Martial Sport VS Self Defense

[hoshin1600]

He has a legitimate sports background.

Thompsons legitimacy is not based on a sport. That is a ridiculous statement and you know it. Especially back in his day, wayyyy before MMA. His credibility is from his years as a doorman and bouncer in the most violent areas. Where he has had people even his friends stabbed to death right there in front of him while on the job.
If you know who Geoff Thompson is you know this. Your purposely being biased. At this point your posts have the same validity as Master Ken, everything is BS....except instead of Ameri-do-te your tag line is.....Do MMA.

 

[drop bear]

Thompsons legitimacy is not based on a sport. That is a ridiculous statement and you know it. Especially back in his day, wayyyy before MMA. His credibility is from his years as a doorman and bouncer in the most violent areas. Where he has had people even his friends stabbed to death right there in front of him while on the job.
If you know who Geoff Thompson is you know this. Your purposely being biased. At this point your posts have the same validity as Master Ken, everything is BS....except instead of Ameri-do-te your tag line is.....Do MMA.

I was a bouncer longer than him and I saw a guy set on fire.

Let that one sink in.

I thought he was a judo guy.

 

[hoshin1600]

I was a bouncer longer than him and I saw a guy set on fire.

Let that one sink in.

I thought he was a judo guy.

i dont need to let is sink in. i never once questioned your credentials as a doorman. but you and i both know Thompson is not known for his judo or karate. i am not saying he was the best, meanest SOB doorman to walk the planet. there probably were and are better people at the job than him but he wrote books and made videos and taught lots of people, and people listened due to his backround (and ability to tell a story) in being a doorman in a rough neighborhood.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You know that fat guy who is always on a diet and never looses weight?

And you just can't tell him, regardless how many times you say that he doesn't get it. Or he is being dishonest with himself. That loosing weight is 99% Just doing things you don't want to do.

And they will argue with you that they have a metabolism or a bad back or anything that prevents them from doing the basic requirements that are necessary. Or that they are achieving a lifestyle change so they can still eat crap and be lazy.

That is my bias towards self defence. Every time I hear you say you just won't train the things that suck. I think of that fat guy.

With martial arts I have had a big cold slap of reality thrown in my face and had to go from what I wanted to do to what I had to do. From what I wanted martial arts to be to what is. And it sucked. And it was unfair and people were mean.

Pretty sure if you ask Steve he also would have had this big cold slap of reality thrown in his face as well.

Pretty much everyone who has gone from self defence to a combat sport cops this. Pretty much everyone who has been on a diet that worked went through hell to get there.

If you are not willing to do the things required to be a better martial artist that is fine.

I don't do them myself.

But to try to rationalize that it is validated because you do self defence isn't honest.

To try to save face and suggest that self defence that makes these excuses is some sort of equal method to any system that doesn't get to. Isn't honest.

And so when people say I use self defence as a bad word. Maybe they shouldn't fill my expectations.

Here's the issue. You're putting your experience on me. The training I went through served several people I trained with quite well when they needed to use it. I actually train more of what I don't want now than I used to (you seem to keep ignoring that I do and have done that). There are some things I'm not willing to do and accept that they limit my range, something else you seem to keep ignoring.

You put a lot on the term "self-defense". There are people who do train for SD and use sport as a tool for that. I applaud them, and agree it's a good move. I wish I'd done it earlier. You can call it an excuse if you like - and you likely will, so I'll only say this once. If I bend my big toe just a little too far (anything even close to normal range of motion is too far) under weight, I'm likely out of the fight (that much pain), and will hobble for a week. I know this from experience. The more I do that, the worse the toe gets. That means avoiding doing that to my toe actually improves my ability to defend myself, and probably prolongs my ability to do so later into my life. Sorry if you don't think that's a good decision. I actually train to avoid one toe entirely and limit the use of the other (one is far worse, but neither is particularly good).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I was a bouncer longer than him and I saw a guy set on fire.

Let that one sink in.

I thought he was a judo guy.

That you were a bouncer longer isn't pertinent to his SD credentials, nor is the guy who was set on fire. I like his approach because it's based on real world (not sport) and informed by sport. There's something to be learned from each side, and I like that he brings both. Sport gave him a chance to work a wider range of techniques than he'd likely try out in his job if he didn't have that kind of resistance to work with.

