Martial Sport VS Self Defense

[Steve]

Once again, you somehow believe that someone applying their techniques against a resisting opponent/partner is not applying the technique. That baffles me.

That’s true. I distinguish between training and application. And I understand that this baffles you, although, as a professional trainer, I’m concerned that you do not understand the distinction.

 

[Steve]

I don't train self-defense, either. I train for self-defense.

This gives me hope.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That’s true. I distinguish between training and application. And I understand that this baffles you, although, as a professional trainer, I’m concerned that you do not understand the distinction.

So, what's the difference between a hip throw in a dojo and in a competition?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This gives me hope.

Is this linguistic distinction what has us stuck, my friend?

 

[Steve]

So, what's the difference between a hip throw in a dojo and in a competition?

In one you’re training and in the other you’re not.

 

[hoshin1600]

i don’t think anything is a given. We know that training as you describe above led to a 18% accuracy rate for cops in New York City. I posted evidence of this in another thread. You know that training as you describe above leads to performance in training.

I'm not understanding what your saying. What led to 18% accuracy? Silouet training? Or shoot no shoot ranges? And was that 18% or %improvement?

 

[Steve]

I'm not understanding what your saying. What led to 18% accuracy? Silouet training? Or shoot no shoot ranges? And was that 18% or %improvement?

All of the training resulted in an 18% accuracy rate when the NYPD fired their weapons Outside of training. I’m watching Jessica jones now, or I’d go find the link to the report. I posted it in another thread a week or so ago.

 

[CB Jones]

All of the training resulted in an 18% accuracy rate when the NYPD fired their weapons Outside of training. I’m watching Jessica jones now, or I’d go find the link to the report. I posted it in another thread a week or so ago.

That was from 1998-2006.....over 10 years ago.

Back then police were only required to shoot one post course per year to re-qualify. Now Police are required to train (drills, scenarios, situations, etc...) with firearms throughout the year as opposed to just shooting a re-qual course....the accuracy rate should be much improved.


Continued firearms training throughout an officers career used to be very pitiful back then

 

[drop bear]

Uh....better for what? This is just a question of semantics. I train self defense. Which I'm pretty sure is what you call training skills that can be applied to self defense. Everything I've ever did in the Arts, be it good or bad, was for self defense. At least to me. And we probably train the same, you and I. More so than different, anyway.

It is the wrong way to address the qualities of the knife.

In the same way self defence is the wrong way to address the qualities of training.

 

[Steve]

That was from 1998-2006.....over 10 years ago.

Back then police were only required to shoot one post course per year to re-qualify. Now Police are required to train (drills, scenarios, situations, etc...) with firearms throughout the year as opposed to just shooting a re-qual course....the accuracy rate should be much improved.


Continued firearms training throughout an officers career used to be very pitiful back then

Maybe. When I read the report, the training sounded very much like what is described around here currently. I take cops at their word that they are well trained.

And there are other, more recent, studies that conclude that expert marksman have a similar rate of accuracy as novice and intermediate shooters (cop study, not civilians). Note, this appears to be at a range, which is not exactly the same, but still relevant.

http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf

 

[Buka]

It is the wrong way to address the qualities of the knife.

In the same way self defence is the wrong way to address the qualities of training.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are we discussing what knives are better for what?

 

[CB Jones]

Maybe. When I read the report, the training sounded very much like what is described around here currently. I take cops at their word that they are well trained.

And there are other, more recent, studies that conclude that expert marksman have a similar rate of accuracy as novice and intermediate shooters (cop study, not civilians). Note, this appears to be at a range, which is not exactly the same, but still relevant.

http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf

I think the 1st report was accurate and it showed the problem that in the past police where trained to shoot targets but put into a gunfight their ability was lacking.

This report is a little misleading in that it solely looks at shooting at strictly a static target whereas now (at least in my area) training has focused more on actual gunfighting (drawing, firing while moving, using cover and/or concealment, close quarter gun battles, force on force training, dynamic targets, etc...)

