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

[K-man]

So someone is tryng take you down and then you are resisting you try to take them down they are resisting. They try to hold you down you try to get up and vica versa.

You are describing the same principles as sparring.

Well done, you have finally realised that I am training the same principles without the sparring people normally recognise as sparring. That is exactly why I asked for a definition of sparring to which you posted the type of sparring you do. I don't do that. Your sparring is give and take where both parties are trying to engage to fight. My 'sparring' is waiting for you to attack and then once you are committed I can respond. Just a different approach.

In regards to mma ground work because off the added hitting on the ground the method is becoming very self defency.
I will do a thread on it when I can put it together properly.

As a taste
I have never seen an rbsd style push this.

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

But it falls into the rbsd method like a charm using the principle that standing up is better even the blocking is weapons based open blocks. It is super effective. Real ground fighters struggle to combat it. It is simple to learn you could add in bicycle kicks which I do and they work well from there.

That is really similar to the Systema version we train. The Krav technique to get up from there is more a roll with one foot pulled in close to stop the guy on top posting and preventing the roll. Once on top it is not hard to get away. I have no idea what it is called but Bas Rutten taught the same escape when I attended his seminar last year.

And things like eye gouging actually works in your favour rather than engaging in a game where the person on top who has their entire body weight to eye gouge you back is a game I would not want to play.

I think that eye gouging is a bit misunderstood. For me threatening the eyes normally causes a reflex flinch which opens other targets. If you are grabbed from the front or in a side choke the eyes are a great choice of target. A weaker person can easily escape a larger person if he has his fingers in the big guys eyes. Attacking the eyes from the mount position or from within the guard would not be high on my list of priorities.
:asian:

 

[K-man]

I'm not sure why you are pushing this barrow. I train a hip throw in my aikido, koshi nage ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NxlU0_7TkXI ), but in reality I wouldn't use it if I was fighting. The takedowns I use where the hip comes into play are much more effective and easier to execute under pressure. The throw I mostly use would be more like osoto guruma, without a lot of the backward leg thrust.

So perhaps you could show us the hip throw you think is so essential to SD training.
:asian:

So how would you practice a fully resistant throw?

Hey you found it! You posted my preferred takedown on another thread. Well done!


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9v0CUnYsVzc

 

[drop bear]

Well done, you have finally realised that I am training the same principles without the sparring people normally recognise as sparring. That is exactly why I asked for a definition of sparring to which you posted the type of sparring you do. I don't do that. Your sparring is give and take where both parties are trying to engage to fight. My 'sparring' is waiting for you to attack and then once you are committed I can respond. Just a different approach.


That is really similar to the Systema version we train. The Krav technique to get up from there is more a roll with one foot pulled in close to stop the guy on top posting and preventing the roll. Once on top it is not hard to get away. I have no idea what it is called but Bas Rutten taught the same escape when I attended his seminar last year.

I think that eye gouging is a bit misunderstood. For me threatening the eyes normally causes a reflex flinch which opens other targets. If you are grabbed from the front or in a side choke the eyes are a great choice of target. A weaker person can easily escape a larger person if he has his fingers in the big guys eyes. Attacking the eyes from the mount position or from within the guard would not be high on my list of priorities.
:asian:

And so sparring is not unrealistic dojo dancing but follows the same principles as self defence training method. Making sport training following the same principles as self defence training.

Good at sparring good at self defence.

And the one you are talking about is generally called the scissor sweep.

 

[drop bear]

Hey you found it! You posted my preferred takedown on another thread. Well done!


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9v0CUnYsVzc

It is a high percentage move.

 

[K-man]

And so sparring is not unrealistic dojo dancing but follows the same principles as self defence training method. Making sport training following the same principles as self defence training.

Good at sparring good at self defence.

And the one you are talking about is generally called the scissor sweep.

Not sure that I totally agree but in principle yes. Our training includes techniques that you can't use in competition and obviously can't use in the ring. Yours is designed for the ring. Our training involves very short bursts whereas your sparring is continuous. But at the end of the day, yes both systems can be used for self defence. (Bugger! Having said that I will have to confront Chris P. )

 

[drop bear]

Not sure that I totally agree but in principle yes. Our training includes techniques that you can't use in competition and obviously can't use in the ring. Yours is designed for the ring. Our training involves very short bursts whereas your sparring is continuous. But at the end of the day, yes both systems can be used for self defence. (Bugger! Having said that I will have to confront Chris P. )

And after 14 pages we can actually start the argument.

