How bad does not sparring effect you in a real street fight situation ?

[drop bear]

So what you are claiming is that unless your partner does a real strike that causes a real reaction the training is detrimental to your training. When I am partner to someone training predictable response I want a realistic attack but I don't want a full out attack that will cripple me. And he needs my response to move to the next technique in the bunkai. You claim that you have experienced RB training but you have not posted anything that shows you understood it. That, or it was not RB to start with.

Sorry, without a red man suit that is just not possible.
:asian:

I have used a fist suit and honestly they are over rated.

Your biggest issue would be your face otherwise I have gone full contact knees and elbows with no more than gloves mouth guard box shinguards and elbow pads. Sometimes we train I. Boxing head gear near fights to avoid cuts. People of course fight knees and elbows full contact.

If you were desperate to make eye gouges a part of training a mate of mine sparred Kudo. Now there headgear is full face. And getting smashed in the face is not so bad. According to him.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cIs1MS64Fe0

I did hocks system for four years. Up to you as to whether you think that is valid or not.

I understand the idea. I don't think it works very well. It moves from resisted training to compliant training to assisted training with people who have never received crippling shots trying to imagine what it is like to received crippling shots.

Which seems to be flinching and collapsing.

 

[K-man]

I have used a fist suit and honestly they are over rated.

Until there is something better we're stuck with them.

Your biggest issue would be your face otherwise I have gone full contact knees and elbows with no more than gloves mouth guard box shinguards and elbow pads. Sometimes we train I. Boxing head gear near fights to avoid cuts. People of course fight knees and elbows full contact.

Your full contact is not my full contact, sorry.

If you were desperate to make eye gouges a part of training a mate of mine sparred Kudo. Now there headgear is full face. And getting smashed in the face is not so bad. According to him.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cIs1MS64Fe0

And we use full face helmets when we are fighting with strikes to the head and eyes.

I did hocks system for four years. Up to you as to whether you think that is valid or not.

That's cool, I like Hock's stuff. But his stuff is more like I train rather than what you describe.

I understand the idea. I don't think it works very well. It moves from resisted training to compliant training to assisted training with people who have never received crippling shots trying to imagine what it is like to received crippling shots.

Which seems to be flinching and collapsing.

Our training is a bit different to what you showed in the clip but the fact remains, you have no understanding of what they are demonstrating.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

Until there is something better we're stuck with them.

Your full contact is not my full contact, sorry.

And we use full face helmets when we are fighting with strikes to the head and eyes.

That's cool, I like Hock's stuff. But his stuff is more like I train rather than what you describe.

Our training is a bit different to what you showed in the clip but the fact remains, you have no understanding of what they are demonstrating.
:asian:

No dramas. Please post a video of what aproximates full contact by your definition.

A fist suit is just too bulky to be really usefull. The guy in the suit never really bangs because it is unfair on the guy not in the suit so it becomes almost the same role as a pad holder.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7brvpd4QLjM

You don't really need a full suit to do that. Basic sparring gear would work just as well.


Our training is a bit different to what you showed in the clip but the fact remains, you have no understanding of what they are demonstrating.

And I am sorry but I will have to return the bs flag there. Unless you can explain why Your statement is really no more that you opinion. Definitely not fact.

I pretty much laid out my issues with combat scenarios. They weren't really addressed.

 

[Flying Crane]

In general you are only ever going to approximate fighting in training.

that's exactly my point. In training, you cannot go full blast like you are in a real street situation, or people will get seriously injured. Padding will not be enough protection to avoid that. Training only ever approximates fighting. Training does not duplicate fighting.

people like to make comments about how one should train/spar with full power. it comes across as kind of a "tough guy" thing and isn't too smart. They think we need to beat up our training partners. But they often don't stop to consider what that really means. Train hard but more importantly, train smart. That means avoiding injury for both yourself and your training partner. Don't succumb to the tough-guy mentality, or you'll get real injuries or you'll end up without training partners because you've injured them and nobody will train with you.