I grew up with guns (hunting, target, and trap shooting) prior to going into law enforcement, I could probably out shoot many new officers straight out of training when it came to shooting targets. I had 10+ years of firearm experience as opposed to many officers that the academy was the first time they ever handled a gun. What I did not have is experience in tactics and gunfighting.

I hope that put into a dynamic force on force gunfight that officers would have a much higher accuracy rate and rate of fire than the average citizen.


In the end, its how you train. We do a lot of force on force training with simunitions so you get that resistance training and experience gunfighting.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In one you’re training and in the other you’re not.

So, your entire distinction is the location.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is the wrong way to address the qualities of the knife.

In the same way self defence is the wrong way to address the qualities of training.

I'm confused, DB. "Better for what" is the wrong way to address the qualities of the knife?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Maybe. When I read the report, the training sounded very much like what is described around here currently. I take cops at their word that they are well trained.

And there are other, more recent, studies that conclude that expert marksman have a similar rate of accuracy as novice and intermediate shooters (cop study, not civilians). Note, this appears to be at a range, which is not exactly the same, but still relevant.

http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf

I'm not sure their distinction between "expert" and "intermediate" is valid. They appear to have decided someone completing a specific course is "expert", while someone who has "recreational experience" is not. It's quite possible those with "recreational experience" have a greater familiarity with weapons in general, and may have fired many more rounds than those in the course. I would qualify as one of the "recreational experience" people. At one time, it was not uncommon for me to fire 200-500 rounds a weekend. That false distinction is going to skew their results. The results inside 15' are not entirely unexpected. Excluding a few outliers, most people I've seen shoot for the first time can hit a target at that distance after the first few shots. The introduction of rapidity (which isn't factored in with the accuracy - not sure how it would be) might (or might not) account for the rest of the lack of difference in accuracy. Better shooters will often fire faster under those sorts of instructions, giving up some accuracy because they can afford to.

 

[hoshin1600]

Maybe. When I read the report, the training sounded very much like what is described around here currently. I take cops at their word that they are well trained.

And there are other, more recent, studies that conclude that expert marksman have a similar rate of accuracy as novice and intermediate shooters (cop study, not civilians). Note, this appears to be at a range, which is not exactly the same, but still relevant.

http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf

now im not sure what your position is. this paper proves and states everything i was saying. did you actually read all of it? are we actually in disagreement somehow?

this study paper says:
"The primary purpose of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of academy firearms training," but the actual study was to compare experienced vs novice shooters on silhouette targets in a shooting range.
i should add that while the paper was released in 2015 much of the reference data was from much earlier. if the purpose of the study was to look at the effectiveness of academy training i would expect the study to actually look at and describe what that training entails and compare it to other options of training available.

however all of this does nothing to support what i think was your position and supports what i was saying. that there has to be an escalation of training complexity. that some training is better than no training. that some types of training are BETTER than other types of training and that the major question that needs to be addressed is what types of training function best at transferring applicable skills from the training floor to actual application.
there is also a level of complexity in SD training that we often call soft skills or self protection skills that are not addressed AT ALL in other venues of study. as example MMA does not teach emergency medical care. sure maybe an MMA guy will take the knife or gun away and "beat up" the bad guy but how does he deal with the life threatening wounds he received in the fight?

it just seems to me that different approaches have some overlap in the beginning but diverge more and more over time. 2 degrees of separation in the beginning is not much but over time that turns into a big gap in destination.

 

[Anarax]

This is why we continue to see these dumb threads pop up over and over.

What exactly is so "dumb" about this thread? It's generating a discussion about an interesting topic. People from different backgrounds are sharing their knowledge and experience.

 

[Anarax]

I think I was thinking something other than what you were actually saying. [wait, what?]

I was thinking "self defense' training as being actual Martial Arts training, you know, training every day, sparring all the time - fighting resisting partners, many of who are better than you.

