Martial Sport VS Self Defense

[Gerry Seymour]

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

And, if the experiences have been varied enough, your pattern recognition is probably ingrained enough to step into the throw at the right opportunity.

 

[pdg]

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

I practice that every day

 

[Steve]

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...



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...

You're getting a little mixed up and starting to focus on certification and not skill development. Certification is an important topic, but not really all that relevant to the current discussion.

The license is the ceremonial acknowledgment that you have been certified. I mean, if we want to continue to mine the pilot analogy, I guess a question could be, can one receive a license without ever flying an actual plane in the real world? Is flying a plane in a simulator equivalent to flying an actual plane?

I would say no to both questions. Which leads to more questions. If we set the topic of certification to the side for a moment and focus on skill development:

Would you be comfortable if you knew that the person flying your plane had never before flown an actual plane, but had a killer simulator at home?

If yes, would you be comfortable if you learned that the person who is now flying your plane above had learned to fly his simulator from a guy who also learned to fly a simulator and had never flown an actual plane?

Personally, I'd be very uncomfortable with the above situations. The reason I would be uncomfortable is because I don't believe that experience of piloting a simulator can replace the experience of actually piloting a plane. I don't see them as being the same thing.

And, to bring this back around, I think that a person who pilots a simulator, and cannot appreciate the difference between what he does and what a pilot does, is dangerous.

 

[Steve]

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.

I disagree. I'd say all training is like a simulator. Some is better than others. It really depends on what application you're specifically talking about.

A pro-MMA fighter is an expert MMA fighter. He is analogous to an expert pilot in this area. When you get into fighting on the street, he's like a guy who has a professional level simulator. The transition from fighting in a cage to fighting on the street isn't far, and someone who has developed a lot of skill in the former will likely be able to transfer the skills to the latter.

This is true for all martial artists who have a means of applying their skills. Judoka, Kyokushin Karate, TKD. These guys are all developing real skill. The question is, how applicable are those skills to self defense? But in every case, there is a gap. The key is that, because there's application, the gap is known.

Now, things get really dicey when you don't even apply your own style. You end up moving another step further away. For example, a guy who trains Aikido and practices skills against a "resisting" opponent in class is never actually applying the skills. Rather than becoming an expert Aikidoka, he's becoming an expert Aikido Student. And what's the result? Well, we see it whenever we see an expert aikido student try to apply the skills against someone other than another expert aikido student. It never goes well. And it's here where you really run into people who don't know what they can and can't actually do.

 

[pdg]

The license is the ceremonial acknowledgment that you have been certified. I mean, if we want to continue to mine the pilot analogy, I guess a question could be, can one receive a license without ever flying an actual plane in the real world? Is flying a plane in a simulator equivalent to flying an actual plane?

I'm not mixed up, I'm (badly) highlighting a huge flaw in the analogy.

You cannot be a pilot without the certification.

You can certainly get certified as a flight simulator instructor without ever setting foot on a real plane.

Likewise, you can do thousands of hours of real flying, but unless you get that certificate you're not a pilot - even if you have more real life experience than someone who has the certificate.


Actually, it might not be such a flaw...

I've seen adverts for course run by, and I quote "certified self defence instructors", also "licenced self defence instructors".

What have they done to get certified and licenced?

Probably simulated training...

 

[Steve]

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

it's not a ridiculous question? You're getting yourself all twisted around, @gpseymour .

I've never said you need to defend yourself in the wild (whatever that means). Quite the opposite. I've said that people who compete or use skills professionally are applying the skills. People who don't apply the skills, well, aren't applying them. You think "flying" is training. I think that's ridiculous, but you're pot committed, I guess.

 

[pdg]

I disagree. I'd say all training is like a simulator. Some is better than others. It really depends on what application you're specifically talking about.

A pro-MMA fighter is an expert MMA fighter. He is analogous to an expert pilot in this area. When you get into fighting on the street, he's like a guy who has a professional level simulator. The transition from fighting in a cage to fighting on the street isn't far, and someone who has developed a lot of skill in the former will likely be able to transfer the skills to the latter.

This is true for all martial artists who have a means of applying their skills. Judoka, Kyokushin Karate, TKD. These guys are all developing real skill. The question is, how applicable are those skills to self defense? But in every case, there is a gap. The key is that, because there's application, the gap is known.

Now, things get really dicey when you don't even apply your own style. You end up moving another step further away. For example, a guy who trains Aikido and practices skills against a "resisting" opponent in class is never actually applying the skills. Rather than becoming an expert Aikidoka, he's becoming an expert Aikido Student. And what's the result? Well, we see it whenever we see an expert aikido student try to apply the skills against someone other than another expert aikido student. It never goes well. And it's here where you really run into people who don't know what they can and can't actually do.

