Sports vs Traditional in terms of Self Defense

[drop bear]

"Nothing will prepare for the intensity of a genuine altercation better than combat sports." Really? Nothing? Well, it's a good thing we insist that all security guards have at least a few years in a sports art, then! What? We don't? How about the military? Police? No? Hmm... what do they use as primary training and teaching methods? Pre-arranged drills and scenario training? You don't say?

Yeah. But that doesn't work very well. Either the guy can fight. Or he can't. That sort of training doesn't change that.

It is mostly a liability exercise.

 

[drop bear]

The scariest people I've met are all non-combat sports people... and the combat sports ones? Yeah, not so much... typically speaking, the serious non-sporting ones tend to be the ones who understand violence a lot more....

That isn't really accurate either. There is as much street violence experience in sports as any other martial arts.

So for example. Danaher has real violence experience.

 

[drop bear]

Oh, and for the record, the most effective systems for self defence... by a landslide... are systems that are designed for that situation from the ground up. They have training exercises and drills specific to the situation, they have an awareness of the context beyond most, and they require little to no modification at all. Oh, and they aren't martial arts... they're RBSD systems.

That's incorrect.

If they were designed well. Then possibly. But because it mostly doesn't matter. They are mostly designed terribly.

So say we are back to not insisting security or cops or whatever have some full contact fighting under their belt. Isn't because It is not beneficial to have that.

It's because nobody really cares. If you train a security guard or a cop. And he can't fight. Then it is a case of tough cookies. Either deal with it or get hospitalised.

The training does not get scrutinised if these guys are getting hurt or going off script and hurting people. The individual does.

 

[drop bear]

We want consistency and reliability in our approach, not random, haphazard chance based as much on

This isn't accurate. And it moves on to the most important skills needed to develop for fighting. And the consensus is less about technique and more about timing, and distance management.

And it is not just a natural ability thing. It is able to be developed through training.

So the consistency are trying to achieve doesn't really fast track fighting ability.

 

[drop bear]

As far as mental conditioning, I really don't get where sports guys get the idea that their mental "toughness" is anything more than other martial artists... in fact, I would posit that most sports guys wouldn't hack a genuine classical martial arts class purely on a mental level. The mental pressures of combat sports are quite pedestrian by comparison.

The sports argument would be that you might engage in a dog fight with another guy who is doing everything they can to stop you and hurt you. And so your willpower has to be greater than theirs to win.

And therefore the training is designed to develop that.

So as an example I will put a weight cut up against any martial program you have.

 

[Damien]

the primary reason for sparring is to test theoretical knowledge...

I agree with most of what you said, but not this. You talk a lot about responding to certain situations, and yes, you do need to do that, but you also need to be mentally prepared for not knowing what the hell is going to happen Sparring is useful for getting used to this uncertainty, it's useful for feeling what it is like when someone is going to do whatever they can to hit you in the face. It's also really useful for understanding moving around with both individuals acting and reacting. That's very hard to do with pre-arranged sequences. I agree they do have their place, but sparring definitely does too.

Sparring also helps you understand what works for you, take the strategies from your martial art and apply them to yourself. You may find that X doesn't work well for you because you're short, or Y is really good for you because you're quick on your feet so even when someone tries to get away they can't.

 

[Nobufusa]

Japanese sword practitioners would disagree with you. No need to fight dirty. With a blade you either kill them or you don't. It depends upon Satsujinken (killing sword) or Katsujinken (life giving sword). I could go into detail but you only have to watch a few movies to understand. The hero usually only deals with attackers. It's very much a matter of pride for Japanese as in the past the sword has been used for all the wrong reasons.

The history of Japanese warfare is replete with examples of "fighting dirty" sneak attacks, spying, guerilla warfare, deception, killing children, killing civilians, etc.

 

[Nobufusa]

Never heard of him.

with all due respect, that's your problem, not his. I am more than certain many more people have heard of him than have heard of you.

 

[dunc]

I don't know John personally, but he and my BJJ teacher are close and there are a lot of shared insights and approaches
Worth noting that John is a high level coach for BJJ, Striking and MMA. He also worked the doors in New York during a time when it was pretty rough so he has an unusually rounded set of experiences
John also has a good academic pedigree and I like the way that he applies intellectual thought and rigour to combat sports. This makes him a pretty unique / unusual
More than that he's proven his approach to be highly effective by having a profound effect on the sport of BJJ (& to a lesser extent MMA) and in my view this alone should earn him the respect to carefully consider what he's saying
I tend to agree with his point that:
- Combat sports are a very good way to teach you how to deal with the intensity of an altercation
- In order to apply your techniques in a live resisting situation you need to train under resistance and pressure (in my experience this is a general point and not necessarily required for an individual technique)
- There are technical and tactical adjustments needed to convert from a sporting/sparring context to a "street fight" / SD situation or however you define it

Where I tend to diverge from the way he presents his thinking is the degree of adjustments needed and how much influence that has on fundamental techniques. As he says a cross/hook can break your hand, but this represents the vast majority of a boxer's training focus. Many foundational throws can take yourself to the floor, an unguarded side control can put your face into your opponent's hands etc etc. This is even more pronounced with weapons: seionage will get your throat cut, a slip can do the same and so on. The risk of a mistake goes up exponentially so the distancing and trade offs to ensure 100% control of the weapon are very different

So I believe IF you want to study for "the street" then you have to go beyond "some simple adjustments" and delete into first principles and figure out how to get the benefits from both sides of the debate
In my view the best way to do this is by developing a deep understanding of both combat sports and well preserved, complete traditional arts, then find the balance

 

[Steve]

So I believe IF you want to study for "the street" then you have to go beyond "some simple adjustments" and delete into first principles and figure out how to get the benefits from both sides of the debate
In my view the best way to do this is by developing a deep understanding of both combat sports and well preserved, complete traditional arts, then find the balance

I think this is a great point. But to know what you need, you need to know what you have.

