How important is contact sparring in MA?

[Kong Soo Do]

You are not critiquing the videos based on what worked and what did not. You are critiquing the videos on what you would like to have seen happen.

No, I'm critiquing the videos to demonstrate both the positives and the failures, which I did. I pointed out what worked as well as failures in the training. Others did the same.

Honestly I think you need to be less of an expert and more of a student.

No, being a continual student of self-defense made me an expert. Not a boast, just the way it's worked out. I think you should take less time trying to prove a point in an area you're not an expert, and actually not truly a student in to learn from those that are. Because a student truly strives to learn.

I don't know how you would define simple. Punching is simple. Punching a guy who can defend is complicated. The example of a credible martial art generally should be that a person who has spent years at it is better than a person who has spent months. This is an indication that fighting can be a bit complex.

I've already defined simple in my previous post. Please reread it. And a credible martial art (or combative system that focuses on self defense) does not take years to gain proficiency. Indeed, if it is a system that teaches sound principles then the duration is rather short. Boatman edged weapon defense is a prime example and I've described it many times. WWII combatives is another I've discussed as well multiple times. Both short term learning curves, yet incredibly effective.

It does not matter how long a SD fight should be over in.

No, it is critical. The longer it continues the more detrimental things can happen.

I would prefer to train for a ten minute fight and have it be over in ten seconds then the situations be reversed. This rush to finish on some sort of internal clock I don't understand. Is there somewhere you have to be?

Not sure if you're being disingenuous or simply ignorant on this point. :idunno:

My issue with scenario training is I have never seen it done as you describe it.

And that is your issue. You're putting your limited experience on me and others even after we've described in great detail what and why, when you should be learning the what and the why if you're truly interested in SD.

 

[RTKDCMB]

It does not matter how long a SD fight should be over in. It is over when it is over.

As a martial artist you have some say in the matter.

I would prefer to train for a ten minute fight and have it be over in ten seconds then the situations be reversed.

I would prefer to train to have the fight over in seconds even if I had to keep trying. I took my time once and paid for it dearly. A fight that goes on longer is is a bit like sparring.

Is there somewhere you have to be?

Anywhere but there.

it is manufactured to achieve a result.

Aren't all martial arts manufactured to achieve a result?

 

[drop bear]

No, I'm critiquing the videos to demonstrate both the positives and the failures, which I did. I pointed out what worked as well as failures in the training. Others did the same.



No, being a continual student of self-defense made me an expert. Not a boast, just the way it's worked out. I think you should take less time trying to prove a point in an area you're not an expert, and actually not truly a student in to learn from those that are. Because a student truly strives to learn.


I've already defined simple in my previous post. Please reread it. And a credible martial art (or combative system that focuses on self defense) does not take years to gain proficiency. Indeed, if it is a system that teaches sound principles then the duration is rather short. Boatman edged weapon defense is a prime example and I've described it many times. WWII combatives is another I've discussed as well multiple times. Both short term learning curves, yet incredibly effective.



No, it is critical. The longer it continues the more detrimental things can happen.



Not sure if you're being disingenuous or simply ignorant on this point. :idunno:



And that is your issue. You're putting your limited experience on me and others even after we've described in great detail what and why, when you should be learning the what and the why if you're truly interested in SD.

OK it is a boast. You mention that you are amazing in every thread and Hinge your arguments directly to it. That is kind of the issue. It never seems to be based on any actual evidence. I know trainers who really are amazing and they don't have to rely on their resume anywhere near as much.

That is the reason I will listen to those experts.

 

[drop bear]

As a martial artist you have some say in the matter.



I would prefer to train to have the fight over in seconds even if I had to keep trying. I took my time once and paid for it dearly. A fight that goes on longer is is a bit like sparring.



Anywhere but there.



Aren't all martial arts manufactured to achieve a result?

OK it is more complicated than that. To start if the other guy is tough you really may not be able to drop them in the allotted ten second time frame regardless of what you do. Training for the ten second time frame is fine but if you go over that you start to move outside your training.

Pretty much everybody trains to fight longer than they need and generally harder and against better guys. The reason being that when you fight you are more prepared rather than less. And prepared for the worst case scenario.

It is nice when you finish a guy quick. But I would not suggest you rely on it.

Some elements of training are meant to create a desired result. To teach a specific lesson. But sometimes you also need to test ideas to find out what that result is. Otherwise you are no longer looking at what is and only focusing on what should be. And you loose too much perspective that way.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

OK it is a boast. You mention that you are amazing in every thread and Hinge your arguments directly to it. That is kind of the issue. It never seems to be based on any actual evidence. I know trainers who really are amazing and they don't have to rely on their resume anywhere near as much.