Interestingly, that's also why I read your posts.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sparring vs competition is easy..I mean, what separates them. It's the same thing that separates sparring vs self defense.

The stakes.

In competition, something is on the line(even if it's only your pride)

In sparring, there is nothing.

In self defense, it's your life.

I'm not sure I see much on the line in formal competition that differs from spirited sparring. Maybe that's just me. I want to win/not lose when I spar - I get competitive about it when someone is near (or above) my skill level. When I played team sports, a scrimmage (the equivalent of sparring) was the same as a game to me, every time. I was either playing soccer, or I wasn't. I was all-in as soon as there was an opponent, even if it was just the other half of the team.

 

[Martial D]

I'm not sure I see much on the line in formal competition that differs from spirited sparring. Maybe that's just me. I want to win/not lose when I spar - I get competitive about it when someone is near (or above) my skill level. When I played team sports, a scrimmage (the equivalent of sparring) was the same as a game to me, every time. I was either playing soccer, or I wasn't. I was all-in as soon as there was an opponent, even if it was just the other half of the team.

Possibly prize money. Definitely bragging rights, a belt notch, and a strong affirmation of your training.

You train for comp, you invest yourelf in it physically and mentally, therefore the payout is going to be higher for a win, and the disappointment greater for a loss.

Sure, nothing is universal and you might be the exception, who knows.

 

[pdg]

If I bend my big toe just a little too far (anything even close to normal range of motion is too far) under weight, I'm likely out of the fight (that much pain)

Get it chopped off, it's obviously faulty

 

[Steve]

IIRC, "animal day" is a session where the gloves come off, figuratively speaking. People attack with more raw violence and defend more completely. It brings more chance of injury (hence DB's comment that an MMA match probably fills the role with better control).

Thompsons legitimacy is not based on a sport. That is a ridiculous statement and you know it. Especially back in his day, wayyyy before MMA. His credibility is from his years as a doorman and bouncer in the most violent areas. Where he has had people even his friends stabbed to death right there in front of him while on the job.
If you know who Geoff Thompson is you know this. Your purposely being biased. At this point your posts have the same validity as Master Ken, everything is BS....except instead of Ameri-do-te your tag line is.....Do MMA.

Think about this relative to what I've said in the thread. I described a guy who would be very credible.

In reading the guys bio it looks like he also gravitates to sport arts. If so, Why is that, do you think?

 

[Steve]

That you were a bouncer longer isn't pertinent to his SD credentials, nor is the guy who was set on fire. I like his approach because it's based on real world (not sport) and informed by sport. There's something to be learned from each side, and I like that he brings both. Sport gave him a chance to work a wider range of techniques than he'd likely try out in his job if he didn't have that kind of resistance to work with.

Interestingly, that's also why I read your posts.

The things that make him credible and competent to teach self defense . do you have any of that experience? Any of it? If not, what do you believe makes you a competent credible self defense instructor? Good intentions? A serious demeanor? A good sales pitch?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Possibly prize money. Definitely bragging rights, a belt notch, and a strong affirmation of your training.

I could see the prize money making it different, if you got to that level. Bragging rights has never meant more to me in an official game than a scrimmage.

You train for comp, you invest yourelf in it physically and mentally, therefore the payout is going to be higher for a win, and the disappointment greater for a loss.

Hmm...that's maybe where my disconnect is. When I played soccer (using that because it was all about sport, obviously), I just wanted to play. And when I played I wanted to not lose (more important to me than winning, though I'm not really sure why). I always played defense, my entire time playing soccer, probably because I enjoyed responsibility for preventing that loss. But it didn't matter to me if it was an official game or not. I was training to play. If the other team didn't have enough players to field (so they officially forfeited), I'd offer to play on their team for that game (not an official game now - their forfeit stood) so we could play.

Sure, nothing is universal and you might be the exception, who knows.