Open sand box vs training dedicated concepts.

I think you need one to perform the other. And gain the best advantage from both.

 

[K-man]

And after 14 pages we can actually start the argument.

Open sand box vs training dedicated concepts.

I think you need one to perform the other. And gain the best advantage from both.

In your training a new person coming to train would not start from sparring. They would train the techniques then try to implement those techniques in a sparring situation that ultimately pretty closely resembles the environment that they will compete.

In our situation a new person will train the techniques then try to implement then under circumstances that try to mirror the situation a person might find on the street. Really there is no difference. We do train different things and we train towards different goals. Neither of us is really training solely for self defence but you are training to test your skills in competition and we are not.

Now where that puts us in the sand box I'm not sure, except to say I already have the sand in my hand!
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

In your training a new person coming to train would not start from sparring. They would train the techniques then try to implement those techniques in a sparring situation that ultimately pretty closely resembles the environment that they will compete.

In our situation a new person will train the techniques then try to implement then under circumstances that try to mirror the situation a person might find on the street. Really there is no difference. We do train different things and we train towards different goals. Neither of us is really training solely for self defence but you are training to test your skills in competition and we are not.

Now where that puts us in the sand box I'm not sure, except to say I already have the sand in my hand!
:asian:

The open sand box is where you just put both people out there and say go.

Specific scenario is where you say they can't ground fight all the time. We have those sort of concept rules but they are breakable. Eg don't get off mount to do submissions.

One has an aim and the other sort of doesn't you make up you own aim.

 

[RTKDCMB]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9v0CUnYsVzc

That is similar to one I like to do, I do it from an inward palm block from the outside against a punch with a reverse knife hand (ridge hand) to the side of the neck and then slip my hand around the back of the neck for the choke, step behind, a quick twist of the hips and down they go.

 

[K-man]

That is similar to one I like to do, I do it from an inward palm block from the outside against a punch with a reverse knife hand (ridge hand) to the side of the neck and then slip my hand around the back of the neck for the choke, step behind, a quick twist of the hips and down they go.

Sounds very familiar.

 

[Chris Parker]

For you SD guys, how will you develop your "hip throw (mother of all throws)"?

In

- "sport" approach, you 1st "develop" in your partner training, you then "test" in your "sport"?
- "SD" approach, you may "develop" it in your SD situation, but how do you "test" it?

Before coming back to your question, I'm going to make a suggestion. I've noticed that you have a tendency to look at the methods you use (commonly, though, just the techniques in isolation that you use), and make the assumption that the same things are used in all systems... it might behoove you to realise that that simply isn't the case. I mean, what if the system in question doesn't use a "hip throw"? Or has a different version to yours? Or has a different throw which is seen as the "mother of all throws"? In other words, why would other systems necessarily have to even have a hip throw, let alone have it fit your take on it's importance?

So nobody cares to answer my question?

The answer is the same for any other technique... which has been covered over and over again through the thread. But, if you want to deal with it specifically....

I just have to draw the conclusion that SD guys don't bother to "test" their skill such as "hip throw".

It's tested largely in the same way as in sporting systems, really... namely that, in "sport", you develop the throw by learning it mechanically, then test it by applying it with various degrees of resistance and response... applying it in a sporting context is an application, not a testing method... whereas in self defence training, you learn the technique (throw) mechanically first, then test it by applying it against varying levels of resistance and response. The difference is in the context that the throw is applied in... for sporting contexts, you often need to perform the throw a particular way in order for it to "count", there will be particular handholds that are available each and every time, the set up will be from a familiar attack (most commonly a similar one to what you are using), and the throw is often the end-result itself. For self defence, the exact method of applying the throw can change, the handholds are not consistent (as different attackers wear different clothes...), the set-ups are wildly different, and the throw is rarely the end of the situation.

Yeah I have been kind of spazzing around with this. But that becomes the basic core of the issue.

I could argue that if it does not happen in a fight then it is not realistic and therefore detrimental. I have read those argument as the basic premise against sparring. It is the core argument against sport.

You've misread the argument. The argument is that training specifically geared towards self defence (which rarely includes sports-style sparring) is better suited for self defence, and training specifically geared towards sports (which pretty much always includes sports-style sparring).

But what happens then?

Ignoring the fact that you've missed the argument, and assuming that you're asking what the next step is for self defence training, leaving off sparring, let's see.

