is to deal with it are given a heads up. Good result in my book.

Most of my self defence stories are like that, of course... violence is a minimalist aspect of self defence, and generally means that there's been a major breakdown on a number of levels along the way. Speaking of...

Then there was the night an ex came round with a group of guys, including the hopeful new beau... unable to get me out of my house, they went to my fuse box and switched off the power to draw me out. I went out (first mistake), rather than calling the cops about the trespass. When I went out, I tried to talk to my ex, walking directly towards her (second mistake), which allowed a couple of the guys to get behind me. As I approached her, the hopeful new beau stepped in front of me, and, as I was a little upset at the time, I just pushed him aside and continued towards my ex (third mistake). So, let's look at this... I've gone out into a situation where I'm outnumbered 5 to 1 (not counting my ex) at night, with no power (or light), ignored the threat of the group, allowed them to surround me, and then aggravated the "pack leader" of the group. So, not surprisingly, the next thing that happened was that I was punched in the back of the head. Hmm, it's not going well. I turn around into another punch (I'm really not doing well here...), which sees me starting to cover just to protect myself. The other guys decide to join in, and I start doing the best thing I've done so far... I move to the outside of the group, and get back towards my door. One or two hits to disengage, I get inside, lock the door, and call the police to deal with things. Just for fun, though, while her friends were attacking me, my ex was also calling the police against me... for fighting her friends... who were trespassing on my property... hmm... perhaps it's not a bad thing that relationship ended... All in all, a reasonable result (no real injuries, a fairly quick escape) to a situation I should never have been in.

Physical with a better result? Glad you asked... A friend of mine was going away to Europe for a year and a half, so we were holding a going-away party for her in a hired Scout Hall. It was a fun night, lots of music, pretty girls, you know the drill. I don't drink, so that wasn't really anything that I was interested in, but others certainly seemed to be enjoying that aspect... including the brother of the girl who was going away. We didn't know it at the time, but he was an undiagnosed schizophrenic, suffering from violent outbursts and other less obvious symptoms. Over the course of the night, he perhaps had a bit more to drink than he should have had, and began talking to three girls in the kitchen of the hall we were using... none of the girls were particularly thrilled to be caught there, and kept trying to walk away... which he didn't really like. He began yelling, then picking up anything not stuck down in the kitchen, and smashing it into anything that was... doors, cupboards, kettles, toaster, microwave... so I came to see what was going on. Asking him what he was doing, he just glared, then tried charging past me... as he did, one of my arms slipped under his, bringing it behind his back, and my other arm wrapped around his upper chest in a security hold, and held him as he struggled for a few seconds. Then, I walked him over to a beanbag on the ground nearby, and brought him to the ground, talking him down. Once he calmed down a bit, I released the hold, and stayed with him, chatting, to ensure he wasn't about to have another outburst. Good result again.

A different party, and another guy who might have had a bit too much to drink, and isn't too skilled on picking up on certain signals... namely the ones that say "hey, you know that guy she's been holding the arm of all night? That's her boyfriend..." This is a relatively simple one. My girlfriend at the time was getting a bit too much attention from someone, and when I suggested that perhaps he'd have better luck with some other girls, he told me to, well, find a substitute for my girlfriend in myself, and tried to push me away. Okay, not worth us hanging around here, time to leave, so I started to lead my girl out and away, getting myself between the guy and her, and he reached out, grabbed my shoulder, and pulled me around, screaming abuse, and still offering suggestions for very personal satisfaction... I backed away, he followed, so I struck, and he went down. We left. Good result.

There are other stories like these, but that's a good cross-section of situations I've been in in the last 20 years or so (since switching to non-sparring systems dominantly). I also have a range of stories of my students, including ones where they applied awareness, verbal de-escalation, pre-emptive strikes, a case of a gun disarm from my instructor, a knife defence/disarm from a student of mine, and more. No sparring for any of these guys, by the way. Instead, I think I'll give a story from when I did sparring arts exclusively.