I always assumed a significant portion of folks thought/felt the same way. Maybe not. Actually, as I think about that, maybe that explains some (surely not all) of the folks who train SD for their job (bouncers, LEO, etc.) and don't compete. Some probably don't compete because of the time commitment and some because they don't realize its utility for training purposes, but surely that's not all of them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Get it chopped off, it's obviously faulty

It's a bit of a bastard, that's for sure.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The things that make him credible and competent to teach self defense . do you have any of that experience? Any of it? If not, what do you believe makes you a competent credible self defense instructor? Good intentions? A serious demeanor? A good sales pitch?

How does this turn into a challenge of my credentials to teach, Steve? You're on a bit of a crusade right now.

What I have is a track record have having trained and trained with folks who did those things. I'm not Freddie Roach, but I've had reports of what worked for folks I trained or helped train. I've had a few encounters myself and saw what worked. Every instructor I've had (excepting my first one - don't know about her) came from one or both of those ends (sport or job use), and I lean on their experience to supplement what I don't have. And I've tested what I can do against folks both inside and outside the art (just not in formal competition) to get feedback.

Does that make me credible? I don't really know. What I know is I can teach skills that actually work for people.

Oh, and my sales pitch sucks. Badly.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which parts?

This one is the one that seems to be most far afield:

You've implied that your training better prepares someone for self defense than other models for training.

I've not said my approach is better than an approach that includes competition (in fact, I've at least implied if not actually stated I think competition would be a good addition). I do think my approach is an improvement over approaches with less resistance, so if that's what you meant, I'm not sure why you made a point of this.

 

[hoshin1600]

In reading the guys bio it looks like he also gravitates to sport arts. If so, Why is that, do you think?

i havnt read his bio so i cant speak to it directly. but i do know that he had a "religious" experience of sorts and completely rejects the concept of violence and fighting now,, so maybe that is why.

 

[Steve]

How does this turn into a challenge of my credentials to teach, Steve? You're on a bit of a crusade right now.

What I have is a track record have having trained and trained with folks who did those things. I'm not Freddie Roach, but I've had reports of what worked for folks I trained or helped train. I've had a few encounters myself and saw what worked. Every instructor I've had (excepting my first one - don't know about her) came from one or both of those ends (sport or job use), and I lean on their experience to supplement what I don't have. And I've tested what I can do against folks both inside and outside the art (just not in formal competition) to get feedback.

Does that make me credible? I don't really know. What I know is I can teach skills that actually work for people.

Oh, and my sales pitch sucks. Badly.

not at all. I'm really just challenging your position. You have a paradigm. it appears to me that the closer we get to really pushing you out of that paradigm, the more you fall back on patronizing comments and barbs like the ones above. Truly, this isn't about you. Rather, it's about instructors who are not credible presuming credibility based on association.

You have some anecdotal reports, but correlation doesn't equal causation. The fact is, people are very likely to survive assaults, even when victimized, which is exceedingly rare. And people with no training who survive are actually far easier to find than people with training, to the point that when someone has martial arts or self defense training and survives an attack, it is newsworthy. bottom line, you cannot know that your training is helpful. It may be. It may be benign, neither helpful nor harmful. Or you may actually be impeding peoples' ability to survive an encounter, and they are surviving in spite of your training and not because of it. Point is, you really don't know. You believe.

Going on, you are assuming competency based on your association with other people whom you believe are competent, which is also fallacious. Your instructors may have been credible (maybe not), but that doesn't magically transfer to you. You have to take the instruction and then apply it in order to acquire your own skills and competencies. An experienced, credible manager can't train a person to be an experienced, credible manager. Doesn't undermine the value of the training.

You ask a question. Does that make you credible? I'd say what you describe above does not make you credible... as a self defense instructor. Might make you a very credible Aikido instructor.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

not at all. I'm really just challenging your position. You have a paradigm. it appears to me that the closer we get to really pushing you out of that paradigm, the more you fall back on patronizing comments and barbs like the ones above. Truly, this isn't about you. Rather, it's about instructors who are not credible presuming credibility based on association.

You have some anecdotal reports, but correlation doesn't equal causation. The fact is, people are very likely to survive assaults, even when victimized, which is exceedingly rare. And people with no training who survive are actually far easier to find than people with training, to the point that when someone has martial arts or self defense training and survives an attack, it is newsworthy. bottom line, you cannot know that your training is helpful. It may be. It may be benign, neither helpful nor harmful. Or you may actually be impeding peoples' ability to survive an encounter, and they are surviving in spite of your training and not because of it. Point is, you really don't know. You believe.