That is the reason I will listen to those experts.

No, I think it's more a matter of you being a little butt sore because you're not receiving the validation you think you deserve. And you're refusal or being too lazy to research the provided evidence doesn't constitute a lack of evidence. You've self-admitted your lack of experience in the areas I and others have been discussing. You'll either learn from us or you won't (I'm not the only expert in this area on this board. There are a plethora of other qualified, experienced and knowledgeable people here). If you're looking for validation on a sub-optimal training method you've come to the wrong forum.


Cheers :wavey:

 

[drop bear]

No, I think it's more a matter of you being a little butt sore because you're not receiving the validation you think you deserve. And you're refusal or being too lazy to research the provided evidence doesn't constitute a lack of evidence. You've self-admitted your lack of experience in the areas I and others have been discussing. You'll either learn from us or you won't (I'm not the only expert in this area on this board. There are a plethora of other qualified, experienced and knowledgeable people here). If you're looking for validation on a sub-optimal training method you've come to the wrong forum.


Cheers :wavey:

The evidence was a bunch of opinion pieces by guys who are not really qualified to know. Qualified as in neuroscientists and people who actually make a study of that kind of thing.

Leading about stress from rbsders is the equivalent of an industry backed study. It is obviously agenda driven.

I could seriously care less about validation. I don't have to be amazing to make a point.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

The evidence was a bunch of opinion pieces by guys who are not really qualified to know. Qualified as in neuroscientists and people who actually make a study of that kind of thing.

This pretty much proves you didn't do any research, otherwise you'd realize how ridiculous you sound. In the future, you may want to actually click on the links provided and follow the research and examine the credentials. Seems to me the trail led to quite a bit of scientific research by...let's see, what do you call those guys? Oh yes, they're called scientists (you do realize that most scientists don't wear a white lab coat, don't you?).

I could seriously care less about validation.

Are you sure about that? It's either that or you're just too stubborn to admit when you're wrong or inexperienced in a particular area.

Tell ya what, we'll just agree to disagree. I'll stick with my experience (and the experience and research of other experts in this area) and you can stick with your YT videos. That way were both happy.

Cheers :wavey:

 

[RTKDCMB]

(you do realize that most scientists don't wear a white lab coat, don't you?).

Sometimes the lab coats are blue.

 

[drop bear]

This pretty much proves you didn't do any research, otherwise you'd realize how ridiculous you sound. In the future, you may want to actually click on the links provided and follow the research and examine the credentials. Seems to me the trail led to quite a bit of scientific research by...let's see, what do you call those guys? Oh yes, they're called scientists (you do realize that most scientists don't wear a white lab coat, don't you?).



Are you sure about that? It's either that or you're just too stubborn to admit when you're wrong or inexperienced in a particular area.

Tell ya what, we'll just agree to disagree. I'll stick with my experience (and the experience and research of other experts in this area) and you can stick with your YT videos. That way were both happy.

Cheers :wavey:

What do you mean inexperienced?

 

[Danny T]

I'll insert the caveat that scenario based training, when done correctly, uses all the elements of sparring AND the other necessary elements for sound SD. It is sparring on steroids!

Ahh, so you do spar.
I regress to the beginning where I asked "Define Sparring"

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Sometimes the lab coats are blue.

:cheers:

 

[Tony Dismukes]

This pretty much proves you didn't do any research, otherwise you'd realize how ridiculous you sound. In the future, you may want to actually click on the links provided and follow the research and examine the credentials. Seems to me the trail led to quite a bit of scientific research by...let's see, what do you call those guys? Oh yes, they're called scientists (you do realize that most scientists don't wear a white lab coat, don't you?).



Are you sure about that? It's either that or you're just too stubborn to admit when you're wrong or inexperienced in a particular area.

Tell ya what, we'll just agree to disagree. I'll stick with my experience (and the experience and research of other experts in this area) and you can stick with your YT videos. That way were both happy.

Cheers :wavey:

If we can get away from the dick-measuring contest for a minute ...

You keep mentioning scientific research supporting your views. I've looked back to previous posts and I may be missing it. Can you point me to some research showing that individuals who spar have poorer outcomes in self-defense situations than individuals who do scenario training (or some other modality)? If it's not available online, can you at least describe the methodology?

You have extensive experience as an LEO and trainer of LEOs. Can you discuss the difference between the typical training needs of an LEO vs those of a civilian wanting self-defense skills?