When I was young, I trained in Tani-ha Shito Ryu Shukokai Karate-do, then in Rhee Tae-Kwon Do. Shukokai was developed in a large part specifically to gain success in tournaments (which is where Tani got his fame), and, although there weren't many tournaments, that's where the crux of the training had it's basis (shorter, higher postures, the use of "sparring combinations" in addition to kata and ippon kumite drills, and so on), and TKD, well, was TKD. So, when one of the other kids at my school decided to not like me, it escalated the way only a school-yard situation can, into a peer-pressured public fight. That's fine, I've trained in martial arts that teach fighting for a couple of years now, I'll be fine. Just one thing... what are the rules of a school-yard fight? As I went to ask that very question (hey, I was young...), I found myself in a headlock, with a fist pummelling my face. I still didn't know what I was allowed to do (my mothers voice was in my ears telling me that I shouldn't ever have to fight, and if I did, I shouldn't ever kick... great advice for a TKD student, huh?), and my training telling me that we should step back and start again clean. That one didn't go well.

I will note here, though, that I was actually pretty good at sparring... I had won a couple of in-house tournaments, and was consistently "successful" in my sparring in class... but it really gave me quite a false image of what to expect, as well as giving me a set of skills that simply weren't applicable for that situation. My non-sparring training, on the other hand, has done quite nicely in that regard.

I'll throw a couple of things into the mix. The biggest problem I find is the guys who spar tend to engage and disengage. What I teach is to get it, trap and use knees and elbows. In my style of fighting there is not much room for throwing punches or kicking.

Engage, disengage, re-engage is one issue... the tactic of moving in to trap is, of course, just one approach. Disengaging to escape is another. The problem with relying on only one (or dominantly one) tactic is that there can be any number of situations that that's just not useful, or optimal for.

The next problem is when a punch is thrown or even a kick the guys who spar, in the conventional sense, often move back and out of the way where I teach to deflect and enter. They tell me it is the hardest thing for them to change.
:asian:

Again, just a tactical difference, and needs to be matched to the situation. I teach both, for instance, moving away (defensively or evasively), and moving in (offensively), as each encounter will require a different response.

Ya I noticed that as well. BBT, at least up to what I have seen from the seniors, is kinda the same way. Though from what I have been told we have a distance we prefer. It feels as if we don't want to be in the typical MMA clinch distance but just outside it. Kukan I think it is called, or as my instructor called it the tactical space between us and them.

Hmm, this can get a little, uh, vague, but yeah, there is a preferred distance (for the record, each Ryu-ha has it's own sense of distance, separate and distinct from each other), and the term for distance is ma-ai (which pretty literally means "meeting interval", or the distance between two meeting/engaging parties). The concept of Kukan is a little more nebulous, and refers to the space surrounding both the opponent and yourself (both separately and together)... it's used in the management of yourself and your opponent, not only physically, but "spiritually" and psychologically as well. Then, there's the Bujinkan distancing, which is a bit different to the ma-ai of the Ryu-ha... hmm...

I think that is partly why BJJ/grapplers do so well against pure strikers in a mma sense. Were the pure strikers are basically sparring but at full speed, staying to the outside and doing the engage/disengage dance, the grappler is covering and crashing. They don't screw around at that distance they cover their head, eat a few shots on the way in, and engage the deep clinch and take down. The Gracies actually only teach 2 ranges for fighting. One is the "outside" which is so far out your out of kicking range and then there is the "clinch". They don't stand in between. They are either so far out you cant hit them, or so far in that your strikes have less effectiveness, and they can use there takedowns on you. I honestly think that GJJ(not the same as BJJ) is a good system for self defense, at least for some situations.

It really comes down to who can control their distancing better. The fact that the BJJ guys don't mind wearing a bit on the way in is a factor, sure, but all it really means is that they are better at choosing and maintaining their distance. For the record, you'll learn a lot more about distance in BBT, as you'll need to deal with (and understand) stand-up striking and kicking range, outside of engagement range, a mid-grappling range (joint locks etc), a close-grappling range (throws, chokes), some ground-range methods (from sitting through to actually on the ground), and a whole host of weaponry ranges, from short weapons such as knife, through to long weapons such as Bo, spear, and naginata, as well as projectile weapons. The idea is to get you comfortable at any of these ranges, and be able to move from one to another as needed (note: you don't want to match the range your opponent chooses, but instead to take them to a range they don't like... such as keeping a BJJ guy in that striking range).

You wont find it on youtube the the GJJ system actually spends a lot of time(for BJJ at least) on stand up street defense. Such as knife defense and stick defense, gun disarms and a smattering of standing arm locks. Here is a sample of the knife defense they teach.

Here is there standing armbar from there white to blue belt, from about 2.5 on from this video.