That isn't really accurate either. There is as much street violence experience in sports as any other martial arts.

So for example. Danaher has real violence experience.

Not to mention the number of cops, soldiers, bouncers, and security guards who also train in combat sports.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

with all due respect, that's your problem, not his. I am more than certain many more people have heard of him than have heard of you.

Not really. If you're going to use him as an appeal to authority, than it's your problem if the people you're debating with don't know/recognize his authority.

 

[Flying Crane]

with all due respect, that's your problem, not his. I am more than certain many more people have heard of him than have heard of you.

I also have never heard of him. But that is not surprising as I don’t pay attention to competition martial arts nor BJJ in general. That’s just me. Ones mileage may vary.

 

[Steve]

Not really. If you're going to use him as an appeal to authority, than it's your problem if the people you're debating with don't know/recognize his authority.

It's also a logical fallacy to avoid discussing the merits of an argument because you don't know the person involved, or know them but they don't have sufficient credentials to make the argument. Saying, "Never heard of him," is a good example of the credentials fallacy, implying that if his opinion were worth knowing, he would have heard of him. It's like the other side of the appeal to authority.

I think the most constructive path here is to discuss the actual argument and not on who knows or doesn't know the dudes in the video.

 

[Flying Crane]

Not really. If you're going to use him as an appeal to authority, than it's your problem if the people you're debating with don't know/recognize his authority.

Bingo. People make the mistake of believing that everyone is interested in, and paying attention to, the same thing. But they aren’t. We all have a slice of the universe in which we are interested, and the rest of it goes unnoticed.

I am sure all of us could name some people who we feel are outstanding authorities within the slice of the universe that we pay attention to, who very few others here in the forums would recognize.

 

[Steve]

Bingo. People make the mistake of believing that everyone is interested in, and paying attention to, the same thing. But they aren’t. We all have a slice of the universe in which we are interested, and the rest of it goes unnoticed.

I am sure all of us could name some people who we feel are outstanding authorities within the slice of the universe that we pay attention to, who very few others here in the forums would recognize.

Okay. But is this thread about credentials or a discussion about the points raised in the OP? Do you disagree with the actual points raised in the video? If so, which ones, and why?

 

[Nobufusa]

I also have never heard of him. But that is not surprising as I don’t pay attention to competition martial arts nor BJJ in general. That’s just me. Ones mileage may vary.

It's okay to not have heard of him, it's even okay to totally disagree with what he is saying, but it's not okay to dismiss his argument based solely on the premise of your own gloating ignorance of who he is.

 

[Nobufusa]

Not really. If you're going to use him as an appeal to authority, than it's your problem if the people you're debating with don't know/recognize his authority.

nope, it's that person's problem. John Danaher is a respected and well known expert and authority in his field, regardless of that person's being out of the loop. See my reply to "Flying Crane".

 

[Nobufusa]

It's also a logical fallacy to avoid discussing the merits of an argument because you don't know the person involved, or know them but they don't have sufficient credentials to make the argument. Saying, "Never heard of him," is a good example of the credentials fallacy, implying that if his opinion were worth knowing, he would have heard of him. It's like the other side of the appeal to authority.

I think the most constructive path here is to discuss the actual argument and not on who knows or doesn't know the dudes in the video.

Exactly. Attack the argument, not the person, but keeping in the mind that the argument is made from a position of relative authority and expertise. (I know Chris might yell at me for saying that)

 

[Flying Crane]

It's okay to not have heard of him, it's even okay to totally disagree with what he is saying, but it's not okay to dismiss his argument based solely on the premise of your own gloating ignorance of who he is.

I haven’t dismissed his argument. I haven’t even watched the video. I merely state that I’ve never heard of him. If I were inclined to debate the issue, you simply holding him up as an expert and therefor I ought to believe him would not be convincing to me. Before I would be inclined to believe him, I would need some further context to establish his credibility as an expert.

Just because you follow him and believe in him does not make him an expert and does not guarantee that others see him as such.

But hey, I don’t care what he says one way or the other, because I’m not interested in the debate.

Carry on.

 

[Nobufusa]

I haven’t dismissed his argument. I haven’t even watched the video. I merely state that I’ve never heard of him. If I were inclined to debate the issue, you simply holding him up as an expert and therefor I ought to believe him would not be convincing to me. Before I would be inclined to believe him, I would need some further context to establish his credibility as an expert.

Just because you follow him and believe in him does not make him an expert and does not guarantee that others see him as such.

But hey, I don’t care what he says one way or the other, because I’m not interested in the debate.

Carry on.

1. You didn't, the other guy who you supported, did. When I said "your" I wasn't specifically referring to you, but generically, to anyone who would use "lack of Knowledge" as an actual debate point. I understand you didn't, but the guy you supported DID.

2. If you aren't interested in participating in the discussion, why are you commenting here?

3. He is an expert and authority regardless of whether or not you believe it, or know it. And if you don't believe me, the Google bar is there at your service and free of charge.