Martial Sport VS Self Defense

[Gerry Seymour]

Ah yes, the "fight-enders". Eye-gouging, the always easily accessible groin in any scenario, the perfect throat shot. I forgot about those.

I lump all of those in with stuff like pressure points. They work, when they work. They are only dependable when you can get to them (to DB's point about a good striker), and some folks are taught to depend upon them MUCH too much.

In fact, when I show using a groin shot, I usually am using it to get them to move a leg to block me. Most men are pretty good at doing that, and do it without thought. Similar concept with eye pokes.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Are you referring to MA schools that focus more so on the SD side of MA? Or an actual SD class/course?

What's the distinction between those?

 

[Steve]

Yes, @gpseymour , I think the subtle but important difference between our views is that you see yourself as a pilot in your analogy.

You think you're doing this:

When you're really doing this:

It's a killer setup, but it's still not actually flying a plane. That's the difference between training and application. The guys in the top picture are developing skills and expertise as pilots. Using the bottom setup will develop skills and expertise in operating this simulation. Could a person who is an expert in using the setup on the bottom fly a plane? Maybe. It's possible. Would you consider him an expert pilot? Or even a competent pilot? I wouldn't. Not until he took the skills developed on the simulator and began to apply them in the context of actually flying a plane.

 

[pdg]

Yes, @gpseymour , I think the subtle but important difference between our views is that you see yourself as a pilot in your analogy.

If I'm on a plane and the person doing this:



dies, I'd prefer it if someone who has done this:



takes over, rather than someone who has done this:

 

[Steve]

If I'm on a plane and the person doing this:

View attachment 21327

dies, I'd prefer it if someone who has done this:

View attachment 21328

takes over, rather than someone who has done this:

View attachment 21329

Of course! Not disputing this at all. I'd say both of your images represent the spectrum of quality in self defense training that exists. You have really great setups and some questionable ones. But none of them are actually piloting a plane.

The question is, would you consider guy #2 to be a pilot (much less an expert pilot)?

And what would you think if person #2 began teaching flying lessons to other people using his killer simulator setup?

 

[pdg]

Of course! Not disputing this at all. I'd say both of your images represent the spectrum of quality in self defense training that exists. You have really great setups and some questionable ones. But none of them are actually piloting a plane.

The question is, would you consider guy #2 to be a pilot (much less an expert pilot)?

And what would you think if person #2 began teaching flying lessons to other people using his killer simulator setup?

I think the spectrum is wider than that though - top end is the type of sim used in real training. The sim you pictured is well below that...

Bottom end is the equivalent of my tiger repellent trousers - y'know, I've got these trousers and never been attacked by a tiger whilst wearing them so they must work

Now, if guy #2 was saying that him giving you 8 hours of training on his sim would give you a pilot's licence and you'd be ready to fly a commercial jet - I'd have to call bs.

If however he said it might give you a little head start if the hypothetical situation arose where you're called on to save a plane - yeah, that's possible.

Either way, he could be a pilot. The definition would be holding a licence and/or doing it for a living.

Being able to fly doesn't really come into it - I don't have a licence but I could probably be a pilot in some parts of the world.


There's quality of training, some is better than others - wouldn't dispute that.

There's also quality and truthfulness of advertising...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes, @gpseymour , I think the subtle but important difference between our views is that you see yourself as a pilot in your analogy.

You think you're doing this:

When you're really doing this:

It's a killer setup, but it's still not actually flying a plane. That's the difference between training and application. The guys in the top picture are developing skills and expertise as pilots. Using the bottom setup will develop skills and expertise in operating this simulation. Could a person who is an expert in using the setup on the bottom fly a plane? Maybe. It's possible. Would you consider him an expert pilot? Or even a competent pilot? I wouldn't. Not until he took the skills developed on the simulator and began to apply them in the context of actually flying a plane.

It depends what you think flying is. You are apparently convinced the only “flying” for me is defending myself in the wild. But pilots don’t train only to fly in emergencies. They train to fly, and learn how to apply those skills to emergencies. You are saying the only application is the emergency (or competition, I think, so barnstorming?). So a pilot isn’t a pilot until they have an emergency?

 

[Steve]

I think the spectrum is wider than that though - top end is the type of sim used in real training. The sim you pictured is well below that...

Bottom end is the equivalent of my tiger repellent trousers - y'know, I've got these trousers and never been attacked by a tiger whilst wearing them so they must work

Now, if guy #2 was saying that him giving you 8 hours of training on his sim would give you a pilot's licence and you'd be ready to fly a commercial jet - I'd have to call bs.

If however he said it might give you a little head start if the hypothetical situation arose where you're called on to save a plane - yeah, that's possible.

Either way, he could be a pilot. The definition would be holding a licence and/or doing it for a living.

Being able to fly doesn't really come into it - I don't have a licence but I could probably be a pilot in some parts of the world.


There's quality of training, some is better than others - wouldn't dispute that.

There's also quality and truthfulness of advertising...

okay, so top end guy... guy who uses the type of sim in real training.

You’re making a great point, which is that great training makes the transition to application easier and more reliable. But there is still a transition to make. Right?

And, that guy who trains on the highest end simulator... would you consider him qualified to teach pilots? I wouldn’t.