You posited a certain limited conception of sparring. To back that up you gave a list of 12 questions regarding our sparring practices, clearly expecting certain responses. Some folks, such as myself, gave answers showing that sparring can include much more than you seem to think. Do you still object to sparring when it includes all those options (different environments, weapons, multiple opponents, etc)? If so, why?

I commented earlier to the effect that scenario training is superior for big picture considerations from start (identifying threats) to finish (dealing with legal aftermath) while sparring is superior for isolating and developing specific skillsets. Do you have a response to that? Do you feel that big-picture training is always superior to more focused training? Do you think that there is a good reason for not doing both? If so, why?

I'd love to benefit from your experience and I don't think a series of posts going back and forth saying "I know more than you." "No you don't" "Do too." "Nu uh." is going to help any of us learn anything.

 

[jks9199]

Hey, everybody... Let's try to remember that this is a friendly place. Insults and personal attacks just don't belong.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

You keep mentioning scientific research supporting your views. I've looked back to previous posts and I may be missing it. Can you point me to some research showing that individuals who spar have poorer outcomes in self-defense situations than individuals who do scenario training (or some other modality)? If it's not available online, can you at least describe the methodology?

Oftheherd provided several links in post #39. In addition to those I'll add:

OODA loop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Understanding the OODA loop in a foundational principle in RBSD. Studies, training and real world events have shown the importance of not only understanding the loop but interrupting it (Hick's Law).


Boyd?s O.O.D.A Loop and How We Use It | Tactical Response

On Combat, Media Violence

Arousal and Performance: How Stress and Fear Affect Tactical Performance | The Art of Manliness

The methodology is just what I've been posting i.e. under stress we do not rise to the occasion, we sink to the level of our training. Let me give you one simple, silly little example to illustrate; a person is under a lot of stress (maybe late for work/family problems/responding to an emergency situation etc) and they try the car door and it's locked. They notice the keys are in the ignition and panic (because now they're going to be even later and the boss is mean or now they can't take care of or respond to the emergency situation). What often happens? They check the same car door again even though they just tried it and it's locked. Under stress people do all sorts of odd things, some funny and some dangerous. In one of the above links you'll find real world examples from police altercations. To quickly recap:

Officer practices gun disarms repeatedly. The method used in training is for one officer to play the good guy and the other to play the bad guy. Good guy officer disarms the bad guy officer and then hands the gun back to the bad guy officer so he can practice it again and again and again. This gets ingrained in the officer. The goal is to get really good at disarming someone. And you can get very good at it (Law of Specificity). But that methodology of training was sub-optimal. Why? A well known example in L.E. circles were the officer was confronted during a robbery by a bad guy pointing a gun. Officer disarmed the bad guy in spectacular fashion...and hand the gun back to the bad guy. Was the officer stupid? No. Under stress he reacted exactly the way he trained. Luckily the officer's partner arrived and shot the bad guy. We now train to take the situation all the way to a conclusion i.e. disarm the bad guy, create distance will tapping and racking the gun (in case it is out of battery during the disarm), seeking cover if appropriate, verbalizing a challenge to the bad guy i.e. 'let me see your hands' or 'get on the ground' etc and calling for back up as well as scanning for additional threats etc.

Reloading during a fire fight. Years ago officers used revolvers (I did when I first started). The routine was to fire the six rounds, open the cylinder and dump the brass, pick up the spent casings and put them in your pocket (because the instructors wanted a nice clean range), reload the revolver and return to shooting. Officers did this thousands of times. Got really good at shooting. Until we started finding dead police officers who had empty revolvers, plenty of ammunition on their belts and a pocket full of empty brass. Were they stupid? No. They just reverted to their training under stress and in these cases bad training got them killed. Now we teach officers (around the country) to dump their mags and immediately get a fresh mag in the gun to return to the fire fight as soon as possible.

This translates to the YT videos shown in this and other threads and why I critiqued them as I did. Let's again use the guy going for the triangle choke while on his back. Did it work? Yes it did. Was he aware of his surroundings? No he was not. He was dialed in on getting that choke come hell or high water. I didn't see him looking around for other avenues of escape, improvised weapons, additional means of leverage or using other means to damage his attacker. Add to this other outside factors such as the very real possibility of a bystander kicking his head in. Was this person stupid? No. He was under stress and reverted to his training which in this case was clearly submission hold based. Nothing wrong with submissions, but that was the wrong venue to attempt one.