 

[drop bear]

that's exactly my point. In training, you cannot go full blast like you are in a real street situation, or people will get seriously injured. Padding will not be enough protection to avoid that. Training only ever approximates fighting. Training does not duplicate fighting.

people like to make comments about how one should train/spar with full power. it comes across as kind of a "tough guy" thing and isn't too smart. They think we need to beat up our training partners. But they often don't stop to consider what that really means. Train hard but more importantly, train smart. That means avoiding injury for both yourself and your training partner. Don't succumb to the tough-guy mentality, or you'll get real injuries or you'll end up without training partners because you've injured them and nobody will train with you.

There are ways to spar hard without risking (within reason) your training partner. A lot of our stuff is pretty hot and heavy but the intent is to make each other better not destroy each other.

Iron sharpens iron.

I think you do need to spar to a decent level to raise your game to a better standard.

There is a term ego sparring which we use to describe that intent to tear down the other guy. And we try to avoid training like that.

 

[K-man]

No dramas. Please post a video of what aproximates full contact by your definition.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mmwx7vcNbBo
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cKMRN3yoWrI
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XJE7XIMVCOk

A fist suit is just too bulky to be really usefull. The guy in the suit never really bangs because it is unfair on the guy not in the suit so it becomes almost the same role as a pad holder.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7brvpd4QLjM


You don't really need a full suit to do that. Basic sparring gear would work just as well.

That is a crap video, really. Red man training is just another tool. If the red man acts like zombie training it is a waste of time. Red man gives you the opportunity to practise full power strikes. You can't do that with pads. Or any other type of training.

Our training is a bit different to what you showed in the clip but the fact remains, you have no understanding of what they are demonstrating.

OK, as I have stated two or three times, what they are practising is a type of predicted response training. Have you practised that and if so who was the trainer? Our training involves restraint that restricts the moves that your opponent has available. He either blocks or is hit. If he blocks you are expecting that and move to the next technique. If he doesn't block you hit him again. The difference is, because you are always controlling one limb, your opponent cannot move away.

And I am sorry but I will have to return the bs flag there. Unless you can explain why Your statement is really no more that you opinion. Definitely not fact.

You haven't asked me to explain anything. What statement don't you understand? Was is the bolded statement above? If so, I stand by my statement. You have no understanding of what they are practising.

I pretty much laid out my issues with combat scenarios. They weren't really addressed.

i'm sorry. You just said you didn't agree with scenario training and that you could whip the **** of anyone that trained that way because they were easier to handle than people with no training ... remember.

I am not a fan of scenario training. I believe it promotes the attacker to start reacting badly. They start to train their flinch reaction in a way that assists the other guy. As opposed to actively trying to spoil the technique and make their partner look bad.


I have found it is much easier to deal with a person that has scenario trained than a person that has not trained at all. And I think it is due to a person who has not trained does not recognize my technique will work.

Mate, you'll have to do a lot better than that!

 

[Flying Crane]

There are ways to spar hard without risking (within reason) your training partner. A lot of our stuff is pretty hot and heavy but the intent is to make each other better not destroy each other.

that also is exactly my point.

Wingchun100 stated that one needs to spar full-blast, like you are in a real street situation. That is the comment that I disagreed with. You kinda defended his position, but what you are saying now does not support his position. What you are saying now is definitely NOT going full-blast like you are in a real street situation. you are talking about having some controls and limitations to avoid injury. Yup, not full-blast like in a street situation.

So I guess we are in agreement?

 

[drop bear]

that also is exactly my point.

Wingchun100 stated that one needs to spar full-blast, like you are in a real street situation. That is the comment that I disagreed with. You kinda defended his position, but what you are saying now does not support his position. What you are saying now is definitely NOT going full-blast like you are in a real street situation. you are talking about having some controls and limitations to avoid injury. Yup, not full-blast like in a street situation.

So I guess we are in agreement?

Probably. you spar with Intent but not ego. To test your partner not to destroy him. But it has to be tough to reach better gains.