Here is a better video http://www.gracieacademy.com/news/gracie-instructor-attacked-in-road-rage-incident.asp

Er... yeah... I've gone through that knife defence clip before, and I wouldn't personally rely on it at all... there's no control until too late in the action, there's no countering of the counter-pull that would happen (which would result in a tip-rip at the least), the control at the end isn't as tight as it could be, and a few other things. As far as the arm-bar, it's (honestly) rather inferior to the way we do it, so you know... which is seen in the example of it being used in "self defence". It's too lacking in control, not tight enough, too easy to back out of (which is what happens), and so on. There wasn't much that I found too impressive in the stand-up material, honestly, as most of it is done better in Judo or other arts. Of course, I'm a little confused as to why you might think we didn't think BJJ had any stand-up...

I guess what im saying is that, I am starting to see that sparring strategies are not all the suited to the street. Now I think the Cover and crash tactics of GJJ are good, but still it has a heavy sports emphasis. At least they are putting in time on street applicable things.

Okay.

K man, it never occurred to me just why sparring was some times deleterious to street defense, until your post. It made me think about things we didn't do. We didn't use elbows or knees in sparring, or any other vicious tech. Our stand up was mostly the in out engage disengage quick bursts of striking bit that you see. Though sometimes we would clinch and instead of striking from clinch, we go for a hip toss and ground fight. So much we could be doing but, we don't. In fact im vary much aware of what im doing in sparring, and the things I cant do I just didn't even think of looking for openings for them. In fact that stuff never really entered my mind. I always had to be mindfull of my partner even though were trying to nail each other.

Yeah... that's not the important aspect, though. As I've said, the techniques really don't mean much, as it's actually all about the application and tactical response. And that's where the real difference is.

So I think im getting closer. To recap, I never really thought about the off limits stuff(for mma) during sparring. Our sparring followed a pattern(as outlined above), unless I was loosing badly to a instructor or competing fighter then it tended to end quickly. Then we disengage and step back, touch gloves and I try again. So hmm. I remember doing better as a pure counter fighter, but getting admonished for not being aggressive enough. So id move in to attack and get creamed. Of course my defense at that time was not fully developed.

And that (the idea of "you're not aggressive enough", which is about winning competitions, is what I mean when I talk about the tactical responses being the real difference.

I think its not the free sparring that is the issue, but the way it is utilized. They way we sparred, made us cautious in a aggressive way. Usually clinching only happened when someone was loosing the standup.

It's the context of the sparring, how it's used, the aims, and so on.

I do remember my most epic moment that didn't follow the typical sparring routine. TKD BB had joined us, he had like 4 years in tkd, and me at 6months. We were sparring full rules. I remember he came in with a front kick, and instead of backing up and playing to the outside like always, I side stepped and came in with a strike and forcefully took him down for gnp.. God it was awesome to dismantle him. Watch the look in his eye as I made it past his kick, with my strikes hitting home. That look of "OH ---".

Yeah... again, that's an emotional "high" that Tony was talking about earlier. I mean, happy for you, but... not really much to do with anything.

So I guess for sparring to be more productive for self defense, I guess it needs to be changed a bit. So Lets assume a mma place wants to dedicate a few rounds of sparring to a more self defense orientation. What changes should they make first??

Well, firstly I'd ask why they'd want to. It's not part of MMA, and just takes time away from training MMA. Next, I'd advise them to not worry about dedicating "a few rounds of sparring" to self defence... it's really just not the right approach. The first thing they'd need to do is to recognize what the differences are, then develop a completely separate curriculum to deal with it. I'd recommend they use the physical skill sets of MMA as a framework, but the tactical applications would need to be vastly altered. There'd be absolutely no point in looking at doing anything like that in a sparring context until they got that down first, otherwise they'd just be sparring a skill set they didn't have.

I like the scenario based fighting best. Pick your poison, the guy standing beside you in the pub. The guy on the street asking for something, walking along and someone deliberately walking into you, straight out attack with a weapon etc. then do that against two guys etc. (Just don't forget the mouth guard and groin guard.) Then get a dozen guys together forming a circle. Initially taking turns to attack, then several at a time.
:asian:

A lot of that (the circle etc) are more acclimation drills than scenario drills, similar to Geoff Thompson's Animal Day training (highly recommended as well, by the way!), I'd also add adrenaline drills, which can take a number of forms.