Going on, you are assuming competency based on your association with other people whom you believe are competent, which is also fallacious. Your instructors may have been credible (maybe not), but that doesn't magically transfer to you. You have to take the instruction and then apply it in order to acquire your own skills and competencies. An experienced, credible manager can't train a person to be an experienced, credible manager. Doesn't undermine the value of the training.

You ask a question. Does that make you credible? I'd say what you describe above does not make you credible... as a self defense instructor. Might make you a very credible Aikido instructor.

My point was that credibility isn't a concern to me. You interpret my references to instructors as a plea for credibility - they are not. They are part of how I look for what works. What an LEO finds useful is more likely to be useful in general (not always - have to consider the differences in context). Same for a bouncer, etc. Those comments were simply meant to give you an idea that I don't just follow what feels good to me.

I know that people who've used what I taught or helped teach have found it useful (not just single incidents, but bouncers, LEO's, and others with ongoing exposure). If it impeded them, it did so oddly. It is entirely possible they would have survived those encounters without using what they learned, but that's the statistical problem of self-defense in general (rather than a problem specific to me). What I taught worked (note that it's not just that they survived, but that they actually used some of what I taught).

And it seems that you don't understand that it's possible to verify things work without a ref. Dunno what to tell you on that. Is it ideal? Nope. There is no ideal validation for training intended for SD. The best we can do is validate where we can. And, no, the ref doesn't necessarily make it more or less valid. You've not yet made any real argument as to why it would, except that somehow the difference is that it's a focal point.

I'm not a badass, don't claim to be that, and don't claim to make others that.

 

[Steve]

My point was that credibility isn't a concern to me.

Bzz... brip... bleep... does not compute. Dude. Really? Okay. So, you're acknowledging now that you are not a credible self defense instructor? Great. That actually settles everything. You're acknowledging now that whether you can pilot the aircraft or not isn't a concern.

You interpret my references to instructors as a plea for credibility - they are not.

Plea is the wrong word. I interpret your reference to your instructors as an indication you believe that is evidence of your credibility.

They are part of how I look for what works.

What works in general. Not what you can do, but that you know it works for someone, somewhere. Okay. Fair enough. Someone, somewhere, can pilot the aircraft doing similar things to what you do. Good. I'm with you.

What an LEO finds useful is more likely to be useful in general (not always - have to consider the differences in context). Same for a bouncer, etc. Those comments were simply meant to give you an idea that I don't just follow what feels good to me.

Okay. So, you've read the flight manuals for a few different categories of aircraft.

I know that people who've used what I taught or helped teach have found it useful (not just single incidents, but bouncers, LEO's, and others with ongoing exposure). If it impeded them, it did so oddly. It is entirely possible they would have survived those encounters without using what they learned, but that's the statistical problem of self-defense in general (rather than a problem specific to me). What I taught worked (note that it's not just that they survived, but that they actually used some of what I taught).

Once again, I remind you that this isn't actually about you. It's about the quandary of people teaching what they don't know. You touch on what I believe is a very important, but nuanced, distinction.

There is a meaningful difference between teaching something that you are competent to teach, and finding that it is helpful when applied in another context where you are not competent, and teaching something that you are not competent to teach. In other words, it's one thing to say, "I teach Aikido, and some bouncers have found it helpful to them when they are working the doors." And, "I teach bouncers how to work the doors." While I'm pretty sure you have not ever said you conduct a "How to Work Doors" class, you have said several times that you teach self defense. Same thing.

As I said above, you did not describe someone who is a credible self defense instructor to me in the previous post. You did describe someone who is probably a credible Aikido instructor. I think you get into all kinds of muddy waters if you were to stray into teaching people Aikido for self defense, if you are not personally credible in both areas.

And it seems that you don't understand that it's possible to verify things work without a ref.

I'm not sure how you came to this. This is an example of what I referenced above as a kind of petty zinger.

Dunno what to tell you on that. Is it ideal? Nope. There is no ideal validation for training intended for SD.