I have no choice but to agree with that.

But, it doesn't mean I completely disagree with certain other, slightly conflicting, views either...

 

[Steve]

I have no choice but to agree with that.

But, it doesn't mean I completely disagree with certain other, slightly conflicting, views either...

Fair enough.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'd say all training is like a simulator.

This is the part where we really disagree, Steve. A simulator simulates. A person trying to throw me while I try to throw them is not simulating. Their intention can be exactly the same as the person in a competition. In fact, it can be the same person as in the competition.

I'd be willing to accept the argument that resistive sparring in one's own dojo is like flying with a skilled person (whether trainer, co-pilot, or simply a skilled pilot as passenger) in the seat next to you. It's still flying, but with a measure of control not present in solo flying.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

For example, a guy who trains Aikido and practices skills against a "resisting" opponent in class is never actually applying the skills.

I've asked this before, and didn't understand the answer, so what's the clear distinction to you among these four?

1. Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in class with a known opponent (a student you've trained with before).
2. Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in class with an unknown opponent (another student you've never met).
3. Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in someone else's class with a known or unknown opponent (visiting another school, for instance).
4. Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in a competition with a known or unknown opponent (maybe someone you've competed against before, maybe not).

The way you've voiced it in these threads, only #4 constitutes "application", regardless of whether the opponent is a known quantity or not. It seems arbitrary, at best.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

it's not a ridiculous question? You're getting yourself all twisted around, @gpseymour .

I've never said you need to defend yourself in the wild (whatever that means). Quite the opposite. I've said that people who compete or use skills professionally are applying the skills. People who don't apply the skills, well, aren't applying them. You think "flying" is training. I think that's ridiculous, but you're pot committed, I guess.

You're getting increasingly condescending, and starting to ignore actual points, Steve. I pointed out the problem with the question - a problem you ought to have been aware of before asking it.

You've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand, and declared that everything on one side of it is application, while nothing on the other side can ever be. Without a logical reason for the placement of that line, I can't really learn from your position or debate it. You seem to just think that's a crystal clear delineation. Perhaps my previous post will point out why I don't see it as such. If not, I just don't know what you're missing.

 

[drop bear]

That last sentence isn't really relevant. If a pilot doesn't want to fly deadstick, that doesn't mean he's not a pilot.

I'm not really dependent upon my mood. I've just found that someone threatening me (or someone else) overrides empathy. It's pretty dependable. I have no real reason to want to bull through my empathy circuits to get into competition. Had my Judo instructor not moved to Jordan (or if I'd gotten into BJJ early in life), I'd probably have enjoyed that competition. Grappling doesn't have to require hurting someone, and I'd probably have just been a specialist at the methods less likely to injure. I just can't see myself being aggressive enough in a competition with strikes to be effective. And it would be impossible to tell where a flaw in my skills/technique was a reason for a loss, versus the low aggression.

Which is generally a reflection of your training. And that missing element of application.

 

[pdg]

I've asked this before, and didn't understand the answer, so what's the clear distinction to you among these four?

1. Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in class with a known opponent (a student you've trained with before).
2. Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in class with an unknown opponent (another student you've never met).
3. Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in someone else's class with a known or unknown opponent (visiting another school, for instance).
4. Resistive sparring/rolling/randori in a competition with a known or unknown opponent (maybe someone you've competed against before, maybe not).

The way you've voiced it in these threads, only #4 constitutes "application", regardless of whether the opponent is a known quantity or not. It seems arbitrary, at best.

In the spirit of open discussion, I'm going to give my answer and also wait to see what Steve thinks...

From a self defence perspective, I wouldn't consider any of them "application".

To continue with the whole flight sim analogy though:

1 - would be like a limited sim. You'll get to know the challenges and possible situations they present quite quickly.

2 - a slightly better sim, until or unless you get to know them at which point they downgrade to 1.

3 - another step up on the sim scale, a whole new set of people and challenges with relatively unknown outcomes.

4 - between 2 and 3. Possibly/probably a more restricted ruleset than class training, but set to a higher difficulty.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which is generally a reflection of your training. And that missing element of application.

So, you would also assert that there's a key difference between an unknown training opponent and an unknown competitor? What is that key difference?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In the spirit of open discussion, I'm going to give my answer and also wait to see what Steve thinks...

From a self defence perspective, I wouldn't consider any of them "application".

To continue with the whole flight sim analogy though:

1 - would be like a limited sim. You'll get to know the challenges and possible situations they present quite quickly.

2 - a slightly better sim, until or unless you get to know them at which point they downgrade to 1.

3 - another step up on the sim scale, a whole new set of people and challenges with relatively unknown outcomes.

4 - between 2 and 3. Possibly/probably a more restricted ruleset than class training, but set to a higher difficulty.

