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

[Kong Soo Do]

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.

:asian:

Tip of the iceberg is a good way to describe it. A kata can be trained superficially for the purposes of a demonstration or competition. That isn't meant to be derogatory, rather the competitor doesn't need the depth of a kata. He/she needs the movements. They need speed, power, aesthetics and if we're honest...flash. It is like a martial arts dance routine. That unfortunately is what many see and then assume is the actual bulk of kata training. It isn't. It can be a dance or it can be an onion where the layers go very deep and provide a veritable encyclopedia of material to train with. Where function trumps form.

 

[drop bear]

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 think you just broadened the horizon substantially.
:asian:

No. There has just been a tendency to pick and choose where it is applicable.

Sparring is artificial and so unrealistic.

Kata is.

Um....... You are making the term to broad.

There was one post there where warming up was artificial and unrealistic. I am not sure how you get any broader.

 

[drop bear]

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.



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.



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.

So developing a catolog of techniques is now important.

Sparring develops a catalogue of techniques. That is one of their reasons you do it.

 

[drop bear]

Tip of the iceberg is a good way to describe it. A kata can be trained superficially for the purposes of a demonstration or competition. That isn't meant to be derogatory, rather the competitor doesn't need the depth of a kata. He/she needs the movements. They need speed, power, aesthetics and if we're honest...flash. It is like a martial arts dance routine. That unfortunately is what many see and then assume is the actual bulk of kata training. It isn't. It can be a dance or it can be an onion where the layers go very deep and provide a veritable encyclopedia of material to train with. Where function trumps form.

A competitor needs the basics that are applicable to self defence. And then the added depth of competition focused training.

And of course not a routine because not scripted.

 

[K-man]

A competitor needs the basics that are applicable to self defence. And then the added depth of competition focused training.

And of course not a routine because not scripted.

Kong was referring to kata as you see it in competition. Like other things in competitions, competition kata is just that ... competition kata, flashy and precise.

The major part of our training now is based on kata, but nothing like the kata you might have seen, I would be sure. As Kong said, it has layers like an onion, the knowledge is deep and kata include all the principles and techniques of the particular martial art, in my case karate. I have been studying kata solidly for over 10 years now, even more so since switching styles. I know I have barely scratched the surface.

Do you need kata for self defence? Definitely not. Can kata be used for self defence? Certainly. It contains virtually everything you could ever need and it is not choreographed.
:asian:

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think way to many people get caught up in their individual training and their systems approach. Way too often they train a very specific way, against a specific set of attacks or circumstances. Whether they be in a sporting martial system or a traditional one or a Reality Based Self Defense system, etc. We tend to gravitate to some thing we like and stay in it in a comfort zone. Maybe we are in Muay Thai and like to spar and think it is the end all be all of the Martial Sciences, or we enjoy Brazilian Jiujitsu so much that we place it at the apex of what is good martial practice, or we train in an obscure traditional system and once again we ingrain the training and companionship and next thing you know it is the ultimate martial system in our minds. As a martial practitioner I am a specialist in a few areas and a generalist in others. However, one thing I try to do is to stay "edgey" in that I never let myself get comfortable in my training. I try to constantly push myself and experiment with new training opportunities. I think if you are a serious martial practitioner that you should have experience sparring, training in kata, grappling, etc. Do not put yourself into a box. Instead train and enjoy what you do but always try to find a way to practice outside of your comfort zone and stay edgey. That way when real violence happens you might have the ability to adapt in the moment! Try to be well rounded and spar, grapple (ie. roll), practice two man kata/skill sets, go check out the local Reality Based Self Defense seminar, training, etc. Enjoy what you do and also what others do. Learn from everyone and try not to be on an island in your training. Instead open your training up to all the possibilities that are around you! Just my 02.

 

[K-man]

Just my 02.

And I think you are selling the advice far too cheaply. Just your $100s worth would be closer to the mark.

 

[jks9199]

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?

I'm starting to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse.