Bag work?. Well you are not going to fight a bag.

All training devices are geared towards particular requirements, bag work included. There's no belief of fighting a bag, but it is a very good way of developing power, ensuring proper technique, and so on... of course, I feel you knew that...

Kata? Not a real fight.

You've experienced very different kata to me, then.... it's a hell of a lot closer than sparring can hope to be, frankly....

Conditioning? Nope.

Again, everything has it's place... of course, the form of conditioning required for self defence training is different to the form of conditioning required for sports competition...

Bare knuckle death matches? Well sorry but you are not covering being attacked by a sharknado so it is not applicable to self defence.

You're really just being deliberately facetious, aren't you?

Nothing. All martial arts training that is not being attacked in the street by the worst case scenario is not applicable to self defence training. And you cannot work with that premises.

And that, again, completely misses everything you've been told for 10 pages or so...

No. Training that doesn't closely approximate or mimic realistic scenarios or eventualities are going to be less applicable as "self defence training" the further the disconnect is. And sports style sparring is really very removed from actual self defence realities.

The justification is that the drills I like can be called as closely relating to a real self defence. But how am I coming to that conclusion?

Is that being just pulled out of the air?

Er... not quite sure what you're saying, honestly... grammar appears to have been forgotten in the first sentence. But, if you're saying that you train drills, and feel that they are closely related to self defence, and want to know how you came to that conclusion, not knowing what your drills are, and knowing that you train MMA, as well as having read your posts here, honestly, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Perhaps a bit of blind faith and a false assumption about how close to reality what you're doing is?

It is nice people have real world experience. I have real world experience. But that is not a justification. I feel compelled to support my training based on its own merits.

What are those merits?

I am not bashing a style but bashing a premises. I cannot see how anybody can reasonable work form this idea.

You're bashing a training methodology by commenting on the systems that use it (or don't use your methodology), so....

By the way how did I come to this conclusion.

Testing my ideas against a resisting opponent.

So? I can test all kinds of things against resisting opponents, doesn't mean a thing about them being suited to or applicable for self defence. That's what I was meaning when I suggested blind faith and false assumptions...

The best training for self defence is not to train.

Er... no. That's like saying the best way to avoid eating bad things is not to eat. Of course, I feel you're just being facetious again....

The best defence in self defence is to not be there in the first place.

Kinda... but you're missing exactly how that works.

So training to not be there is the most effective method.

Good.... now tell me, how do you train that? How do you test it? Is it in sparring?

Oh, and before you think I'm being facetious, that's pretty much exactly what I was teaching (and pressure testing) last month.

I proved this by not going to k mans gym and was therefore undefeated.

Of course, that's not exactly the same thing, is it? And you weren't undefeated, for the record.

I will in fact issue a challenge to the whole board that I will not go to all of their gyms and will remain undefeated. Demonstrating the power of my technique.

Hmm.... you do understand, of course, that you can be "beaten" when you're not in a school/gym, yeah (oh, and neither K-Man nor myself train in a "gym"... for the record...). Additionally, the idea of a challenge match (which is what it would be if you were to turn up somewhere) doesn't really mean anything about self defence... it's not about seeking out fights....

I have not been to Syria which is one of the most dangerous places on earth. That is how effective this technique is.

(I mean as a Stance I think it is almost unarguable)

Look, I get that you're trying to stretch what you think is the logical end-argument to demonstrate some form of problem with it, but you're really missing the entire point.

This is what got me thinking about the basic issue with the premis.

I did not agree with most of that critique and was going to eventually work through it picking it apart.

It would have been arduous and derailing.

Then I noticed the common core.

"I think in a real fight this would not happen. "

It is an unworkable idea.

What's unworkable about knowing what the likely realities are, and working towards that aim? Are you saying that unrealistic ideas and applications should be trained as well?

So how would you practice a fully resistant throw?

Firstly, I'd assess the throw and decide whether or not it's worth training... then I'd look at the best, most realistic applications in modern self defence situations. From there, it's a matter of recreating those situations (realistically), and practicing it in that context. Why, what were you expecting?

So someone is tryng take you down and then you are resisting you try to take them down they are resisting. They try to hold you down you try to get up and vica versa.

You are describing the same principles as sparring.

Sounds more like drilling to me, honestly.

In regards to mma ground work because off the added hitting on the ground the method is becoming very self defency.
I will do a thread on it when I can put it together properly.

Not really.

As a taste
I have never seen an rbsd style push this.