Scenario based training has all the positives of full contact sparring without the negatives and with additional training incorporated. Not every situation calls for force. That is why we have shoot and no-shoot scenarios in training. Same for a 'fight'. Not every fight has to be a fight if you can defuse it or escape it before it even begins. But if you never practice verbal judo or any type of de-escalation in training, don't expect to suddenly be thinking about doing it before a real life attack. Additionally, looking for pre-fight indicators are important. In sparring you're going to be 'fighting' so you don't need to be looking for indicators. In sparring you're not looking to escape or place a barrier in between you and the attacker(s). In sparring you're not thinking about using a weapon or looking for something to be used as an improvised weapon. If someone that never practices these things thinks they'll just suddenly 'do it' in the heat of the moment...good luck with that.

You have extensive experience as an LEO and trainer of LEOs. Can you discuss the difference between the typical training needs of an LEO vs those of a civilian wanting self-defense skills?

A private citizen is going to be more concerned with 'stun and run' principles. A citizen (good guy) isn't looking to go rounds with someone in the street or in an alley. They need to protect themselves by doing something to incapacitate the attacker(s) and getting to a place of safety where they can check themselves for injury and contact the authorities. This may be the case for L.E. and Corrections as well, but we have to add the need for control when applicable. Thus more often than not the LEO/CO is going to remain on the scene to take control or regain control of the attacker(s) unless it is tactically unwise to do so. In either case, pure self defense isn't a pretty affair. It is an ugly, chaotic event that happens in a short amount of time.

You posited a certain limited conception of sparring. To back that up you gave a list of 12 questions regarding our sparring practices, clearly expecting certain responses. Some folks, such as myself, gave answers showing that sparring can include much more than you seem to think. Do you still object to sparring when it includes all those options (different environments, weapons, multiple opponents, etc)? If so, why?

It all depends on the focus of the training. If someone is in a martial sport then the 'typical' type of sparring is fine and in fact quite necessary. And this again goes back to the 'train as you fight' principle. If my plan is to be in a competition where I'm standing there trying to score point by hitting/kicking someone in certain spots (or knock them out or submit them) then I need to be well versed in sparring as it is very close to the way the competition is going to happen. I don't need to be concerned with, and indeed bothered with all the other stuff cause I'll never use it. I don't need to be worried about this guy having a weapon. I don't need to worry about his ring man jumping in. I don't need to worry about SD stuff because the other guy is an opponent and not an attacker.

In that vein, if SD is the goal then 'sport sparring' isn't needed. However, if sparring is used, but implements many of the things I (and others) have suggested then they're just that much farther ahead of the curve. In SD, we're not discussing a trophy or title. Rather we're discussing your well being or the well being of a loved one (or even a stranger). Thus anything that can be added to the training to make it as realistic as possible is a plus and I'm all for it. Instructors have different levels of experience. My view is simple, if I want to fight in a competition then I'm going to ask the advice of someone in that art/venue. Conversely, if someone wants SD training but perhaps isn't all that well versed in it, then it makes sense to ask someone that regularly has to put their hands on someone. What works in the ring might not be so good on the street just like what works in the street might not even be allowed in the ring.

I commented earlier to the effect that scenario training is superior for big picture considerations from start (identifying threats) to finish (dealing with legal aftermath) while sparring is superior for isolating and developing specific skillsets. Do you have a response to that?

I agree with you. As an example, if I'm teaching a specific strike or technique initially (or even review to master or stay refreshed with it) then I'll drill it specifically. Then it can be used in a scenario. I have no issue with isolated training to develop a specific skill or using it in mini-drills. This is what I call the crawl-walk-run or building block approach.

Hope this clarifies and helps

 

[Buka]

Oftheherd provided several links in post #39. In addition to those I'll add:

OODA loop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Understanding the OODA loop in a foundational principle in RBSD. Studies, training and real world events have shown the importance of not only understanding the loop but interrupting it (Hick's Law).


Boyd?s O.O.D.A Loop and How We Use It | Tactical Response

On Combat, Media Violence

Arousal and Performance: How Stress and Fear Affect Tactical Performance | The Art of Manliness

The methodology is just what I've been posting i.e. under stress we do not rise to the occasion, we sink to the level of our training. Let me give you one simple, silly little example to illustrate; a person is under a lot of stress (maybe late for work/family problems/responding to an emergency situation etc) and they try the car door and it's locked. They notice the keys are in the ignition and panic (because now they're going to be even later and the boss is mean or now they can't take care of or respond to the emergency situation). What often happens? They check the same car door again even though they just tried it and it's locked. Under stress people do all sorts of odd things, some funny and some dangerous. In one of the above links you'll find real world examples from police altercations. To quickly recap:

