Does training and sparring semi contact teach bad habits for self defence?

[RTKDCMB]

I was just thinking this today.....I agree yes it can effect self defense.....with self defense....YOU DONT STOP UNTIL! when my training partner is bent over clutching himself....I always remember....that if this was self defense I would keep on going with a thai plum and knees to his head....and then maybe ground and pound

For self defence the last place you want to be is on the ground as it would severely limit your mobility and ability to escape or deal with his friend who sees you on top of his mate pounding away. If you have to keep going with knees to the head and then ground and pound then you would not be very efficient in defending yourself

 

[lklawson]

This implies that the arts should be molded to what the student wants. Stories that I've read and heard from people, I get the impression that the training was nothing like it is today, which in many cases, is watered down. As for the goals...well, sure, some people use the arts for other things, ie: to meet new people, make friends, weight loss, etc. IMO, those are side benefits. I dont use the MAs to lose weight, I use a gym. Sure, weight loss is a side benefit, but thats not my goal.

Not really. The OP assumes martial arts are about "Self Defense." Martial arts aren't always about Self Defense. Sometimes they're about Dueling. Spanish rapier, Destreza, is about dueling against another rapier, not "Self Defense" against random, poorly defined attackers. Sometimes, they're about melee combat. Naval Cutlas was about boarding ships, repelling boarders, and occasionally storming beaches or naval forts with all your buddies beside you. Sometimes they're about group tactics. The greek Dory was designed for tightly packed Phalanxes. Sometimes, they're about any number of things. There's the Horse Saber, the Lance, all kinds of stuff. According to legend, Siddhartha taught martial arts so that his students would have better health and wouldn't be such wusses.

When you say, "martial arts are about contact," that's an assumption that is, honestly, not right and far, far too narrow. Like I said, context is everything. First, define the context, then you can decide if getting punched hard in the face regularly really helps you be a better rapier fencer.

As for the other...did old, frail people train years ago? I dont know, however, if they train today, perhaps they should look for something that suits them best. I mean, would you expect the MMA gym, Kyokushin dojo, to modify their training for 1 person? This is why things needed to change, because some schools are more concerned with the $$, rather than quality. Can't have too much contact because little Joey might get hurt.

So old or frail people should just go do slow motion Tai Chi and skip self defense martial arts because they can't take a hit and if a school tries to accommodate a student's needs that is the equivalent of a "Little Dragons" McDojo.

Perhaps you should end with a speech that goes, "We do not train to be merciful here. Mercy is for the weak. Here, in the streets, in competition: A man confronts you, he is the enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy."

Obviously, my point is that there is some sort of middle ground.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

For self defence the last place you want to be is on the ground as it would severely limit your mobility and ability to escape or deal with his friend who sees you on top of his mate pounding away. If you have to keep going with knees to the head and then ground and pound then you would not be very efficient in defending yourself

Multiple actual incidents indicate that this fear ranges from "over-hyped" to "not much of problem."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Zero]

Multiple actual incidents indicate that this fear ranges from "over-hyped" to "not much of problem."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

What fear? That if you take a ground position, if there are other friends of the assailent nearby they will not start kicking or stomping you or try to swamp you? Is that what you mean?
I don't have a handle on any stats and am by no means an SD expert but I would have thought if you went to the ground and there were other ne'er do wells in close proximity your mellon might appear attractive for a well placed boot or five? If I were so inclined this may well be my reaction.

Or are you focusing on the mobility point and that in reality if others wade in, you should be able to get back into stand-up without issue?

 

[lklawson]

What fear? That if you take a ground position, if there are other friends of the assailent nearby they will not start kicking or stomping you or try to swamp you? Is that what you mean?
I don't have a handle on any stats and am by no means an SD expert but I would have thought if you went to the ground and there were other ne'er do wells in close proximity your mellon might appear attractive for a well placed boot or five? If I were so inclined this may well be my reaction.

Or are you focusing on the mobility point and that in reality if others wade in, you should be able to get back into stand-up without issue?

I know of many incidents where there were "buddies" of the guy silly enough to think he could take the "ground fighter" who did absolutely nothing to help their friend. I also know of incidents where there were two attackers against one "ground fighter" who did not fair particularly well.

This and other data points have lead me to conclude that fears of "ground fighters" being "kicked in the head by the attackers buddies" are far over rated.