True, but there are people with skill sets and experience that make them credible. This Geoff Thompson guy referenced above is like the prototype I mentioned in my very first post in this thread. A guy who has military experience, competitive experience, LEO experience, bouncer experience, and seems to have given a heck of a lot of thought to how all of that experience will translate into personal safety. On the face of it, he seems very credible to me. Do you have ANY of the experience noted above?

I have a lot of experience in teaching people to do things. That's my background. I know how to take a person with no skill and get them to a point where they are experts in that skillset. I do it with technicians and with managers, in hard skills and in soft skills. It doesn't happen quickly, and it doesn't happen without experience.

The best we can do is validate where we can.

Teach what you know. That's the best thing to do.

And, no, the ref doesn't necessarily make it more or less valid.

Zing... but this does lead me to believe you don't understand (or don't want to understand) the difference between training and application.

You've not yet made any real argument as to why it would, except that somehow the difference is that it's a focal point.

I've made them, in at least a dozen different ways, I've made them. it's a subtle point. And just yesterday, I sincerely tried to tell you why I think it's a point worth making, subtle though it may be.

But I can't understand it for you. Which, if you think about it, is a perfect example of what we're discussing. I can teach you, but I can't learn for you. I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand. In order for you to understand, you have to want to understand, make the effort to understand, and have the aptitude to understand. You think you understand, but you write things like the above that suggest otherwise.

And that's the danger of people without experience teaching things they have no first hand knowledge of. You can't teach what you don't know. If you teach Aikido, you are solid. If you teach self defense, you are not... by your own admission.

I'm not a badass, don't claim to be that, and don't claim to make others that.

I don't think you are and don't think you claim to be. This isn't about being a badass. It's about experience and application of training in context.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Bzz... brip... bleep... does not compute. Dude. Really? Okay. So, you're acknowledging now that you are not a credible self defense instructor? Great. That actually settles everything. You're acknowledging now that whether you can pilot the aircraft or not isn't a concern.

Nope. Not what I said. Not even close to what I said.

Plea is the wrong word. I interpret your reference to your instructors as an indication you believe that is evidence of your credibility.

Not really. Evidence that the techniques are useful - credibility for the techniques, perhaps.

What works in general. Not what you can do, but that you know it works for someone, somewhere. Okay. Fair enough. Someone, somewhere, can pilot the aircraft doing similar things to what you do. Good. I'm with you.

Okay. So, you've read the flight manuals for a few different categories of aircraft.
Once again, I remind you that this isn't actually about you. It's about the quandary of people teaching what they don't know. You touch on what I believe is a very important, but nuanced, distinction.

You're back onto dragging the analogy into ridiculous areas. That's why I dropped that part of the thread. Flying is not a blanket analogy for physical MA techniques.

There is a meaningful difference between teaching something that you are competent to teach, and finding that it is helpful when applied in another context where you are not competent, and teaching something that you are not competent to teach. In other words, it's one thing to say, "I teach Aikido, and some bouncers have found it helpful to them when they are working the doors." And, "I teach bouncers how to work the doors." While I'm pretty sure you have not ever said you conduct a "How to Work Doors" class, you have said several times that you teach self defense. Same thing.

You are, once again, stretching the meaning of my comments. I never said I teach bouncers to work doors. I said I've taught some of them some physical skills they found useful when working doors. See, you're back to assuming I can't do a hip throw (to stick to the example I've used a few times). No referee has ever seen me use a hip throw (or shoulder throw, or come-along, or punch, etc.). Some of those I have actually used live, on a person doing something they shouldn't. All of them I have used against a person trying to stop me from doing them. So, I don't think I can do them. I know I can. Will they work every time? Nope - nothing does. Would they work in a competition? Against the same person I was sparring with (or dealing with outside training), most probably. Against someone else in that same competition? Dunno, and wouldn't know even if I'd been in that competition, unless I tried it against that specific person.

Anyway, I think it's time to drop this thread. This started out as a discussion of SD training vs sport training (and I was in the "they aren't different things" camp). You have converted this into a question of my credibility - a credibility I haven't claimed in this thread. You brought this to being specifically about me (so, though you say it's not, you've made it about me), rather than about the topic at hand.