All training necessarily incorporates some sort of flaw. In paired kata, the receiver is given an out at the last moment before getting hurt. In solo kata -- there is no physical opponent. In scenario or simulation training, there's a script and a safety officer, as well as other safety gear. In sparring, you and your partner agree to the level of contact, rules, etc. Other exercises incorporate other flaws, like missing the target, or speed (slow exercises allow you to concentrate on the structure and choosing the best response at the cost of rapidity/instinctive movement), pads and heavy bags don't hit back and are limited in how they move, and so on. Or do you try to KO everyone every time you spar? (If so -- I dare say you're not the most popular training partner, because sparring often takes place at lessened force or power in training so that you can continue to train... For a pro or serious amateur, it'd sure suck to have to step out of a fight because of a concussion received during training...) If your training doesn't incorporate some sort of flaw -- you're either sending folks to the hospital every time you train (and running out of playmates quickly...) or what you're practicing doesn't do what you claim it does.

Sparring has a place in preparing for real encounters -- but it also has major flaws. One of the most glaring, in my opinion, is the idea of moving in and out and re-engaging your opponent. In a self defense situation -- when you get free, you get gone! You don't square up and begin to fight again. (If you're a cop -- it's not get-gone, it's subdue, contain, and arrest.) Sparring also doesn't require you to justify and articulate your actions -- which is a vital skill if you don't want to go to jail.

Scenario or simulation training allows you to replicate many of the elements of an actual encounter, with controls for safety. It's not perfect, of course, because you're not actually hurting each other, and you have a controller, referee, or safety officer stopping the action at points for the purposes of the training. But it does require you to explain and justify your actions; it can allow you to repeat something until you find a way that does work or succeed.

 

[jks9199]

I think way to many people get caught up in their individual training and their systems approach. Way too often they train a very specific way, against a specific set of attacks or circumstances. Whether they be in a sporting martial system or a traditional one or a Reality Based Self Defense system, etc. We tend to gravitate to some thing we like and stay in it in a comfort zone. Maybe we are in Muay Thai and like to spar and think it is the end all be all of the Martial Sciences, or we enjoy Brazilian Jiujitsu so much that we place it at the apex of what is good martial practice, or we train in an obscure traditional system and once again we ingrain the training and companionship and next thing you know it is the ultimate martial system in our minds. As a martial practitioner I am a specialist in a few areas and a generalist in others. However, one thing I try to do is to stay "edgey" in that I never let myself get comfortable in my training. I try to constantly push myself and experiment with new training opportunities. I think if you are a serious martial practitioner that you should have experience sparring, training in kata, grappling, etc. Do not put yourself into a box. Instead train and enjoy what you do but always try to find a way to practice outside of your comfort zone and stay edgey. That way when real violence happens you might have the ability to adapt in the moment! Try to be well rounded and spar, grapple (ie. roll), practice two man kata/skill sets, go check out the local Reality Based Self Defense seminar, training, etc. Enjoy what you do and also what others do. Learn from everyone and try not to be on an island in your training. Instead open your training up to all the possibilities that are around you! Just my 02.

Great point! It's way too easy to get really good at defending against people who "attack properly." We train with our classmates and we end up doing things according to unwritten expectations if we're not careful. This is certainly one way to set yourself up for failure.

There was a video going round a while back that showed a security guard fighting someone on the street. The fight last several minutes, and you see some very credible kickboxing/MMA stuff in it. You also see that he was caught in that mindset rather than simply subduing the assailant.

 

[RTKDCMB]

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?

You do realize that all training is artificial? That's why they call it 'training'.

 

[drop bear]

I'm starting to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse.

All training necessarily incorporates some sort of flaw. In paired kata, the receiver is given an out at the last moment before getting hurt. In solo kata -- there is no physical opponent. In scenario or simulation training, there's a script and a safety officer, as well as other safety gear. In sparring, you and your partner agree to the level of contact, rules, etc. Other exercises incorporate other flaws, like missing the target, or speed (slow exercises allow you to concentrate on the structure and choosing the best response at the cost of rapidity/instinctive movement), pads and heavy bags don't hit back and are limited in how they move, and so on. Or do you try to KO everyone every time you spar? (If so -- I dare say you're not the most popular training partner, because sparring often takes place at lessened force or power in training so that you can continue to train... For a pro or serious amateur, it'd sure suck to have to step out of a fight because of a concussion received during training...) If your training doesn't incorporate some sort of flaw -- you're either sending folks to the hospital every time you train (and running out of playmates quickly...) or what you're practicing doesn't do what you claim it does.