While there may be reasons you, personally, may not wish to engage in ground fighting, you can probably safely let go of the "kicked in head by buddies" reason.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[RodUpward]

I never got a belt. The way I learned as a young bloke was someone either 'punched my lights out' or they didn't

Attitude is Everything:
Later on, when I trained in China I had a mix of soft full contact, combined with hard full contact training. However, equally important, the training I did with my teachers included a type of etiquette which seems to be missing in many schools these days. (I met a nice young bloke recently who had a black belt and yet he was hopeless unprepared to deal with some animal that wanted to attack him on the street for egoistic reasons or simply to vent his spleen.) Perhaps it is because these days there is a 'McDonald mentality' towards all types of boxing or martial arts that is prevalent. However, in my experience, the best teachers build the attitude, in their students, that even in full, (hard or soft), contact training with each other - there is a degree of control and respect - for the other person - that constrains them from seriously injuring each other. With such teachers ego was never as important as learning and in fact 'investing in loss' was fundamental to progressing and gaining the teachers respect. (I suppose the logic of this was that if a student was not able to give up their ego then s/he was not someone who deserved to learn the 'real juice'. Now, soft full contact training is far easier to handle than hard full contact training, particularly when you are just starting out in your boxing or martial arts training. So, as well as a whole set of complimentary skills it is simply easier for someone to handle. This is particularly relevant for a whole bunch of students who want to learn self defense but are not too excited about walking away with a cut lip or black eye!

Not "semi vs full contact" Rather Soft & Hard Full Contact:
I don't like the term, "semi contact" because it implies not contacting your training partner and that is simply setting up a person for bad habits in fighting, boxing and self defense more generally. I believe that the question should relate to soft and hard full contact training because they both have different contributions to your overall skills as a boxer or martial artist. It is surprising to me that many good teachers are not aware of this distinction. Why?

Full Contact Soft & Hard Training = Superior Outcomes:
The best training I have had has always included full contact hard training, however, the best teacher I studied with only included full contact soft training, although his information was profoundly superior ... Life is full of contradictions and paradoxes. I learned boxing mostly from people in China and Australia who were 'old school' so I was mostly stung often and hurt occasionally. Most of the training was bare knuckle training so it was over relatively quickly, albeit generally with clear evidence of some form of injury.

These days, my main fear now relates to how the inevitable hits to my head that I have had could impact on my ability to cognate as I grow older. If you research recent information about the link between some rather nasty ailments such as early onset Parkinson's, and other forms of dementia, and re-occuring mild concussions you will understand this statement. Consider the remarkable Mohammed Ali, (a great human being and a great boxer), and you will see an example of someone who it is likely in my opinion, suffers from a tragic disability, most likely because of the persistent small concussions he sustained due to punches to the head. Consider the quality of some of the boxers the great man had to fight and you can appreciate why I say this. (And to be fair, back in those days, there was simply not the level of information related to sports medicine etc that there is today.) I should also note that the great man himself has rejected this proposition, although the evidence seems pretty overwhelming in my mind.

The seemingly voyeuristic fascination for boxers in our modern world is often not reflected in the reality that a boxer lives, notwithstanding that these noble arts some times provide an individual with a range of insights and unexpected positive experiences too. It is perhaps wise for most boxers / martial artists to consider that we don't live to train or fight, rather that we train or fight to live. Perhaps this is why their is a seeming machismo obsession with just hard full contact training and a greater general ignorance of the value of soft full contact training in these noble arts. I find that ironical. I also don't know the answer to this issue, however, if you teach consider this. How much of your full contact training includes soft training that drills students in the manner that the real Push Hands or Chi Sao does? (I partly describe why this should happen below.)

Also;

It Depends on the Student:
Not everyone wants to learn how to fight or focus on martial arts for the sake of self defense so the issue of or sparring becomes less relevant. Arguably, the 'bread & butter' of many schools are the people who come along because they want to maintain a level of health and fitness and get a couple of ideas about how to protect themselves. This is as true for Western boxing gyms as it is for any martial arts school. (Consider the plethora of 'box fit' type courses.) I don't think a good teacher or school has to compromise on the pragmatic reality of making $s to simply maintain the 'so called' purity of the system. A good teacher of any system can teach all types of motivations and ages so they all benefit. It is really a matter of responding to your students needs and that is fundamental to teaching anything ...

There are a whole range of motives for anyone wanting to study any type of boxing or martial art and if a teacher does not respond to them there is less chance that s/he will be able to continue teaching. This is simply the way it is.

For Boxers/Martial Artists:
The problem with not doing soft and/or hard full contact training - particularly as a beginning martial artist - is that you learn to pull punches and/or miss the target. Simply put, it is not real.

Okay. I know that this might be controversial for some readers. All I can say is that I believe the following paragraph to be generally true ... not always though.