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

We use it, but not in that situation, as it's too dangerous and takes too long. So, uh, hi. You've now met an RBSD practitioner that uses it.

But it falls into the rbsd method like a charm using the principle that standing up is better even the blocking is weapons based open blocks. It is super effective. Real ground fighters struggle to combat it. It is simple to learn you could add in bicycle kicks which I do and they work well from there.

Er... no, it doesn't necessarily fall into RBSD methods "like a charm", especially not for the reasons you're listing. "Super effective"? Hmm.... not the way it's shown there (when it comes to RBSD methodology).

And things like eye gouging actually works in your favour rather than engaging in a game where the person on top who has their entire body weight to eye gouge you back is a game I would not want to play.

Right.... not sure what you're talking about here.

Not sure that I totally agree but in principle yes. Our training includes techniques that you can't use in competition and obviously can't use in the ring. Yours is designed for the ring. Our training involves very short bursts whereas your sparring is continuous. But at the end of the day, yes both systems can be used for self defence. (Bugger! Having said that I will have to confront Chris P. )

Ha, nah.... no confrontation... I've always said that sports training can be used for self defence, often fairly easily, but that it's not really designed for it, and requires adaptation.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

But how do you justify training in an artificial controlled manner?

This question doesn't make sense. I don't think you have an understanding of what kata training actually involves. An example of training in an artificial and controlled manner would be the MMA sparring video you posted a link to earlier in this thread. Kata training on the other hand (and by kata training I'm referring to the in-depth training as I previously described as opposed to block/punch/kick) translates into bunkai drills which translates into very effective RBMA and scenario training.

 

[K-man]

This question doesn't make sense. I don't think you have an understanding of what kata training actually involves. An example of training in an artificial and controlled manner would be the MMA sparring video you posted a link to earlier in this thread. Kata training on the other hand (and by kata training I'm referring to the in-depth training as I previously described as opposed to block/punch/kick) translates into bunkai drills which translates into very effective RBMA and scenario training.

Mate! I've just got one thing to say.

CAN OF WORMS!

(and BTW I agree with you totally regarding kata )

:asian:

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Mate! I've just got one thing to say.

CAN OF WORMS!

(and BTW I agree with you totally regarding kata )

:asian:

I figure it's good for another 15 pages :bangahead:

 

[drop bear]

This question doesn't make sense. I don't think you have an understanding of what kata training actually involves. An example of training in an artificial and controlled manner would be the MMA sparring video you posted a link to earlier in this thread. Kata training on the other hand (and by kata training I'm referring to the in-depth training as I previously described as opposed to block/punch/kick) translates into bunkai drills which translates into very effective RBMA and scenario training.

Does kata reflect a street attack? Is it artificial? Is it controlled?

Is scenario training artificial? Is that controlled?

Not my definition this is yours. Artificial controlled training is no good for self defence.

So if kata and scenario training are artificial how do you justify it?

 

[drop bear]

Before coming back to your question, I'm going to make a suggestion. I've noticed that you have a tendency to look at the methods you use (commonly, though, just the techniques in isolation that you use), and make the assumption that the same things are used in all systems... it might behoove you to realise that that simply isn't the case. I mean, what if the system in question doesn't use a "hip throw"? Or has a different version to yours? Or has a different throw which is seen as the "mother of all throws"? In other words, why would other systems necessarily have to even have a hip throw, let alone have it fit your take on it's importance?



The answer is the same for any other technique... which has been covered over and over again through the thread. But, if you want to deal with it specifically....



It's tested largely in the same way as in sporting systems, really... namely that, in "sport", you develop the throw by learning it mechanically, then test it by applying it with various degrees of resistance and response... applying it in a sporting context is an application, not a testing method... whereas in self defence training, you learn the technique (throw) mechanically first, then test it by applying it against varying levels of resistance and response. The difference is in the context that the throw is applied in... for sporting contexts, you often need to perform the throw a particular way in order for it to "count", there will be particular handholds that are available each and every time, the set up will be from a familiar attack (most commonly a similar one to what you are using), and the throw is often the end-result itself. For self defence, the exact method of applying the throw can change, the handholds are not consistent (as different attackers wear different clothes...), the set-ups are wildly different, and the throw is rarely the end of the situation.



You've misread the argument. The argument is that training specifically geared towards self defence (which rarely includes sports-style sparring) is better suited for self defence, and training specifically geared towards sports (which pretty much always includes sports-style sparring).