 

[drop bear]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mmwx7vcNbBo
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cKMRN3yoWrI
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XJE7XIMVCOk

That is a crap video, really. Red man training is just another tool. If the red man acts like zombie training it is a waste of time. Red man gives you the opportunity to practise full power strikes. You can't do that with pads. Or any other type of training.


OK, as I have stated two or three times, what they are practising is a type of predicted response training. Have you practised that and if so who was the trainer? Our training involves restraint that restricts the moves that your opponent has available. He either blocks or is hit. If he blocks you are expecting that and move to the next technique. If he doesn't block you hit him again. The difference is, because you are always controlling one limb, your opponent cannot move away.

You haven't asked me to explain anything. What statement don't you understand? Was is the bolded statement above? If so, I stand by my statement. You have no understanding of what they are practising.

i'm sorry. You just said you didn't agree with scenario training and that you could whip the **** of anyone that trained that way because they were easier to handle than people with no training ... remember.



Mate, you'll have to do a lot better than that!

Alright I am having a look at your vid.

The red man. Why can't I practice full power strikes with the gear that I have? Either on pads or in sparring.

Is this predicted response training the arakan? Where you go in Throw one shot and then get hit for five minutes while standing there. Actually yes A lot of styles do that. Zen do kai was a bit mad keen, hock had a pedestrian drill I even did with wing chun for a month and they did circle of death.

Otherwise there is dutch drills that essentially does that.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vwcj6q5_yU4

But notice that people get to defend. Creating a better flinch response. And not being trained to move in a way that helps the attacker.

As I said about the people who train like that anecdotally are easier to deal with. Because they revert to muscle memory. And are more likely to collapse under pressure. You have to remember sports fighting is different to SD training.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

In general, I think "hard-contact" is a better descriptor for most reasonable training than "full-contact". As has been said, the point of sparring is to learn, not to damage our training partners. Even most pro fighters aren't trying to knock out their sparring partners the way they would be trying to knock out their opponents in the ring. (That said, many high-level professional fighters get conditioned to a level of "hard" contact in training which is harder than the "full" contact an amateur might achieve in a real fight.)

No dramas. Please post a video of what aproximates full contact by your definition.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mmwx7vcNbBo
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cKMRN3yoWrI
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XJE7XIMVCOk

?? K-man, I don't see any full (or even hard) contact training in those videos. Those are all cooperative demos with the uke taking a dive as scripted. Nothing against the art or the techniques being demoed, but none of that is full contact.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

You'll forgive me for not reading all six pages of replies to the OP thread, but it looked interesting and I wanted to toss in my two cents worth

To begin, per the OP question, we're talking about a self-defense training methodology as opposed to a sport training methodology. As such I would suggest that sparring is less efficient than a scenario-based training methodology. Here are points to consider:

• Sparring normally requires a specific rule set and safety equipment. In other words, one person stands 'here' and the other stands 'there' and then they begin sparring i.e. attempting to hit/kick/grapple with one another. Sparring may be based upon points or takedowns. None of this is conducive to what is actually needed in a self-defense situation.
• I've never seen a 'sparring' session that allows for one opponent to attempt to verbally de-esculate the other. Nor have I seen a session allow/encourage improvised weapons, cover, concealment, escape & evasion or the use of barriers.
• The above is where a scenario-based training session shines. The 'trainee' of the scenario can go in 'cold' which represents a surprise situation (which is common since an attacker will chose a time/place that is advantageous to them and disadvantageous to you). It requires them to quickly evaluate the situation and determine a course of action, possibly while under duress and the affects of an adrenaline dump i.e. tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of manual dexterity in the extremities, breathing control, starting from a position of disadvantage etc.
• Whereas a sparring session normally involves an artificial environment i.e. flat, dry surface in a well lit venue with a rule set, the scenario can be in any type of location or situation i.e. dim light, hallway, elevator, stairs, alley, sloping surface etc. This is more realistic and can be altered continuously.
• L.E. uses the scenario-based methodology for both weapons and Defensive Tactics with good results for a multitude of scenarios. It works well for lightly trained people all the way to highly trained professionals.