So, what is the difference between the known person in class (part of 2) and out of class (part of 3). And what is the difference between the unknown person in an outside location (part of 3) and the same in an official competition (4)?

This is the disconnect for me. Competition isn't magic. If there's a key difference other than the one I've pointed out, the folks making the argument haven't made reference to it that I've seen.

 

[drop bear]

So, you would also assert that there's a key difference between an unknown training opponent and an unknown competitor? What is that key difference?

What is the difference between the fully resisted sparring you have done and competition you won't do because you don't have the tools.

Because I think it is the same answer.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What is the difference between the fully resisted sparring you have done and competition you won't do because you don't have the tools.

Firstly, you've placed something in that question that's not in evidence. I do have the tools, I just lack the interest in hurting someone. I could probably have competed in Judo back in my 30's, when my body was more resilient. I just never had the interest in competition (an interest I find in myself lately, oddly), so never pursued it. How good were my tools? Good enough for the resistive sparring I did that had no clearly defined rules except the understanding that we'd back off if someone got hurt (which is part of most competitions, too). The difference in general (can't speak to all types of competition, of course) was that there were few restrictions and we all knew to respond to something that hurt enough that we knew an injury was the next step. We also held back some of our tools because we couldn't figure out how to apply them in that context without risking injury (the kinds of tools as are omitted from most competition, for the same reason).

Because I think it is the same answer.

So, does any of that address what you're referring to?

Now, if we speak of full-contact striking competition (a much more narrow band), then there is a key difference, but it wouldn't apply to Judo or BJJ competitions. That key difference is that the competitors are actually trying to hurt each other (not out of malice, but because hitting people causes pain and some injury, and that's what it takes to win those). Mind you, that can be done without the need for the formal competition, too. People can spar hard from time to time in classes and with friends. They can even use the same rules as a competition. So, how does it differ?

But the argument put forth is that competition (not just striking competition) is application, while an arguably identical situation without the prize is not. That's the part that baffles me. I could make a strong argument (and have made it in passing on MT before - probably in discussion with you) that there are specific benefits to competition that those of us not competing miss out on. I just don't see this artificial line of application as one of them.

 

[pdg]

So, what is the difference between the known person in class (part of 2) and out of class (part of 3). And what is the difference between the unknown person in an outside location (part of 3) and the same in an official competition (4)?

This is the disconnect for me. Competition isn't magic. If there's a key difference other than the one I've pointed out, the folks making the argument haven't made reference to it that I've seen.

I can't tally the numbers...

But, a person who has attended the same class as you that you've never sparred (say they usually do Thursday but you don't...) is likely to have been taught by the same instructor so will be likely to have the same application of the same techniques.

A newcomer (or someone transferring from another school) is like going to another school, but there's only one of them...

Going to another school means probably a different instructor, with different skillsets, teaching slightly different interpretations of the same techniques.

For competition comparison - we train things in class that aren't legal techniques in our system competition. But in competition things tend to heat up a bit - so it's both easier and more difficult...

To me, the only real thing that competition adds is the stress of motivation.

In comp, you want to win. A little like 'street', but it's still not the same.

 

[drop bear]

Firstly, you've placed something in that question that's not in evidence. I do have the tools, I just lack the interest in hurting someone. I could probably have competed in Judo back in my 30's, when my body was more resilient. I just never had the interest in competition

So you could do it. You just don't want to?

Look mate seriously have a think about how you are mentally processing that. Because I think you are being dishonest with yourself.

Because there is a difference between don't want to and unable to.

And self defence centers around that difference.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can't tally the numbers...

But, a person who has attended the same class as you that you've never sparred (say they usually do Thursday but you don't...) is likely to have been taught by the same instructor so will be likely to have the same application of the same techniques.

A newcomer (or someone transferring from another school) is like going to another school, but there's only one of them...

Going to another school means probably a different instructor, with different skillsets, teaching slightly different interpretations of the same techniques.

For competition comparison - we train things in class that aren't legal techniques in our system competition. But in competition things tend to heat up a bit - so it's both easier and more difficult...

To me, the only real thing that competition adds is the stress of motivation.

In comp, you want to win. A little like 'street', but it's still not the same.

Just a note, when I referred to other schools, I didn't distinguish between "same style" and "other styles". I probably should have. I agree that a same-style school is pretty similar to a student you haven't worked with at the same school you train at. Going to a different style loses all that familiarity, assuming you're working against a student you haven't worked against before.

As for wanting to win, when I spar - unless it's a specific drill - I tend to want to come out on top. I have to temper that with students and lower ranks, of course, so I limit myself. But with someone I consider near my ability, it is my intention to "win" unless I have another purpose in that sparring session (working on defense, finding a way to get to a clinch, etc.).