Ignoring the fact that you've missed the argument, and assuming that you're asking what the next step is for self defence training, leaving off sparring, let's see.



All training devices are geared towards particular requirements, bag work included. There's no belief of fighting a bag, but it is a very good way of developing power, ensuring proper technique, and so on... of course, I feel you knew that...



You've experienced very different kata to me, then.... it's a hell of a lot closer than sparring can hope to be, frankly....



Again, everything has it's place... of course, the form of conditioning required for self defence training is different to the form of conditioning required for sports competition...



You're really just being deliberately facetious, aren't you?



And that, again, completely misses everything you've been told for 10 pages or so...

No. Training that doesn't closely approximate or mimic realistic scenarios or eventualities are going to be less applicable as "self defence training" the further the disconnect is. And sports style sparring is really very removed from actual self defence realities.



Er... not quite sure what you're saying, honestly... grammar appears to have been forgotten in the first sentence. But, if you're saying that you train drills, and feel that they are closely related to self defence, and want to know how you came to that conclusion, not knowing what your drills are, and knowing that you train MMA, as well as having read your posts here, honestly, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Perhaps a bit of blind faith and a false assumption about how close to reality what you're doing is?



What are those merits?



You're bashing a training methodology by commenting on the systems that use it (or don't use your methodology), so....



So? I can test all kinds of things against resisting opponents, doesn't mean a thing about them being suited to or applicable for self defence. That's what I was meaning when I suggested blind faith and false assumptions...



Er... no. That's like saying the best way to avoid eating bad things is not to eat. Of course, I feel you're just being facetious again....



Kinda... but you're missing exactly how that works.



Good.... now tell me, how do you train that? How do you test it? Is it in sparring?

Oh, and before you think I'm being facetious, that's pretty much exactly what I was teaching (and pressure testing) last month.



Of course, that's not exactly the same thing, is it? And you weren't undefeated, for the record.



Hmm.... you do understand, of course, that you can be "beaten" when you're not in a school/gym, yeah (oh, and neither K-Man nor myself train in a "gym"... for the record...). Additionally, the idea of a challenge match (which is what it would be if you were to turn up somewhere) doesn't really mean anything about self defence... it's not about seeking out fights....



Look, I get that you're trying to stretch what you think is the logical end-argument to demonstrate some form of problem with it, but you're really missing the entire point.



What's unworkable about knowing what the likely realities are, and working towards that aim? Are you saying that unrealistic ideas and applications should be trained as well?



Firstly, I'd assess the throw and decide whether or not it's worth training... then I'd look at the best, most realistic applications in modern self defence situations. From there, it's a matter of recreating those situations (realistically), and practicing it in that context. Why, what were you expecting?



Sounds more like drilling to me, honestly.



Not really.



We use it, but not in that situation, as it's too dangerous and takes too long. So, uh, hi. You've now met an RBSD practitioner that uses it.



Er... no, it doesn't necessarily fall into RBSD methods "like a charm", especially not for the reasons you're listing. "Super effective"? Hmm.... not the way it's shown there (when it comes to RBSD methodology).



Right.... not sure what you're talking about here.



Ha, nah.... no confrontation... I've always said that sports training can be used for self defence, often fairly easily, but that it's not really designed for it, and requires adaptation.

So you are training in an artificial manner and a controlled environment as well.

Maybe then it is not a good argument to base the ineffectiveness of sport then.

 

[Kframe]

CP and Others. Its unfortunate there are not many good examples of the other types of kata out there. Not talking about the K/P/B dance kata that everyone not in TMA is familiar with.

DB I have only just began to experience kata training, and coming from mma, it is not anything like you would expect. Now I know that CP will probably Disagree with this, but to me, even at my beginner level with beginner kata, they feel like a step between pad work and Sparring. The anxiety and nervousness of not wanting to get hit and doing what your supposed to do, is there. I hope that those here with more experience could chime in on "feeling" of the partnered kata/kata bunkai aspect of it. It really does feel different.

It is different and POSSIBLY closer to a real situation because of the nature of the attack. It is fully committed. If you watch youtube many of the ambushes and assault type fights, tend to have one side that is just trying to get away or defend and one side that is just constantly committed to a attack. Both sides are not usually attacking each other. It would be foolish to discount KSD's police experience in this discussion. Stuff on the streets does not typically happen like it does in the cage.

Now I have no experience with this aspect of kata, but from my reading, there is a point were their is a element of randomness to it at later experience stages. Ill leave that to those with more experience in that area.