Just a few tidbits to toss out for consideration.

 

[drop bear]

In general, I think "hard-contact" is a better descriptor for most reasonable training than "full-contact". As has been said, the point of sparring is to learn, not to damage our training partners. Even most pro fighters aren't trying to knock out their sparring partners the way they would be trying to knock out their opponents in the ring. (That said, many high-level professional fighters get conditioned to a level of "hard" contact in training which is harder than the "full" contact an amateur might achieve in a real fight.)





?? K-man, I don't see any full (or even hard) contact training in those videos. Those are all cooperative demos with the uke taking a dive as scripted. Nothing against the art or the techniques being demoed, but none of that is full contact.

Thanks I was trying to find a way to say that without sounding mean.

 

[drop bear]

You'll forgive me for not reading all six pages of replies to the OP thread, but it looked interesting and I wanted to toss in my two cents worth

To begin, per the OP question, we're talking about a self-defense training methodology as opposed to a sport training methodology. As such I would suggest that sparring is less efficient than a scenario-based training methodology. Here are points to consider:

• Sparring normally requires a specific rule set and safety equipment. In other words, one person stands 'here' and the other stands 'there' and then they begin sparring i.e. attempting to hit/kick/grapple with one another. Sparring may be based upon points or takedowns. None of this is conducive to what is actually needed in a self-defense situation.
• I've never seen a 'sparring' session that allows for one opponent to attempt to verbally de-esculate the other. Nor have I seen a session allow/encourage improvised weapons, cover, concealment, escape & evasion or the use of barriers.
• The above is where a scenario-based training session shines. The 'trainee' of the scenario can go in 'cold' which represents a surprise situation (which is common since an attacker will chose a time/place that is advantageous to them and disadvantageous to you). It requires them to quickly evaluate the situation and determine a course of action, possibly while under duress and the affects of an adrenaline dump i.e. tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of manual dexterity in the extremities, breathing control, starting from a position of disadvantage etc.
• Whereas a sparring session normally involves an artificial environment i.e. flat, dry surface in a well lit venue with a rule set, the scenario can be in any type of location or situation i.e. dim light, hallway, elevator, stairs, alley, sloping surface etc. This is more realistic and can be altered continuously.
• L.E. uses the scenario-based methodology for both weapons and Defensive Tactics with good results for a multitude of scenarios. It works well for lightly trained people all the way to highly trained professionals.

Just a few tidbits to toss out for consideration.

So you wouldn't spar at all? I am not sure why this is a one or the other deal.

We do situational drills. Which is a fancy way of saying combat scenario.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

So you wouldn't spar at all? I am not sure why this is a one or the other deal.

We do situational drills. Which is a fancy way of saying combat scenario.

We don't do any type of sparring. The methodology of sparring doesn't meet the needs of our training which is purely and solely self-defense oriented. Scenario based training contains every element that is needed for such training for the reasons I detailed above i.e. environment, stress-responses, ability to tailor the scenario (for example shoot/don't shoot or verbal only or ambush or multiple attackers etc), improvised weapons and additional factors that a typical sparring session doesn't cover. And one can have all the full contact that is needed to experience actual real world defense. And it is far superior for things such as the flinch response, fight or flight, OODA etc.

That's how we train in L.E. and that's the method I've adopted in our martial arts training as well based on the needs of my students.

 

[jks9199]

I am not a fan of scenario training. I believe it promotes the attacker to start reacting badly. They start to train their flinch reaction in a way that assists the other guy. As opposed to actively trying to spoil the technique and make their partner look bad.

I have found it is much easier to deal with a person that has scenario trained than a person that has not trained at all. And I think it is due to a person who has not trained does not recognize my technique will work.

I do train drills. I do not train them to where I tea off on a guy who is just standing there.