These days, if I was going to start out learning how to fight again, I would probably sign up to a good Western boxing trainer first, because not that many traditional martial arts schools teach their students how to punch or train key fighting skills properly - based on the most recent research and best practice models. It is not the fault of the system, but rather the teacher. That being said, if you consider the Chi Sao of Wing Chun or the Push Hands of Tai Chi Chuan the point is to slow things down, not worry about being hit, and therefore give your mind the time to focus on useful skills like control, distancing, positioning, protecting, countering, rhythm and so on ... The other point I would make is that a good Western boxing teacher deploys the latest information on physiology and anatomy as well as sports psychology combined with the latest information on developing an elite athlete. Often, traditional systems simply don't avail themselves of this information.

The Benefit of Soft Full Contact Training / Drilling:
At the end of the day, understanding your body mechanics is key to understanding any type of boxing or martial art, however, the 'rubber hits the road' only when a martial artist or boxer is in a full contact situation. The point is that there is a balance between full and soft contact training even for a budding martial artist.

One of the things I really liked about the Push Hands training of the Tai Chi Chuan is that fixed step, (ding bu), push hands trains you how to stick, follow, protect and neutralise, from the distance of your finger tips to your torso. Movable step (hwor bu), push hands trains you how to do the above, but also to move in and out from your training partner from around three to five metres away. This is great for learning how to position and engage with someone over these types of distances as well as drilling appropriate distancing.

The main problem with full contact San Shou, (free fighting vital point or pressure point strikes), in the Tai Chi Chuan and other systems is as someone said about pressure point or vital point strikes by accident, "it strikes sensitive points of the body." Much of this can be addressed with appropriate body armour, however, some of it cannot. Nevertheless, any vital point or pressure point training can be effectively trained with soft full contact training or against a dummy etcetera.

 

[Aiki Lee]

I know of many incidents where there were "buddies" of the guy silly enough to think he could take the "ground fighter" who did absolutely nothing to help their friend. I also know of incidents where there were two attackers against one "ground fighter" who did not fair particularly well.

This and other data points have lead me to conclude that fears of "ground fighters" being "kicked in the head by the attackers buddies" are far over rated.

While there may be reasons you, personally, may not wish to engage in ground fighting, you can probably safely let go of the "kicked in head by buddies" reason.

I don’t know if I’d totally agree with you here. Obviously just because someone goes to the ground doesn’t mean they are going to get completely overwhelmed, but do to the lack of mobility and the risk that the aggressor’s friends may help him out pushes fighting from the ground to the bottom of my strategies list.

 

[Cyriacus]

I don’t know if I’d totally agree with you here. Obviously just because someone goes to the ground doesn’t mean they are going to get completely overwhelmed, but do to the lack of mobility and the risk that the aggressor’s friends may help him out pushes fighting from the ground to the bottom of my strategies list.

Also, dude laying on his back could pull a knife.

 

[Gnarlie]

Also, dude laying on his back could pull a knife.

Equally true of any dude, including dude standing up.

Gnarlie

 

[Gnarlie]

I agree though, I would avoid grounded grappling unless unavoidable. Too difficult to scan your surroundings as your head only turns about 180 degrees unless you are an owl.

Gnarlie

 

[Cyriacus]

I agree though, I would avoid grounded grappling unless unavoidable. Too difficult to scan your surroundings as your head only turns about 180 degrees unless you are an owl.

Gnarlie

Plus, it only turns in one direction at a time. Plus, turning your head can have a way of... Words fail me. You turn your head to the right, then you get hit by the guy on the ground by his right hand, turning your head further to the right, where the head aint quite meant to go.

 

[lklawson]

Plus, it only turns in one direction at a time. Plus, turning your head can have a way of... Words fail me. You turn your head to the right, then you get hit by the guy on the ground by his right hand, turning your head further to the right, where the head aint quite meant to go.

Also not much of a problem.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Equally true of any dude, including dude standing up.

Gnarlie

I'm a bowie knife guy. Anybody could deploy any more-or-less concealable weapon at any time including the ground fighter or the attacker. I have one friend in particular who cross trains and likes to keep one or two training knives about his person when teaching newaza. He likes to deploy them when a new student starts assuming that "ground fighters" are somehow required to be one-dimensional fighters with extremely limited strategies.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Cyriacus]

Also not much of a problem.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Your head being forced past its natural range of motion isnt a problem, by a strike you cannot see? Okey dokey.

 

[lklawson]

Plus, it only turns in one direction at a time. Plus, turning your head can have a way of... Words fail me. You turn your head to the right, then you get hit by the guy on the ground by his right hand, turning your head further to the right, where the head aint quite meant to go.

You expecting the Mongol Hoards to ride over the horizon? Seriously, it's really not particularly hard to keep tabs of the general area. The physical restrictions of how your head and neck moves are not what is the limiting factor in that regard.