A "self defense course"....not really too good unless it's a four day a week course for ten years. And you fight, a lot. I don't think many folks can defend themselves if they don't know how to fight.

Agreed, one reason why I don't believe in these one day "disarming" or "Real Self-Defense" courses that cost at least $50 a class. A lot of people who attend these courses are untrained and think they're gaining something that they'll use is a real life situation. I don't understand this considering how the untrained have no place to practice the limited techniques that they learn at these courses. Knowing the steps of a technique and having it ingrained in your muscles and pulling it off in a live situation are completely different. Learning to deal with the adrenaline and maintaining your motor skills to pull off a technique in real life is a major component of self-defense. I'm skeptical of how well a one day course can cover something so advance.

Martial Arts seminars are different considering a lot of people who attend are trained and have an environment to practice the techniques. Seminars are also not usually the foundation of a martial artists training, but more so an addition to it.

 

[hoshin1600]

What exactly is so "dumb" about this thread? It's generating a discussion about an interesting topic. People from different backgrounds are sharing their knowledge and experience.

Agreed, one reason why I don't believe in these one day "disarming" or "Real Self-Defense" courses that cost at least $50 a class. A lot of people who attend these courses are untrained and think they're gaining something that they'll use is a real life situation. I don't understand this considering how the untrained have no place to practice the limited techniques that they learn at these courses. Knowing the steps of a technique and having it ingrained in your muscles and pulling it off in a live situation are completely different. Learning to deal with the adrenaline and maintaining your motor skills to pull off a technique in real life is a major component of self-defense. I'm skeptical of how well a one day course can cover something so advance.

Martial Arts seminars are different considering a lot of people who attend are trained and have an environment to practice the techniques. Seminars are also not usually the foundation of a martial artists training, but more so an addition to it.

why are they stupid? i think you answered your own question in a round about way.
questions for you...
how many SD classes have you taken? do you know what is actually taught in these classes? what should the value of a SD be and how should it be priced? why do you think there is nothing to be gained from them if you dont actually know what is covered in the cirriculum? you openly admit you dont understand it ,,but then that doesnt stop you from having an opinion on something you dont understand.
see ...thats why the conversation is stupid. i dont mean to pick on you personally its just common that people have opinions on something they have no knowledge of and lump small sections of valid concerns into a big pot and call it all worthless and then retort with ...DO MMA.

 

[Anarax]

why are they stupid? i think you answered your own question in a round about way.

No, calling a thread "dumb" or "stupid" is what I object to. I've been seeing this more and more on MT and it's getting out of hand. This condescending attitude and name calling takes away from the meaningful discussion going on.

how many SD classes have you taken? do you know what is actually taught in these classes?

Yes, I do. An SD instructor rents mat space at the Dojo I go to and I've seen many of his courses. I've watched other SD classes online out of curiosity, and friends who have asked my opinion on techniques they were taught in SD courses.

what should the value of a SD be and how should it be priced?

Comparable to an MA class. The upper end of monthly tuition for an MA class is usually 90-115 a month. On average a MA class will offer between 3-7 hours of instruction a week and maybe access to the gym equipment and open gym.

why do you think there is nothing to be gained from them if you dont actually know what is covered in the cirriculum?

Refer to my answer above

you openly admit you dont understand it ,,but then that doesnt stop you from having an opinion on something you dont understand.

No, I said

A lot of people who attend these courses are untrained and think they're gaining something that they'll use is a real life situation. I don't understand this considering how the untrained have no place to practice the limited techniques that they learn at these courses.

The context of what I said didn't simply mean I don't understand, but I disagree with them thinking they're going to use those techniques in live situations without training them beyond a few hours.

see ...thats why the conversation is stupid. i dont mean to pick on you personally its just common that people have opinions on something they have no knowledge of and lump small sections of valid concerns into a big pot and call it all worthless and then retort with ...DO MMA.

The conversation isn't stupid. Your assumption that I knew nothing of SD course was premature and inaccurate though.