Regarding your definition of pilot, I don’t understand. You’re saying that flying a plane isn’t a prerequisite to being a pilot? I don’t agree.

 

[Steve]

It depends what you think flying is. You are apparently convinced the only “flying” for me is defending myself in the wild. But pilots don’t train only to fly in emergencies. They train to fly, and learn how to apply those skills to emergencies. You are saying the only application is the emergency (or competition, I think, so barnstorming?). So a pilot isn’t a pilot until they have an emergency?

flying is pretty self explanatory. Lol. What is flying? A ridiculous question.

 

[pdg]

Here's my take, using the pilot/flying analogy...

You can watch 'enter the dragon' - that's mr. tiger proof trousers, or 1980s atari flight game.

Do a short course - low level simulator.

Participate in an ongoing course or take up an MA with no sparring - mid level simulator (ish, if you only ever do line work you're going lower).

MA or SD, ongoing, with regular sparring - very good sim.

Competition level - qualified pilot.


Now the waters get muddied...

In a given situation (guy jumps you with knife / you lose the engine) then the higher up that scale you get the better your chances. But, it doesn't necessarily mean that a lower level has no chance - 1980s flight game guy might land the plane, you might get a lucky punch in.

 

[pdg]

And, that guy who trains on the highest end simulator... would you consider him qualified to teach pilots? I wouldn’t.

Some of the 'best' simulators don't always have qualified pilots running them - you can be qualified to run the sim without a pilot's licence...

Regarding your definition of pilot, I don’t understand. You’re saying that flying a plane isn’t a prerequisite to being a pilot? I don’t agree.

To be a pilot, you need a licence.

You can obtain various levels of licence, some of which require very very little flight. You can hold that licence and never fly again, but you have to have flown a bit at some point.

I meant more along the lines of - being a pilot (holding a licence) isn't a prerequisite to flying a plane...

 

[hoshin1600]

the problem i see here is that you all are trying to make a computer program which acts as a simulator the same as martial arts. by this level of comparison you would be comparing an actual fight to sitting on the couch playing Grand Theft Auto.
these are not fair and balanced comparisons. now if you want to compare a guy actually on a plane with controls in hand but is sitting next to his instructor,, then that is a fair comparison to hip throwing someone on the street vs in the dojo.

 

[pdg]

by this level of comparison you would be comparing an actual fight to sitting on the couch playing Grand Theft Auto.

Ah, but that could be a valid comparison...

Let's say in the game you do a sequence of moves so your character does block-punch-kick-grab-run.

That might work in an actual fight

It doesn't mean you've done it in person against someone who actually wants to hurt you, but nor does a few throws in class.

 

[hoshin1600]

It doesn't mean you've done it in person against someone who actually wants to hurt you, but nor does a few throws in class.

a few throws in class...well ok no. but hundreds? i already gave my opinion on this. procedural memory is procedural memory. to actually grab someone and throw them....the brain doesnt care if they are your dojo mate or not.

 

[pdg]

a few throws in class...well ok no. but hundreds? i already gave my opinion on this. procedural memory is procedural memory. to actually grab someone and throw them....the brain doesnt care if they are your dojo mate or not.

I wouldn't fundanentally disagree with that.

But if it's hundreds of the same throw with the same entry, that might not work for you in a different situation.

 

[hoshin1600]

I wouldn't fundanentally disagree with that.

But if it's hundreds of the same throw with the same entry, that might not work for you in a different situation.

you would have to go back to my previous post ..i had said something to the effect that after hundreds of throws you have probably had enough variability to ingrain the muscles to fire properly

 

[Gerry Seymour]

flying is pretty self explanatory. Lol. What is flying? A ridiculous question.

Now you're being condescending, Steve.

What is flying in the analogy? I train to do hip throws on people who don't want to be thrown. When I do drills with hip throws, that's "training to fly". When I do a hip throw on a resisting person, that's "flying". I learn how that can be applied to SD situations and do some simulations to work on that. That's the "emergency flying" training pilots get (and hope never to have to apply).

See, the issue is you're assuming I'm training self-defense. I'm training skills FOR self-defense. If I don't ever have to defend myself, I'm never applying them in that context. But I'm still applying them in other contexts, and there are several models of training (which I and others have pointed out) that show this does work. It's less effective than when you can experience the application repeatedly in the context, but it is effective and we recognize the limitations as part of the problem inherent in training those things.

 

[hoshin1600]

your not building procedural memory by playing a video game, regardless how violent it is.

 

[hoshin1600]

im not a big fan of being shot at ,,,so i can practice not being shot at.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I wouldn't fundanentally disagree with that.

But if it's hundreds of the same throw with the same entry, that might not work for you in a different situation.

That's why resistive training is so useful. An opponent (or even training partner) who reists even a little dramatically changes the learning.

Here's the issue - it's really no harder to throw a resisting person with a hip throw than a non-resisting person, if you recognize the right opportunity. It just takes resistive training to ensure you recognize what is NOT the right opportunity and don't get yourself in trouble. The problem comes when you try to do a hip throw against someone who is specifically trying to resist a hip throw or you give them an opening to counter it. The throw itself isn't the issue - the situation (and the other person) are what change.