Sparring has a place in preparing for real encounters -- but it also has major flaws. One of the most glaring, in my opinion, is the idea of moving in and out and re-engaging your opponent. In a self defense situation -- when you get free, you get gone! You don't square up and begin to fight again. (If you're a cop -- it's not get-gone, it's subdue, contain, and arrest.) Sparring also doesn't require you to justify and articulate your actions -- which is a vital skill if you don't want to go to jail.

Scenario or simulation training allows you to replicate many of the elements of an actual encounter, with controls for safety. It's not perfect, of course, because you're not actually hurting each other, and you have a controller, referee, or safety officer stopping the action at points for the purposes of the training. But it does require you to explain and justify your actions; it can allow you to repeat something until you find a way that does work or succeed.

I am being obtuse?

You are still using the argument that sparring is bad because it does not reflect what happens in a real fight after defending that that kind of critic is not really applicable to training anyway.

I don't think you can justify critiquing one while defending the other using the realism platform.

You will tie yourself in knots.

A constant between fighting and training is the other guy is fighting back or you are. That fighting back is more successful than not fighting back.

So training that includes fighting back is kind of important.

Sparring is about fighting back.

The concept of the sand box.

for every person that is unrealistically taking the fight to the ground there is a person realistically trying to fight them. For as much as fights may or may not re engage realistically.(and I have no idea why you would not train for that possibility) they have realistically disengaged.
For the idea that fights may not last 5 minutes well then you have just trained 300 ten second fights.

And so on. I could address each point but it all seems to come from that one basic flawed premises. That training that does not reflect a self defence is not realistic.

Adding a false premise that training that does not reflect self defence is flawed uness we do it is not really going to help is it?

And exactly where are people pulling these ideas about self defence from anyway? Nobody has proved them or even tried to justify them it is just.

In a self defence situation if you separate and re engage you go to jail. And then nothing no proof no reasoning no concept there might just be conditions where you may re engage.

What is stopping me making any statement like? I don't have to justify it.

I have never encounter that sort of thinking it is a really different concept to me.

 

[drop bear]

You do realize that all training is artificial? That's why they call it 'training'.

No now it is artificial uness we do it. Which is apparently the new defence to that.

Otherwise sparring would be a legitimate exercise.

 

[drop bear]

Great point! It's way too easy to get really good at defending against people who "attack properly." We train with our classmates and we end up doing things according to unwritten expectations if we're not careful. This is certainly one way to set yourself up for failure.

There was a video going round a while back that showed a security guard fighting someone on the street. The fight last several minutes, and you see some very credible kickboxing/MMA stuff in it. You also see that he was caught in that mindset rather than simply subduing the assailant.

Was the assailant subdued?

You have another false premise there. You can't see a situation you are not involved in and then say I would have done xyz and won much more easily.

The biggest issue is you were not involved and did not do xyz and so dont really know.

I mean look speculate all you want but understand it is just speculation.

 

[drop bear]