What IS the limiting factor is something that those of us who cross train in firearms have known about for a long time and keeps being forgotten about by martial artists: The "Fight or Flight" adrenalin dump. It frequently creates "Tunnel Vision" and "Aural Occlusion." This equally affects people who are standing, crouching, crawling, whatever. It is a serious impediment for people who do not know to expect it and do not train for it. "Tunnel Vision" makes you focus down on a very narrow field of vision. The brain, quite literally, ignores and filters out everything except an extremely narrow cone, and usually one, and only one, specific perceived "threat."

The most recommended technique for overcoming "Tunnel Vision" due to adrenalin dump is "scanning" with the whole head, not just the eyes. This forces you to take your eyes off of the person offering the threat and forces you to turn your head; the very same thing you are noting as a "problem" for ground fighting. Due to Fight or Flight, if you want to "scan your surroundings" you absolutely must take your eyes off of the attacker and turn your head in profile to your attacker. This is a simple fact of human biology and people "standing up" are no less vulnerable to the effects or the dangers of it than anyone else.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Your head being forced past its natural range of motion isnt a problem, by a strike you cannot see? Okey dokey.

No, I'm saying that it doesn't really happen that much. It's a "low percentage" danger.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Cyriacus]

You expecting the Mongol Hoards to ride over the horizon? Seriously, it's really not particularly hard to keep tabs of the general area. The physical restrictions of how your head and neck moves are not what is the limiting factor in that regard.

What IS the limiting factor is something that those of us who cross train in firearms have known about for a long time and keeps being forgotten about by martial artists: The "Fight or Flight" adrenalin dump. It frequently creates "Tunnel Vision" and "Aural Occlusion." This equally affects people who are standing, crouching, crawling, whatever. It is a serious impediment for people who do not know to expect it and do not train for it. "Tunnel Vision" makes you focus down on a very narrow field of vision. The brain, quite literally, ignores and filters out everything except an extremely narrow cone, and usually one, and only one, specific perceived "threat."

The most recommended technique for overcoming "Tunnel Vision" due to adrenalin dump is "scanning" with the whole head, not just the eyes. This forces you to take your eyes off of the person offering the threat and forces you to turn your head; the very same thing you are noting as a "problem" for ground fighting. Due to Fight or Flight, if you want to "scan your surroundings" you absolutely must take your eyes off of the attacker and turn your head in profile to your attacker. This is a simple fact of human biology and people "standing up" are no less vulnerable to the effects or the dangers of it than anyone else.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

No, i expect the guy on the ground to see me not looking at him if hes still aware enough. I know all about tunnel vision, mate. I wasnt noting it as a problem for ground fighting at all. Im saying that theres a time and a place for situational awareness, and its not while the other guys still actively trying to hurt you.

That one perceived threat may not be the only one, im fully aware of that mate. But theres one thing you should know for sure, and thats that there IS a threat in front of you, and that that threat isnt going to give you a break just so that you can be situationally aware in the middle of a violent engagement. If you have the clarity of mind in such a situation to be thinking about whether or not there are other threats, and looking around to find out, chances are you could be using your brain power to do something more productive than taking your eyes off the threat that definitely exists, and which is still an immediate danger. How do i know its still an immediate danger? Because by now you should have left, if it isnt.

No, I'm saying that it doesn't really happen that much. It's a "low percentage" danger.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Well, if the guy on the ground is no longer able to hit you, im unsure why youre still on top of him without an immobilization.
From a self defense perspective.

I get the feeling weve spoken past each other a bit here - I wasnt picking on ground fighting. Just that as useful as being aware is, you cant afford to concentrate what little brain power you get under pressure on being aware moreso then keeping yourself safe.

 

[lklawson]

I get the feeling weve spoken past each other a bit here

I think you're right but I'm not quite sure where it tracks back to so I think I'll let this particular sub-thread wither on the vine.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[thefightersheart]

I have been thinking a lot recently about how training can create bad habbits when it comes to a real confrontation, and I don't think we can escape the fact that the more we practice anything that is not the real thing, this will create habits of movement that are not effective. But, as already stated, we can't just keep pounding each other as the inevitable injuries will lead to us being unable to train. One thing I have been training with that I would welcome feedback on is the below by Richard Grannon.

It seems to me that getting the reel feel of human contact will always beat hitting a bag, but hitting a bag is the only wy we can generate the force needed to be effective without harming our partner. I will continue to train both and hope that the need to use my training will not present it's self again in the future.

Cheers

 

[Balrog]

I don't think so. No matter whether you spar points, light contact or full contact, your training should include many hours on the heavy bags, executing with full force. That is where you are going to learn the control, timing, focus, etc. to maximize the power in your techniques.