An example arakan.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2rBj1d4_kgk

See how they are flinching and collapsing when it is an action that is detrimental to self defence.

I suspect that you haven't seen or done proper scenario based training. It's not easy. It takes a lot of hard work to set up, coach, and run. There's a whole lot more to it then "OK, so you're walking down the street, and this guy comes at you... kick his ***!" Let me refer you to the folks who literally wrote the book on it: Armiger Institute.

 

[drop bear]

I suspect that you haven't seen or done proper scenario based training. It's not easy. It takes a lot of hard work to set up, coach, and run. There's a whole lot more to it then "OK, so you're walking down the street, and this guy comes at you... kick his ***!" Let me refer you to the folks who literally wrote the book on it: Armiger Institute.

I have seen it and done it. I think this idea I haven't done the real combat scenario training is a bit misleading.

Sparring teaches a different set of skills to combat scenarios. As I said we drill as well. But to understand random movement dealing with contact and problem solving you need to spar.

Mc map is moving back in that direction. The police here are employing mma fighters to help with their combat systems. Seal team 6 was looking to employ boxing instructors.

Sparring is coming back into fashion with these organisations that put themselves in harms way.

The Gracie's are doing combat scenarios and sparring combined.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HncwGDTNsxo

I get the ppct stuff forced on me during security guard training. And there is a lot of oponants to it among the people who actually have to put themselves in danger using it.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ7mjc_aweE

 

[K-man]

Is this predicted response training the arakan? Where you go in Throw one shot and then get hit for five minutes while standing there. Actually yes A lot of styles do that. Zen do kai was a bit mad keen, hock had a pedestrian drill I even did with wing chun for a month and they did circle of death.

Predicted response is really a lot different to Arakan but the concept is similar. In training you will start with a realistic common attack, say jab cross or jab hook, it doesn't really matter. The idea is to move in deflecting the attack to hit and restrict or trap an arm. Your next strike follows and you partner has no choice but to block with his free arm. If he doesn't block he gets hit and that hit may turn in to two or three hits until he goes down or manages to get his arm up to defend, in which case we can capture that arm and move to the next technique in the bunkai. It is not choreographed. Your partner is free to use any technique available and, if he can, he is free to kick or punch. In reality it doesn't happen and as the speed picks up it is virtually impossible to defend more than once before you get hit. It does work on flinch response as you are relying on your partner to respond instinctively.

Otherwise there is dutch drills that essentially does that.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vwcj6q5_yU4

But notice that people get to defend. Creating a better flinch response. And not being trained to move in a way that helps the attacker.

Nothing like this video.

As I said about the people who train like that anecdotally are easier to deal with. Because they revert to muscle memory. And are more likely to collapse under pressure. You have to remember sports fighting is different to SD training.

Hey, I made this point time after time. At least we agree on something. :cheers:

There is a huge difference between anecdotal and what you claimed earlier as first hand experience. You said "I have found it is much easier to deal with a person that has scenario trained than a person that has not trained at all". I find that really hard to believe.

?? K-man, I don't see any full (or even hard) contact training in those videos. Those are all cooperative demos with the uke taking a dive as scripted. Nothing against the art or the techniques being demoed, but none of that is full contact.

Tony, I agree with you but I was not asked to post full contact but what approximates full contact by my definition. I don't believe there is anything on Youtube like unregulated full contact unless you look at the early UFC contests. So we will train those types of things with full power using protective gear where possible but at other times as partner we will respond as might be expected if a particular shot was full power, although not with the theatrical flair shown in the videos. I have reposted the original request below.

Please post a video of what aproximates full contact by your definition.

 

[drop bear]

Predicted response is really a lot different to Arakan but the concept is similar. In training you will start with a realistic common attack, say jab cross or jab hook, it doesn't really matter. The idea is to move in deflecting the attack to hit and restrict or trap an arm. Your next strike follows and you partner has no choice but to block with his free arm. If he doesn't block he gets hit and that hit may turn in to two or three hits until he goes down or manages to get his arm up to defend, in which case we can capture that arm and move to the next technique in the bunkai. It is not choreographed. Your partner is free to use any technique available and, if he can, he is free to kick or punch. In reality it doesn't happen and as the speed picks up it is virtually impossible to defend more than once before you get hit. It does work on flinch response as you are relying on your partner to respond instinctively.