I think way to many people get caught up in their individual training and their systems approach. Way too often they train a very specific way, against a specific set of attacks or circumstances. Whether they be in a sporting martial system or a traditional one or a Reality Based Self Defense system, etc. We tend to gravitate to some thing we like and stay in it in a comfort zone. Maybe we are in Muay Thai and like to spar and think it is the end all be all of the Martial Sciences, or we enjoy Brazilian Jiujitsu so much that we place it at the apex of what is good martial practice, or we train in an obscure traditional system and once again we ingrain the training and companionship and next thing you know it is the ultimate martial system in our minds. As a martial practitioner I am a specialist in a few areas and a generalist in others. However, one thing I try to do is to stay "edgey" in that I never let myself get comfortable in my training. I try to constantly push myself and experiment with new training opportunities. I think if you are a serious martial practitioner that you should have experience sparring, training in kata, grappling, etc. Do not put yourself into a box. Instead train and enjoy what you do but always try to find a way to practice outside of your comfort zone and stay edgey. That way when real violence happens you might have the ability to adapt in the moment! Try to be well rounded and spar, grapple (ie. roll), practice two man kata/skill sets, go check out the local Reality Based Self Defense seminar, training, etc. Enjoy what you do and also what others do. Learn from everyone and try not to be on an island in your training. Instead open your training up to all the possibilities that are around you! Just my 02.

Which is nice but you did not really answer the OPs question.

Is sparring beneficial to self defence?

Is not sparring detrimental to self defence?

 

[RTKDCMB]

I am being obtuse?

Now you are just trying to be acute.

 

[drop bear]

Now you are just trying to be acute.

Acute?

I am adorable.

 

[Chris Parker]

This might take a bit...

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

No, yes, and yes... and I don't think you understand why in any of the three counts there.

Is scenario training artificial? Is that controlled?

Yes, and yes... and I don't think you understand why in either of those counts.

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

Who said that? The only person I've seen even talking about "artificial" is you...

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

You really have entirely missed the argument.

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.

Yeah... completely missed it. I'll try to explain once more.

Look, artificial is fine... it means "created", not "unrealistic". It often implies "created for a purpose", which is exactly what you want. Unrealistic is what we've been arguing against, not artificial... so I don't know where you got that from. Additionally, no one has said that sports training is ineffective, just that it's geared (designed) to be effective principally in the field of sports-competition. Which is, frankly, what you'd both expect and want.

The argument is that a sports car is great, unless you need to transport many people... or go off-roading. That doesn't make the sports car bad, just not ideal for other purposes. And it doesn't mean that the sports car and the four wheel drive are both bad, as they're both "artificial"....

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.

Oh, there are certainly very good examples of what I'm talking about (as kata)... thing is, they're experiential in nature, rather than observant... you need to be involved in them to understand what is good in them. Kata done very precisely and cleanly, with no real variation, is great, depending on the context... kata done very roughly and loosely is also great, depending on the context. Here's a couple of examples, see if we can tell which is which:

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.

Actually, that's a fairly common way of approaching kata training at the beginning, so yeah, it's definitely "right" for you right now. No disagreement from me... until we start looking at more advanced ways of approaching it. But you ain't there yet.... and sadly, some never let themselves develop into it either.

It is different and POSSIBLY closer to a real situation because of the nature of the attack. It is fully committed.

Partially.

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.

That's more like it.

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.

As well as JKS's comments, and more.

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.

More than an element....

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

No, that was you misunderstanding the argument and failing to listen to what you were being told.

No. There has just been a tendency to pick and choose where it is applicable.

No, there has been a failing on your part to recognize the distinctions.

Sparring is artificial and so unrealistic.

No, the argument is that the environment of sparring is unrealistic and doesn't match/mimic reality (when it comes to actual self defence/violence... it does match the reality of a competitive match quite well). The idea of "artificial" is your hang-up.

Kata is.

Um....... You are making the term to broad.

I really have a hard time sometimes trying to follow what you're trying to say... is the second line the follow on to the first ("Kata is... um... you are making the term too broad."), or are they separate? If they're separate, then "Kata is" what? This doesn't seem to actually make any sense.... what term is too broad?

There was one post there where warming up was artificial and unrealistic. I am not sure how you get any broader.

And you missed the point of that comment as well....

So developing a catolog of techniques is now important.

Sparring develops a catalogue of techniques. That is one of their reasons you do it.

No, it doesn't. And no, that isn't why you do it. If it is, you've jumped into sparring way, way too early.

A competitor needs the basics that are applicable to self defence. And then the added depth of competition focused training.

And of course not a routine because not scripted.

Yeah... you don't seem to be actually talking about the same thing that Kong Soo Do was... I have no idea what you think you were addressing there.