Officer practices gun disarms repeatedly. The method used in training is for one officer to play the good guy and the other to play the bad guy. Good guy officer disarms the bad guy officer and then hands the gun back to the bad guy officer so he can practice it again and again and again. This gets ingrained in the officer. The goal is to get really good at disarming someone. And you can get very good at it (Law of Specificity). But that methodology of training was sub-optimal. Why? A well known example in L.E. circles were the officer was confronted during a robbery by a bad guy pointing a gun. Officer disarmed the bad guy in spectacular fashion...and hand the gun back to the bad guy. Was the officer stupid? No. Under stress he reacted exactly the way he trained. Luckily the officer's partner arrived and shot the bad guy. We now train to take the situation all the way to a conclusion i.e. disarm the bad guy, create distance will tapping and racking the gun (in case it is out of battery during the disarm), seeking cover if appropriate, verbalizing a challenge to the bad guy i.e. 'let me see your hands' or 'get on the ground' etc and calling for back up as well as scanning for additional threats etc.

Reloading during a fire fight. Years ago officers used revolvers (I did when I first started). The routine was to fire the six rounds, open the cylinder and dump the brass, pick up the spent casings and put them in your pocket (because the instructors wanted a nice clean range), reload the revolver and return to shooting. Officers did this thousands of times. Got really good at shooting. Until we started finding dead police officers who had empty revolvers, plenty of ammunition on their belts and a pocket full of empty brass. Were they stupid? No. They just reverted to their training under stress and in these cases bad training got them killed. Now we teach officers (around the country) to dump their mags and immediately get a fresh mag in the gun to return to the fire fight as soon as possible.

This translates to the YT videos shown in this and other threads and why I critiqued them as I did. Let's again use the guy going for the triangle choke while on his back. Did it work? Yes it did. Was he aware of his surroundings? No he was not. He was dialed in on getting that choke come hell or high water. I didn't see him looking around for other avenues of escape, improvised weapons, additional means of leverage or using other means to damage his attacker. Add to this other outside factors such as the very real possibility of a bystander kicking his head in. Was this person stupid? No. He was under stress and reverted to his training which in this case was clearly submission hold based. Nothing wrong with submissions, but that was the wrong venue to attempt one.

Scenario based training has all the positives of full contact sparring without the negatives and with additional training incorporated. Not every situation calls for force. That is why we have shoot and no-shoot scenarios in training. Same for a 'fight'. Not every fight has to be a fight if you can defuse it or escape it before it even begins. But if you never practice verbal judo or any type of de-escalation in training, don't expect to suddenly be thinking about doing it before a real life attack. Additionally, looking for pre-fight indicators are important. In sparring you're going to be 'fighting' so you don't need to be looking for indicators. In sparring you're not looking to escape or place a barrier in between you and the attacker(s). In sparring you're not thinking about using a weapon or looking for something to be used as an improvised weapon. If someone that never practices these things thinks they'll just suddenly 'do it' in the heat of the moment...good luck with that.



A private citizen is going to be more concerned with 'stun and run' principles. A citizen (good guy) isn't looking to go rounds with someone in the street or in an alley. They need to protect themselves by doing something to incapacitate the attacker(s) and getting to a place of safety where they can check themselves for injury and contact the authorities. This may be the case for L.E. and Corrections as well, but we have to add the need for control when applicable. Thus more often than not the LEO/CO is going to remain on the scene to take control or regain control of the attacker(s) unless it is tactically unwise to do so. In either case, pure self defense isn't a pretty affair. It is an ugly, chaotic event that happens in a short amount of time.



It all depends on the focus of the training. If someone is in a martial sport then the 'typical' type of sparring is fine and in fact quite necessary. And this again goes back to the 'train as you fight' principle. If my plan is to be in a competition where I'm standing there trying to score point by hitting/kicking someone in certain spots (or knock them out or submit them) then I need to be well versed in sparring as it is very close to the way the competition is going to happen. I don't need to be concerned with, and indeed bothered with all the other stuff cause I'll never use it. I don't need to be worried about this guy having a weapon. I don't need to worry about his ring man jumping in. I don't need to worry about SD stuff because the other guy is an opponent and not an attacker.

In that vein, if SD is the goal then 'sport sparring' isn't needed. However, if sparring is used, but implements many of the things I (and others) have suggested then they're just that much farther ahead of the curve. In SD, we're not discussing a trophy or title. Rather we're discussing your well being or the well being of a loved one (or even a stranger). Thus anything that can be added to the training to make it as realistic as possible is a plus and I'm all for it. Instructors have different levels of experience. My view is simple, if I want to fight in a competition then I'm going to ask the advice of someone in that art/venue. Conversely, if someone wants SD training but perhaps isn't all that well versed in it, then it makes sense to ask someone that regularly has to put their hands on someone. What works in the ring might not be so good on the street just like what works in the street might not even be allowed in the ring.



I agree with you. As an example, if I'm teaching a specific strike or technique initially (or even review to master or stay refreshed with it) then I'll drill it specifically. Then it can be used in a scenario. I have no issue with isolated training to develop a specific skill or using it in mini-drills. This is what I call the crawl-walk-run or building block approach.

Hope this clarifies and helps

Great post.

Just a discussion point among old cops....I never used the OODA Loop when I taught DT. I found it confused too many of the officers. As for the Hicks Law....it really should be the Hick-Hyman law, but Ray Hyman got screwed. He actually corrected Hick's math in the original logarithms, but as a graduate student, he got no love. He's a Massachusetts boy and I learned all about him a long time ago when the Hicks law became prominent in Law Enforcement training.

I always wanted to talk with the guy who disarmed and gave the gun back. I've always been told it was true, if it is he would have been great to talk to and pick his brain.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Great post.

Just a discussion point among old cops....I never used the OODA Loop when I taught DT. I found it confused too many of the officers. As for the Hicks Law....it really should be the Hick-Hyman law, but Ray Hyman got screwed. He actually corrected Hick's math in the original logarithms, but as a graduate student, he got no love. He's a Massachusetts boy and I learned all about him a long time ago when the Hicks law became prominent in Law Enforcement training.

I know what you mean. Boatman allegedly wasn't the developer of 'Boatman edged weapon defense'. I remember talking with the fellow years ago on another forum who claimed to have taught Boatman and that Boatman ran with it and got all the attention. Can't remember his name but he was pretty adamant about it. Boatman committed suicide several years ago so perhaps it's a moot point and we'll never know for sure.

I always wanted to talk with the guy who disarmed and gave the gun back. I've always been told it was true, if it is he would have been great to talk to and pick his brain.

Years ago I knew his name and agency. Don't remember now but I've got my annual recert coming up at the end of this month. I'll ask the guys and see if anyone remembers. It's been many a year now for that one. I also remember the Newhall massacre was tied to bad range training. That was a bad one

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Oftheherd provided several links in post #39. In addition to those I'll add:

OODA loop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Understanding the OODA loop in a foundational principle in RBSD. Studies, training and real world events have shown the importance of not only understanding the loop but interrupting it (Hick's Law).


Boyd?s O.O.D.A Loop and How We Use It | Tactical Response

On Combat, Media Violence

Arousal and Performance: How Stress and Fear Affect Tactical Performance | The Art of Manliness ...

None of the material you link to says anything whatsoever about sparring being an ineffective training tool. (In fact the last article you link to specifically advocates sparring as a training method in the next-to-last sentence.) I'm pretty familiar with the concepts of OODA and the effects of stress on performance. I've never seen any studies saying that sparring is or is not an effective training method for real-world violence. (If I did, I would look carefully at the methodology and what they included under the rubric of "sparring".) Unless you can point me to some such studies, I'm going to guess that your conclusion that sparring is inferior for self-defense training is apparently your interpretation of the implications of concepts such as stress response, OODA, Hick's law, and the like. I don't have a problem with that, but I wouldn't pretend that it means that scientists have proven your conclusions to be correct. For what it's worth, my interpretation of the implications of those concepts supports the use of sparring as a training tool. I don't think anyone has ever done scientific research on the effects of sparring on real-world violent outcomes to prove either one of us right or wrong.

A private citizen is going to be more concerned with 'stun and run' principles. A citizen (good guy) isn't looking to go rounds with someone in the street or in an alley. They need to protect themselves by doing something to incapacitate the attacker(s) and getting to a place of safety where they can check themselves for injury and contact the authorities. This may be the case for L.E. and Corrections as well, but we have to add the need for control when applicable. Thus more often than not the LEO/CO is going to remain on the scene to take control or regain control of the attacker(s) unless it is tactically unwise to do so. In either case, pure self defense isn't a pretty affair. It is an ugly, chaotic event that happens in a short amount of time.

Additional considerations: LEO's are more likely to be armed. LEOs are more likely to be working as a team. LEOs have different legal authority for the steps they might take. LEOs are much more likely to be the ones initiating engagement on their own terms. LEOs are less likely to be targeted by predators looking for an easy target. Probably a lot more I'm not thinking of.

Anyway, my point is that real world violence comes in a wide variety of forms depending on the circumstances. There are important commonalities but also important differences. You have experience with real world violence as an LEO. Drop bear has experience with real world violence as a bouncer. That makes both of you worth learning from, but it doesn't necessarily mean that either one of you is an expert on (for example) the best self-defense options for a young woman faced with a date rapist.

It all depends on the focus of the training. If someone is in a martial sport then the 'typical' type of sparring is fine and in fact quite necessary. And this again goes back to the 'train as you fight' principle. If my plan is to be in a competition where I'm standing there trying to score point by hitting/kicking someone in certain spots (or knock them out or submit them) then I need to be well versed in sparring as it is very close to the way the competition is going to happen. I don't need to be concerned with, and indeed bothered with all the other stuff cause I'll never use it. I don't need to be worried about this guy having a weapon. I don't need to worry about his ring man jumping in. I don't need to worry about SD stuff because the other guy is an opponent and not an attacker.

In that vein, if SD is the goal then 'sport sparring' isn't needed. However, if sparring is used, but implements many of the things I (and others) have suggested then they're just that much farther ahead of the curve. In SD, we're not discussing a trophy or title. Rather we're discussing your well being or the well being of a loved one (or even a stranger). Thus anything that can be added to the training to make it as realistic as possible is a plus and I'm all for it. Instructors have different levels of experience. My view is simple, if I want to fight in a competition then I'm going to ask the advice of someone in that art/venue. Conversely, if someone wants SD training but perhaps isn't all that well versed in it, then it makes sense to ask someone that regularly has to put their hands on someone. What works in the ring might not be so good on the street just like what works in the street might not even be allowed in the ring.

??? I'm not quite clear on whether this is an answer to my question. It seems like another retread of your "sport vs street" spiel. To reiterate my question - a major part of your repeated objections to sparring is that it doesn't involve weapons or different environments or multiple opponents or starting at a disadvantage, etc, etc. Given our testimony that sparring can include any and all of those factors, do you still object to it as strongly? (BTW - when I spar with weapons or outside in the snow, I am not preparing for competition in the ring.)

I agree with you. As an example, if I'm teaching a specific strike or technique initially (or even review to master or stay refreshed with it) then I'll drill it specifically. Then it can be used in a scenario. I have no issue with isolated training to develop a specific skill or using it in mini-drills. This is what I call the crawl-walk-run or building block approach.

Cool. To clarify, do you agree with me that sparring is an effective method for focusing on certain specific skills and attributes which can be used at the appropriate moment in either a real world or training scenario?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

None of the material you link to says anything whatsoever about sparring being an ineffective training tool. (In fact the last article you link to specifically advocates sparring as a training method in the next-to-last sentence.)

Then you're not understanding the material. It clearly explains why we use one methodology over the other. And you're incorrectly assuming the context of the term 'live-sparring'. If you look just a few sentence back in that article you'll see the reference to simunitions. One does not stand at the range and shoot paper targets with simunitions. Range drills are akin to the 'focused' drills you're referring to in your post. Simunitions training is live action scenario based training. That is the context of 'live sparring'.

That makes both of you worth learning from, but it doesn't necessarily mean that either one of you is an expert on (for example) the best self-defense options for a young woman faced with a date rapist.

I disagree. I've taught women's SD courses and have had participants that successfully used the training in real world attempts. I've yet to see a sport program that teaches avoidance, escape, evasion, pre-attack indicators, stress response and the aftermath (legal and medical) of an attack.

I'm not quite clear on whether this is an answer to my question. It seems like another retread of your "sport vs street" spiel.

I answered your question. If you don't like my spiel then don't read anymore of my posts.
:wavey:

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Then you're not understanding the material. It clearly explains why we use one methodology over the other. And you're incorrectly assuming the context of the term 'live-sparring'. If you look just a few sentence back in that article you'll see the reference to simunitions. One does not stand at the range and shoot paper targets with simunitions. Range drills are akin to the 'focused' drills you're referring to in your post. Simunitions training is live action scenario based training. That is the context of 'live sparring'.

I don't believe I am incorrectly assuming the context of the term "live sparring". The quote is "For handgun training, this could be achieved with simunitions or airsoft guns; with hand-to-hand self-defense, live sparring can give you similar stress levels as a real-life fight." The statement is clear: simunitions/airsoft guns are for handgun training; live sparring is for hand-to-hand self-defense.


You can claim that I'm misunderstanding the material (although you haven't explained how). Maybe you're even right. I certainly won't claim to be infallible. What you can't honestly claim is that you have studies which have examined the real-world self-defense outcomes for folks who spar vs those who do not. Instead, you're taking a variety of concepts from studies which were looking at questions other than that one and extrapolating it to conclusions of your own. Maybe your conclusions on the question are correct, but they haven't been scientifically tested.

I disagree. I've taught women's SD courses and have had participants that successfully used the training in real world attempts. I've yet to see a sport program that teaches avoidance, escape, evasion, pre-attack indicators, stress response and the aftermath (legal and medical) of an attack.

Lots of people from a variety of very different systems and training methodologies (myself included) have taught students who later used that training successfully. That's not quite what I mean by "expert." Let me clarify:

As a long term LEO and LEO trainer, you've probably been personally involved with or privy to the details of hundreds of use-of-force incidents, yes? You've experienced things that worked and things that didn't work for you and adjusted your training accordingly and then seen the results of that adjustment in subsequent encounters. As a trainer, you've hopefully had the chance to do the same with the results your students have had. (I don't know how much detailed information you get to see about the results your trainees have had as you adjusted your training over the years, but I'm assuming you get at least some data to work with.)

Do you have anywhere near that amount of data for your women's self-defense class? Do you have hundreds of instances where you can look at outcomes and say "hmmm ... when I taught this way, 30% of the women successfully avoided an assault and 20% of them physically fended off an attacker, but when I added this drill to the class the percentages jumped to 40% and 25%."?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you teach an excellent class. I just don't think you have the data to be fully expert on the subject the way you are on LEO procedures or the way drop bear is on bouncing. Nothing personal - probably no one else does either.

I answered your question. If you don't like my spiel then don't read anymore of my posts.
:wavey:

I have no problem with your spiel. (Other than the fact that you've repeated it in this thread enough times for anyone who cares to be fully conversant with it.) I even agree with much of it. It's just not an answer to my question. I re-read your comment three times looking for something that would be an answer and couldn't find it. Honestly, I couldn't tell from anything you wrote that you even read my question. We don't have to agree on everything (although if you look back in this thread you'll see that I've supported quite a lot of what you've said). But we can't exactly carry on a conversation if you just paste canned responses like a chatbot without responding to what I actually say or ask.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I don't believe I am incorrectly assuming the context of the term "live sparring".

I believe that you are, but don't blame you for the misunderstanding. Now, I could be wrong in the authors meaning, however the term 'live' sparring to us is synonymous with 'street sparring' and 'scenario based' sparring (training). I personally don't use sparring as a term to avoid confusion. But if you asked any DT or combatives instructor I know they'd have a clear distinction between the 'sparring' methodology. I understand the author to mean sparring in the context I've been discussing also due to him discussing it in the same paragraph as simunitions training which is only scenario based training.

You can claim that I'm misunderstanding the material (although you haven't explained how). Maybe you're even right. I certainly won't claim to be infallible.

And neither am I. And I don't want to give the impression that I am. I am however very passionate about certain topics.

What you can't honestly claim is that you have studies which have examined the real-world self-defense outcomes for folks who spar vs those who do not.

I cannot claim something that is not realistically possible. In order to have such as study it would need to be falsifiable and repeatable. You would have to have the same type of attack, with the same factors, with the same person under the same stress. And it would have to be repeatable. That isn't within the scope of a scientific study. What is (and are referenced in mine and others links) are studies behind the the methodology in which we train. Training used to be simply by rote and nothing else. That instilled bad habits. Since training was changed to a scenario based format, using the totality of what I've described we haven't had any officers killed with an empty gun, full mags and a pocket full of brass. We haven't had any officers disarm someone and then hand the gun back to the bad guy. Call it anecdotal if you like, but it is real world examples that demonstrate one methodology was sub-optimal to the other. Doesn't make the methodology perfect and bad things still happen but mistakes have been learned from.

If you're strictly looking for stats and % then I can offer two off the top of my head. The first is with the Boatman edged weapon defense system. Prior to it being instituted, officers were being injured 86% of the time in edged weapon altercation took place. After implementation it dropped to 17% within two years. Personally, for my women's SD course, no woman I've trained has ever been successfully raped and of those that had an attempt the attempt was defeated. That is a small sampling in the totality of the overall population, but it is personal experience.

Beyond that, I've tried to answer your questions to the best I've understood them and to the best of my ability. That's the best I can offer. I maintain my position because it is what I've seen and experienced and experienced from others. Sport sparring is best for sport, live/street/scenario 'sparring' is best for SD. I've listed the reasons why already so I won't rehash the same thing.

YMMV