Nothing like this video.
Hey, I made this point time after time. At least we agree on something. :cheers:

There is a huge difference between anecdotal and what you claimed earlier as first hand experience. You said "I have found it is much easier to deal with a person that has scenario trained than a person that has not trained at all". I find that really hard to believe.

Tony, I agree with you but I was not asked to post full contact but what approximates full contact by my definition. I don't believe there is anything on Youtube like unregulated full contact unless you look at the early UFC contests. So we will train those types of things with full power using protective gear where possible but at other times as partner we will respond as might be expected if a particular shot was full power, although not with the theatrical flair shown in the videos. I have reposted the original request below.

Your drills are teaching a different set of skills to sparring. So I am not sure how you can compare the two.

Now from my experience when a person first spars the drills have not put them in a good position to deal with that. It happens with our guys as well if they have done drills and then apply it to sparring. A person who has not trained at all has no idea that my moves work and do not act accordingly. It can be difficult to deal with and requires different techniques.

For us it is a progression. Technique,drills, resisted drills,sparring. That way we try to give people the best chance in a conflict.

Full contact is generally not considered drills but full contact resisted. But it saves confusion that when you say full contact you mean drills.


In regards to dutch drills the intent is different. The correct response your partner should be achieving is defending your attacks forcing my attacks to try and outmanoeuvre his defence.

So I may feed a pre arranged attack he feeds a pre arranged defence. At a experienced level if you get nailed then you just have to recover for the other shots will still be coming. If your shots are being spoiled by his defence then you need to throw better shots.

The sort of drills you describe are used but they are right at the start of that progression. And not done with speed or force because their poupose becomes lost.

To make a person react like they have been hit. Is done in sparring by hitting people.

 

[K-man]

Your drills are teaching a different set of skills to sparring. So I am not sure how you can compare the two.

my training does not consist of drills. When I switched from Japanese to Okinawan karate I threw all the drills out as they were all oriented towards winning points in tournaments.

Now from my experience when a person first spars the drills have not put them in a good position to deal with that. It happens with our guys as well if they have done drills and then apply it to sparring. A person who has not trained at all has no idea that my moves work and do not act accordingly. It can be difficult to deal with and requires different techniques.

For us it is a progression. Technique,drills, resisted drills,sparring. That way we try to give people the best chance in a conflict.

Full contact is generally not considered drills but full contact resisted. But it saves confusion that when you say full contact you mean drills.

I had your sort of sparring for 20 years and it does nothing for me. We are on two different planets. You haven't the first idea of what I am discussing because your training is rooted in competition. If you had of looked for the guys I mentioned for you to check out you may have got a glimpse of what I am talking about.

In regards to dutch drills the intent is different. The correct response your partner should be achieving is defending your attacks forcing my attacks to try and outmanoeuvre his defence.

So I may feed a pre arranged attack he feeds a pre arranged defence. At a experienced level if you get nailed then you just have to recover for the other shots will still be coming. If your shots are being spoiled by his defence then you need to throw better shots.

So this appears to me to be choreography.

The sort of drills you describe are used but they are right at the start of that progression. And not done with speed or force because their poupose becomes lost.

To make a person react like they have been hit. Is done in sparring by hitting people.

And once again you are making assumptions about something you have obviously never experienced and do not understand. Our training can be as fast as you like but when it is fast it is over before it can progress. So we may practise small segments full speed but to progress the whole bunkai it needs to be slower to give your partner a chance to react. The more experienced your partner, the faster you can go. The beauty of the training is you do not have to hit your partner hard.
:asian:

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Sparring teaches a different set of skills to combat scenarios. As I said we drill as well. But to understand random movement dealing with contact and problem solving you need to spar.