I think way to many people get caught up in their individual training and their systems approach. Way too often they train a very specific way, against a specific set of attacks or circumstances. Whether they be in a sporting martial system or a traditional one or a Reality Based Self Defense system, etc. We tend to gravitate to some thing we like and stay in it in a comfort zone. Maybe we are in Muay Thai and like to spar and think it is the end all be all of the Martial Sciences, or we enjoy Brazilian Jiujitsu so much that we place it at the apex of what is good martial practice, or we train in an obscure traditional system and once again we ingrain the training and companionship and next thing you know it is the ultimate martial system in our minds. As a martial practitioner I am a specialist in a few areas and a generalist in others. However, one thing I try to do is to stay "edgey" in that I never let myself get comfortable in my training. I try to constantly push myself and experiment with new training opportunities. I think if you are a serious martial practitioner that you should have experience sparring, training in kata, grappling, etc. Do not put yourself into a box. Instead train and enjoy what you do but always try to find a way to practice outside of your comfort zone and stay edgey. That way when real violence happens you might have the ability to adapt in the moment! Try to be well rounded and spar, grapple (ie. roll), practice two man kata/skill sets, go check out the local Reality Based Self Defense seminar, training, etc. Enjoy what you do and also what others do. Learn from everyone and try not to be on an island in your training. Instead open your training up to all the possibilities that are around you! Just my 02.

Hmm, actually here, I'm going to be with Drop Bear... this really doesn't address anything in the thread at all, other than a "hey, can't we all just get along? Everyone's right in their own way, okay?" attitude.... I get the mentality, but it's (for one thing) fairly ignorant of the reality of why things are done a certain way for different systems... not everything is suited for everything.

Great point! It's way too easy to get really good at defending against people who "attack properly." We train with our classmates and we end up doing things according to unwritten expectations if we're not careful. This is certainly one way to set yourself up for failure.

Honestly, I'd say that all attacks need to be done "properly"... but exactly what that means is dependant on the type of attack you're dealing with. Over the last month, I've been taking my guys through fight avoidance and verbal de-escalation, with an emphasis on the differences between social and asocial violence, looking at which is most likely for each student, and so on. The "attacks" therefore weren't anything like what's seen in "martial arts" techniques... in fact, there wasn't really any physical attack at all... but the role of "attacker/aggressor" needed to be done properly, and authentically, in order for the training to be effective. However, I feel that you were meaning that it's easy to get good at handling a particular physical form of attack (which is particular to that martial art, and, in that context, "proper")... in which case, I agree that it can't just be that, unless that's all you're needing to deal with. And that brings us back to sports training versus self defence training... sports really only need to be able to handle the attacks/techniques found in that form of competition... a boxer doesn't have to deal with a knife, a wrestler doesn't need pistol disarms, an MMA guy doesn't need verbal de-escalation, and a Judoka doesn't have to worry about head-high kicks... whereas self defence needs to look at the likely forms of attack, which is going to be a lot broader, and have a very different approach to it (but, of course, won't need to really worry about traditional style attacks, swords, and the like...).

There was a video going round a while back that showed a security guard fighting someone on the street. The fight last several minutes, and you see some very credible kickboxing/MMA stuff in it. You also see that he was caught in that mindset rather than simply subduing the assailant.

Here it is:

I am being obtuse?

Well, you're being obtuse, facetious, or just plainly failing to understand what you're being told. One of the above... if not more.

You are still using the argument that sparring is bad because it does not reflect what happens in a real fight after defending that that kind of critic is not really applicable to training anyway.

Yeah... that'd be one example of the obtuse behaviour you're being told about....

I don't think you can justify critiquing one while defending the other using the realism platform.

You will tie yourself in knots.

You can when you understand what they both are, and where the flaws are. Every training method has compromise and flaws, but that doesn't mean that they are all equally flawed in the same ways.

A constant between fighting and training is the other guy is fighting back or you are. That fighting back is more successful than not fighting back.

Sigh... scenario training, paired kata... what do you think is going on there?