You either don't or refuse to understand the point I was trying to make about where competition and sparring do and don't differ. That's where I thought there was something truly useful for folks to ponder and discuss.

 

[Steve]

Nope. Not what I said. Not even close to what I said.

You said, "Credibility isn't a concern for me."

Not really. Evidence that the techniques are useful - credibility for the techniques, perhaps.

Now you're being tricky. You're saying what I said, but phrasing it like it's a response. I'm sure I can go back to a post I wrote somewhere and find where I said that for training to have integrity, step 1 is to ensure that what you're teaching works for someone. Even here, though, there are some potential pitfalls. The next step of the evaluation would be to ensure that the "someone" who can make it work isn't exceptional. In other words, an exceptional person might be able to make techniques work where most other people could not.

You're back onto dragging the analogy into ridiculous areas. That's why I dropped that part of the thread. Flying is not a blanket analogy for physical MA techniques.

I'm using the analogy you brought up, in a sincere attempt to relate to you using your own framework.. But now it's ridiculous? Come on, man.

You are, once again, stretching the meaning of my comments. I never said I teach bouncers to work doors.

I didn't suggest otherwise.

[I said I've taught some of them some physical skills they found useful when working doors.

Exactly. I parsed that out. You're not reading what I wrote. I didn't say you teach people to work doors. I highlighted the difference, and then related that to self defense.

See, you're back to assuming I can't do a hip throw (to stick to the example I've used a few times).

I am assuming nothing. I don't know whether you can or can't. I'm suggesting that you might not know if you can do a hip throw in a fight, if you've never had to do it in a fight. Said the other way, I'm saying you only know you can do a hip throw in the context in which you've actually done it. So, if you only spar, that's the ned of the line.

No referee has ever seen me use a hip throw (or shoulder throw, or come-along, or punch, etc.). Some of those I have actually used live, on a person doing something they shouldn't. All of them I have used against a person trying to stop me from doing them. So, I don't think I can do them. I know I can.

You know you can do it in training against training partners. Look, I'm sure I can go back and find threads in which all of the usual suspects around here who are anti-MMA or anti-sport will make this point for me. The idea is not new. Sparring isn't self defense. It's training. It's practice for something.

The issue here is that you practice to practice, and nothing more. That's the end of it for you. And there is nothing wrong with this at all. Once again, I'm sure you're a great aikido instructor. You haven't, however, shared anything about your background or experience that suggests you're a qualified self defense instructor.

Will they work every time? Nope - nothing does.

I'll take your word for it. I would say, who knows? Might work every time. Might not. We don't know because you've never done it. Unless you're saying you can't rely on the hip throw in training, in which case, I'm wondering how you could think it might work outside of training.

Would they work in a competition? Against the same person I was sparring with (or dealing with outside training), most probably.

My experience is that this is not a given... at all. Some people compete very well. Some don't. And in application, where you get one chance and things happen, experience matters. You acknowledge above that your technique doesn't even work in training every time. How can you say so confidently that it would work in competition, even against the same guy?

Against someone else in that same competition? Dunno, and wouldn't know even if I'd been in that competition, unless I tried it against that specific person.

True. But the more experience you have, and the more diverse your experience, the more confident you will be both in your execution of the technique and also in your ability to recover from mistakes, when there is no opportunity to do it over.

Anyway, I think it's time to drop this thread.

I think that's a shame, because I really do think you're close to figuring this out.

This started out as a discussion of SD training vs sport training (and I was in the "they aren't different things" camp).

For a guy who trains neither sport nor self defense, I wonder how you can be so confident.

You have converted this into a question of my credibility -

Not you, although you keep dragging it back that direction.

a credibility I haven't claimed in this thread. You brought this to being specifically about me (so, though you say it's not, you've made it about me), rather than about the topic at hand.

You did that, my friend. I keep trying to bring it away from that. I have pointed out where your comments about your own experience just continue to reinforce my points.

You either don't or refuse to understand the point I was trying to make about where competition and sparring do and don't differ. That's where I thought there was something truly useful for folks to ponder and discuss.

I've asked you to explain it, and you've refused multiple times now. You have gone as far as to say I don't get it, but I feel like I'm the one doing the heavy lifting here, trying to explain my position. Not you.