After reading your comment above I took a look at your profile and I think I understand the issue. It says you train MMA. Now there is nothing wrong with that, but if this is correct, it explains why we're not on the same sheet of music so-to-speak. We're really talking about apples and oranges.

To begin, MMA uses a sport training methodology. To be clear, nothing wrong with that if the focus remains on sport and competition. So please don't confuse anything I say as a put-down towards MMA. As such, a sport training methodology is not sufficient for self defense training and in truth is extremely detrimental. I'll say this again to emphasis the point, it is detrimental to the training. Let me requote a post I did quite some time ago on this (and other) boards that was well received and cuts to the heart of the discussion:

For the purposes of this thread we can define self-defense as the strategies, principles, tactics and techniques to defend oneself and/or loved ones from and attack which can cause bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death.

To begin with, most types of sport traing/competions revolve around some/most/all of the following considerations (be they TKD specific or a more general MMA).

• Has a referee that enforces rules that both parties are required to abide by for the match.
• The match is in a well-lit, dry, level, soft surface venue.
• The opponent is unarmed.
• The opponent is alone with no chance others will join in.
• Some sort of safety gear is usually involved i.e. cup, mouth piece, gloves etc.
• The opponent isn't trying to kill, maim or severely injure you.
• You get a break in-between rounds to catch your breath, get a drink, get some advice or a pep talk.
• If you've had enough, you can call a time out or tap out or simply quit and walk away.
• There is often an incentive or reward for competing and/or winning such as rank advancement, a prize or maybe cash.

As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;

• Situational awareness i.e. be aware of your surroundings.
• Factors such as avoidance, evasion, escape and de-escalation need to be taken into consideration and trained for where appropriate.
• Where there is no referee enforcing rules.
• You are likely alone and/or at some sort of a place or position of disadvantage.
• There are no rules.
• There are no breaks, water, advice or anything to assist you.
• The assault can occur in a parking lot, elevator, side street, your car, your bedroom, in the woods etc. It will likely occur in dim light conditions in any type of weather.
• The attacker may be armed, and should be assumed to be armed.
• The attacker may have friends more than willing to jump in.
• There is no safety gear, but likely a plethora of person-unfriendly objects like broken glass, traffic, walls etc.
• The attacker is looking to cause as much damage to you as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time possible.
• To quit is to die (or something possibly worse i.e. rape, love one killed etc)
• The goal is survival, the method is whatever it takes and is appropriate to the situation.

When looking at the difference in training methodologies, consider for the student and scenario;

• Do they always 'go for the knock-out', for points, for a submission? Is so, they've limited there response options.
• Do they have the option and/or opportunity to avoid or evade the potential conflict. Or escape or practice an verbal de-escalation skills?
• Do they have the option of using an improvised weapon?
• Does there opponent have the option of pulling a weapon (planned or improvised)?
• Does there opponent have the option of having his buddies jump in to help?
• Is the student required to observe certain rules?
• Do your students always train inside the Dojang? Are opportunities provided to train inside a vehicle, stairs, elevator, hallway, small room, on grass, on asphalt, on a sloping or wet or slippery surface?
• Do your students always where their uniform? Are they familar with what it would be like to be wearing tight clothing, foot wear, shorts and a T-shirt, a dress etc? Tt is one thing to be warmed up and stretched out and wearing loose clothing in the Dojang. It is quite another to try it in a dress in high heels, a pair of tight jeans, with a handful of groceries, a duty belt etc when you're not warmed up and stretched out.
• Have they ever trained in dim light conditions?
• Have they trained with visual/auditory distractions?
• Do we always use a closed fist when striking at the head while wearing gloves and padded helmets? A blow to the head with a fist in a SD situation may not be the wisest tactic. The chance of injuring the hand on someone’s head is fairly substantial even with a well-placed strike. That is why boxer as an example tape their hands and wear gloves. I'll say it again; the chance of injuring your hand on someone's head/face is fairly substantial. If this occurs, depending on the severity of the injury, it could very well limit your options for further SD. Anyone here ever try to manipulate a weapon with broken knuckles? Or a cell phone, or car keys? I've broken a knuckle before and my range of motion in that hand was limited for an extended period of time. Given that manual dexterity is already limited while under duress, you've just made it even harder by busting a knuckle or two, or spraining your wrist on someone's face. And there is no way to know ahead of time whether or not he'll actually be knocked out.
  