Oh, but for the record, that's not really a constant in actual assaults.... so you know....

So training that includes fighting back is kind of important.

And you think sparring is the only, or even best way that is achieved? Sorry, nope. By a long shot.

Sparring is about fighting back.

No, it's not. It's about exchanges. Different.

The concept of the sand box.[/QOUTE]

Yeah.... what's that in reference to? The previous sentences, or the following ones? Syntax, dude, makes it easy to know what on earth you think you're saying....

for every person that is unrealistically taking the fight to the ground there is a person realistically trying to fight them. For as much as fights may or may not re engage realistically.(and I have no idea why you would not train for that possibility) they have realistically disengaged.

Uh.... no. What you're saying there has no basis in reality, other than you pulling ideas out of your head. Or do you think you have some support for these statements?

For the idea that fights may not last 5 minutes well then you have just trained 300 ten second fights.

No, you haven't. You've trained for a 5 minute round. Big difference.

And so on. I could address each point but it all seems to come from that one basic flawed premises. That training that does not reflect a self defence is not realistic.

No, the basic premise is that training that is not geared towards, and designed for self defence as it's primary aim, is not geared towards or designed for self defence as it's primary aim, and therefore isn't the best method to achieve it. You really don't get that?

Adding a false premise that training that does not reflect self defence is flawed uness we do it is not really going to help is it?

I have no idea what you're talking about. How is it a false premise by saying that training that doesn't reflect real self defence doesn't reflect it?

And exactly where are people pulling these ideas about self defence from anyway? Nobody has proved them or even tried to justify them it is just.

Er.... "it is just" what? You don't seem to have finished your sentence there....

But, to address the complete thoughts you've presented, Kong Soo Do for one has listed exactly where his ideas come from... mine are similar, as are JKS's, MJS's, and so on. From there, there's an actual education in the topic, and an ability to critically assess ideas, construct realistic training methodologies, and assess others expertise.

In a self defence situation if you separate and re engage you go to jail. And then nothing no proof no reasoning no concept there might just be conditions where you may re engage.

Huh?

Tell me something (well, two things, actually...)... where are you situated? Just a state will do (I'm in Melbourne). And how well do you know the self defence laws in your state?

What is stopping me making any statement like? I don't have to justify it.

No, you don't have to justify anything you say, but if what you say is out of whack with reality, you're going to get called out on it. Mind you, what's to stop you making any statement you like? Well, the TOS you signed up for, the mods, the owner.... depending on what you say of course.... not that that has anything to do with what JKS meant when he was talking about you needing to justify things... he was addressing some realities of both self defence and training methods.

I have never encounter that sort of thinking it is a really different concept to me.

No kidding....

No now it is artificial uness we do it. Which is apparently the new defence to that.

Otherwise sparring would be a legitimate exercise.

Sparring is a legitimate exercise, it's just not that well suited to self defence. That's it. Oh, and you might want to rein in the passive-aggressive attitude, you've missed everything in this thread, despite it being explained to you over and over again... it's not others changing their comments, it's you not getting it, and them trying to find different ways to explain it to you.

Was the assailant subdued?

Er... no, not really. Mind you, the assailant was kinda the security guy...

You have another false premise there. You can't see a situation you are not involved in and then say I would have done xyz and won much more easily.

You really think that's what was being said? No, son, that's not the argument at all.

The biggest issue is you were not involved and did not do xyz and so dont really know.

I mean look speculate all you want but understand it is just speculation.

No, that's really not the biggest issue at all....

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Unless the poster is your son, refrain from calling people, 'son.' It's demeaning and pompous.

 

[MJS]

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?

Agreed with the sport approach. For the SD approach...I test it using the sport approach, even though I personally don't compete nearly as much as others do. It's simply a matter of starting off slow, getting the fine points down, and gradually adding in the heat, ie: more resistance, a harder, faster attack, etc.

 

[MJS]

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.

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.

IMHO, I feel that both are very beneficial. I do both in my training. There are times when I work something specific and other times, when there isn't any special format.