 

[drop bear]

CP and Others. Its unfortunate there are not many good examples of the other types of kata out there. Not talking about the K/P/B dance kata that everyone not in TMA is familiar with.

DB I have only just began to experience kata training, and coming from mma, it is not anything like you would expect. Now I know that CP will probably Disagree with this, but to me, even at my beginner level with beginner kata, they feel like a step between pad work and Sparring. The anxiety and nervousness of not wanting to get hit and doing what your supposed to do, is there. I hope that those here with more experience could chime in on "feeling" of the partnered kata/kata bunkai aspect of it. It really does feel different.

It is different and POSSIBLY closer to a real situation because of the nature of the attack. It is fully committed. If you watch youtube many of the ambushes and assault type fights, tend to have one side that is just trying to get away or defend and one side that is just constantly committed to a attack. Both sides are not usually attacking each other. It would be foolish to discount KSD's police experience in this discussion. Stuff on the streets does not typically happen like it does in the cage.

Now I have no experience with this aspect of kata, but from my reading, there is a point were their is a element of randomness to it at later experience stages. Ill leave that to those with more experience in that area.

I thought the argument was that artificial and controlled training was no good for self defence.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Does kata reflect a street attack? Is it artificial? Is it controlled?

I do not know what your level of experience is with kata so let me see if I can expound a bit. Kata can be considered a catalog of movements, principles, tactics and strategy. These movements, as an example, contain strikes to be sure, but also locking, cavity pressing, throws, breaks etc. Bunkai is where we take these movements from a kata to drill. Both kata and bunkai can be trained solo which is useful for several reasons; first it allows training in these movements when a partner is unavailable. Think of it as shadow boxing in a way. Secondly, it maintains this catalog for future students. In regards to bunkai flow drills we can take several approaches; it can be performed fairly static with a non-resisting opponent for the purposes of teaching the technique. This reinforces training by rote so that the movement becomes instinctive. Secondly, we can train in a more free-form fashion against an opponent offering resistance. This puts the litmus test to the movement and allows the user to experience what it is like 'in the wild'. Thirdly, it can be utilized in a dynamic situation such as scenario based training which allows for free transition from one movement to another quickly and spontaneously to the threat as it progresses. This can entail a situation that provides as realistic a level of resistance as is still safely possible for the participants.

Let me expound further. Not every movement is going to work for everyone or on everyone. A kata, when it is clearly understood and trained, takes this into account and can provide logical alternatives. It also demonstrates that a movement is not limited to just 'what is seen'. For example, and as a MMA you'll appreciate this; the opening movements to Pinan Shodan demonstrate what is often mistaken as a 'block' and punch. I don't know if you're familiar with Pinan Shodan? The movement however makes an excellent intercept and shoulder lock. I've used variations of this in real world altercations and can attest to it's viability with a violent, resisting opponent. But what makes this a really cool thing is that it isn't just demonstrating a 'movement' but also a principle. Although the kata demonstrates the movement from a standing position, the principle of the lock works on the ground as well. In other words, it is demonstrating not only a balance displacement principle, but a physiological principle of the movement of the shoulder girdle. So this principle works standing as well as on the ground. This is the wealth of kata. All that you train for in MMA is also found in kata. Does kata 'have' to be trained? No. Many arts do not utilize kata. It is simply an effective training tool that can be employed if one wishes. And like I mentioned earlier, like shadow boxing, it can be done solo when a training partner is unavailable.

Is scenario training artificial? Is that controlled?

Any training is going to have to have a measure of control to provide a margin of safety for the participants. But it can be as 'real' as is possible within that consideration.

Not my definition this is yours. Artificial controlled training is no good for self defence.

I would say it differently (and I have in previous pages). Self defense by it's very nature needs more than just the ability to hit or kick. One needs options, both before, during and after an altercation and it's conclusion. As I've detailed, scenario based training provides this.

 

[K-man]

Does kata reflect a street attack? Is it artificial? Is it controlled?

Is scenario training artificial? Is that controlled?

Not my definition this is yours. Artificial controlled training is no good for self defence.

So if kata and scenario training are artificial how do you justify it?

We have had some very spirited debates, predominantly with MMA exponents, about the merit o training kata. Most people equate 'kata' with what you see in competition. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

I thought the argument was that artificial and controlled training was no good for self defence.

I think you just broadened the horizon substantially.
:asian: