Hi,
I feel that we need a few definitions here. What exactly do you mean by "full contact training"? In the original post the only phrase used was "full contact training for preparing oneself for self defense", but some have read into that the concept of sparring (I think celtic_crippler was the first here). Personally, I didn't read that in the original post, but you (Joab) appears to have taken the idea on as well. Which did you mean? I'll try to address both here, though.
First, with regard to non-sparring training, we need to establish what limitations and restrictions are being placed on the training. As Fearless Freep stated, you simply cannot train full contact with quite a variety of "self defence" techniques. For example, a full contact kick to the groin is not something I feel is required to understand it's power, and a good, hard kick to the side of the knee is potentially very damaging. So what are we defining as "full contact training"?
I personally feel that contact is very necessary, but "full contact" is not realistic in a training situation. So how do we train to get the most out of it, and keep the contact at a realistic and productive level? I'll give you some ideas as to how we do it. When it comes to training techniques (opponent attacks with punch "X", student responds with evasive footwork and block "Y", then counter strike/throw "Z"), there are a few different ways we train. These are soft/slow, hard/slow, and soft/fast. There is contact in all versions except occasionally the last. Each are trained for different reasons. Soft/slow is used to allow the student to get an understanding of the distance, targeting, balance and the finer points of making a techinque "work". Contact is firm, and each strike is performed completely. By that I mean that strikes are to target and go "through" the target, giving the student the penetration required. Next, hard/slow is trained in order to give a little more impact/contact, and resistance is brought in to the training. Oh, and resistance here is very different to that found in things such as MMA bouts and sparring, as the resistance found in a real fight is very different. But we'll get to that later.
Soft/fast is then used to work on timing (also worked on in previous training methods), and targeting under realistic speeds. Obviously at this point, contact becomes limited and protective equipment is worn. You may notice that I haven't mentioned hard/fast. That is done on impact equipment and in solo drills, not on a partner for (I hope) obvious reasons!
Contact is often half power or higher (depending on the target being struck!), giving the student the mindset of actually striking an opponent, as well as acting as a way of conditioning the one being struck. But what that doesn't cover is the emotional and psychological responces to being hit. For that we bring out protective equipment and hit the student. Hard. The student then performs a technique, or defends an attack, or other such training. We also utilise various RBSD drills, such as the "spinning" drill I have mentioned on another thread, which is a very good simulation of being hit hard with a sucker-punch, and then continuing through an assault.
Now to sparring. How are we defining "full contact" when it comes to sparring? Arts such as Kyokushin Karate are quite big proponents of "full contact" sparring and tournaments, but as we saw with the non-sparring version, a number of restrictions come into play. For example, there is no punching to the head (kicks are allowed), and obviously no striking below the belt. So if we are saying that full contact sparring gets you used to being hit in the head, does this cut it? How about if we remove the restrictions but use protective equipment, such as head guards and body armour? Is that full contact even if the effects of the blows are reduced due to what you are wearing?
This is all, of course, assuming that sparring is actually useful for self defence training in the first place... and I don't believe it is. In fact, it can be quite detrimental to your self defence capabilities. Most of my reasons are already on other threads, so there's no real need to go throught hem all here, but we'll cover a part of it at least.
There is only one self defence situation in which sparring is good preparation... and it isn't even a self defence situation when you think about it. That situation is known as a match fight. Essentially, this is when two people agree to fight at a certain place or time ("Hey, you! You want to take this outside?!"), and begins with the opponents "shaping up", and ends when one gives up, or someone steps in to end it (security, police, friends). This is quite rare. A more common situation would involve a group, weapons, and/or an ambush. Sparring doesn't prepare you for this at all.
Oh, and before anyone starts to bring up the usual arguments, yes Military units spar, yes the Marines spar as part of their MCMAP Program, but not for any realistic applications. They spar to engender an aggressive spirit in the soldiers, and to give a feeling of comraderie and competition, as well as because it's fun. In an interview, John Wills, the first Australian BJJ Black Belt under the Machados spoke about his experiences in the US. He was one of a number of martial art instructors invited to teach the Marines, and as a result found himself assisting in the creation of MCMAP. This is major reason BJJ is such a large component of the MCMAP program. But it was not for practical reasons. After all, rolling around on the ground with someone when in full kit when you have fireams and a knife available just doesn't make any sense. But out of the instructors invited to teach the Marines, John was one of the favourites, and the Marines really enjoyed what he taught. So it was incorporated, and to say that just because the Marines spar means that sparring is an effective training tool for real combat is to miss the point of why they spar in the first place. Hmmm, bit of a tangent there. You know what? I'm keeping it.
Now we need to get an understanding of just what "self defence training" actually is. Self defence training is/should be much more than just physical techniques. It needs to address much more than just "punch/kick/throw/choke". The idea of self defence is to give you the skills and ability to safely get home. That's it. Remember that sparring gives you one option: attack aggressively. But is that really the best option in a real self defence situation? Let's say there's a group looking for someone to beat up, say 5 guys who may or may not be armed (you don't know...). To rely on sparring tactics, if they come over to you and start to get aggressive, you attack. Or, is it better to be aware enough to see them coming, not be a "soft" target, or simply leave the situation? That should be part of a self defence system. How about someone who knocks into you in a bar, then starts yelling that you spilled their drink? Do you hit them, choke them out, get grabbed by security, arrested by the police and charged with assault? Or do you attempt to talk them down, and use restraint techniques if that fails? In each of these (and many more) scenarios, there is no contact, full or otherwise required in the training of them.
I said we would deal with the idea of "resistance", didn't I? A common thing heard is that MMA's big benefit is that it gets you used to dealing with "resisting" opponents. While thta is true, you are not dealing with resistance as you would in a real self defence situation. What I mean by that is that the resistance encountered in an MMA bout or sparring session is based on the idea of competition. In competition you have two people attempting to out-perform each other, so they are resisting specific techniques, and countering movements. This is not what you get in a real encounter. In a real encounter you do not have tow mutually aggressive opponents, you have an attacker (typically ambush) and a defender who is attempting to get away safely. Most typically, you have one person trying to hurt another. That person will resist things you do, but will often be more focused on attack than defence, so they will typically not be countering what you do, but may try to escape (say, if you grab them). In fact,if you start hitting them back, you may find that they give up. If focused on attack only, and not defence, then suddenly having to defend can be quite disorientating for an attacker. So resistance as understood in MMA/BJJ/Judo etc will often not actually be encountered in a fight. So that's good news.
So "full contact" for self defence (non-sparring)? No, that is just dangerous. And if it's not, then you're not looking at something based in what will keep you alive in a real encounter. But when training your techniques and your art, if you have no contact (and it should ideally be above the "comfortable" level), then you are deluding yourself just as badly.