  This also doesn't touch on the possibility of blood borne pathogens the bad guy may be carrying. And now you've put yourself in a position of cutting your knuckles on his teeth or 'bleeding' him from the mouth or nose.

Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the state statutes of force and deadly force? In consideration like bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death? Subject factors? What a reasonable person would do in the same situation? Are you required to retreat in your state? Does your state have a 'Castle Doctrine'? An instructor doesn't need to be an attorney, but providing the resources for the student to check into it and touching on some of the topics during class time.

Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the O.O.D.A. loop? Fight or flight? Flinch resonse? Adrenaline responses such as tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of manual dexterity in the extremities? Considerations can include;

• Even powerful strikes in non-lethal areas can fail.
• A situation which starts out at less-than-lethal levels can quickly escalate.
• A proper joint lock, at the appropriate time, 'can' immobilize even an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) even if strikes fail and if properly applied.
• Be as patient as possible for the situation, look for openings.
• The attack will probably take place at the most advantageous time to the attacker and the least advantageous to us. We may be tired, sick, distracted etc yet still be forced into a situation.
• Some of these predators come in packs which backs them bold. And even being physically big isn't always a deterent.

Physical conditioning is also helpful during training, or at least encouraging it. Being physically fit can help us in several areas of a SD situation. It can also help if an injury has been sustained.

So you need to ask yourself the question of where your sparring fits into the above commentary. If your sparring subscribes to a certain rule-set then it is sport and not sufficient for self defense. If your sparring is one-on-one in a weaponless environment and does not allow for verbal judo, escape & evasion, improvised weapons, use of barriers and/or cover and concealment etc then it is sport and detrimental to developing good self defense skills. Sparring does not have the randomness of a scenario because a scenario is not limited in any way, shape or form and can utilize any and all locations, environmental stimulus, duress (that can't be obtained during sparring), sensory overload, OODA, applicable self defense laws etc.

Again, not putting down MMA and/or sport training at all, it's just a different animal with a different training perspective and methodology to achieve a specific goal. You mentioned Gracie:

The Gracie's are doing combat scenarios and sparring combined.

I know Royce. He use to train L.E. personnel at SEPSI which is a regional training center. He began with the traditional sport-oriented BJJ style training and quickly discovered it sucks for what a high liability professional needs in the real world. He had to make extreme changes to what and how he teaches in order for Deputies/Officers to continue to come to his course. And it was still questionable (that is putting it nicely). That isn't a slap on Royce. It's just that what he offered worked in one environment and not in another. As a result I haven't seen him teach there in years now.

Seal team 6 was looking to employ boxing instructors.

This doesn't make it a good idea. I've trained under (and became an Instructor) Ken Good who was Seal Team Six. No boxing at all and was more oriented towards Aikijujutsu (along with Sonny Puzikas and Systema). I can assure you that the preponderance of their training is scenario based (I know as I commanded SOG Team Six and that's what we did).

The police here are employing mma fighters to help with their combat systems.

If this is true then I truly feel for them. If it is rear naked chokes and kamoras and cross body mounts and triangle locks etc then they are going to be putting themselves in danger before the altercation even starts. We messed with this back in the 90's when it was the flavor of the month. I died out quickly fortunately before anyone got hurt. Now we use SPEAR, PCR, Boatman and Israeli training (of which I'm an instructor in each system). It has done extremely well for us (we're the fifth largest agency in the state). And it has, along with our traditional self-defense related Karate training been in good stead with my students (the bulk of which are high liability professionals).