Sport competition and self defense environments...

[Grumblegeezer]

On another thread there was a post noting the difference between the more limited physical training required for self-defense application and what was necessary to succeed in sport competition. YouKnowWho responded with the post below:

I don't think one should separate "self-defense" from "combat sport". Your fist will meet your opponent's face exactly the same way in both environments.

The "combat sport" environment is used to "test" your "self-defense" skill.

On one hand, I definitely see his point. There's no reason to think that less will be demanded of you when fighting for your life in a self-defense situation than in sport competition. If you can't knock down an opponent in a ring, what makes you think it'll be easier in a back ally? If you want to be good at self defense, I agree that you need some sparring to realize what you have to be able to dish out, and what you need to be able to take in a fight.

On the other hand, self-defense is never a "fair fight" between equals. You use whatever deception and dirty tricks you can. For example, I remember a seminar given by a old boxing/fma instructor I've known for years. During one demo segment, he told the young, fit BJJ instructor at his gym to attack him full on. "Tai", the BJJ guy, obliged by taking the FMA guy to the mat, mounting him, and proceeding with the old "ground and pound".

The FMA guy (on the bottom) tapped out with his left hand, and asked everybody watching to give their opinion as to who would walk away from this encounter. We all said "Tai", the guy on top, of course. Then the FMA guy he asked Tai to open his gi top. Inside was the FMA guy's right hand with a metal training knife that he had been working across Tai's gut and chest.. Tai's eyes bugged out in surprise. "I never even knew that was there" he blurted. "If this had been for real, I'd be like ...so dead."

This is the difference between self defense and sport. In self defense, it is assumed that the other guy is bigger, stronger, or better than you are, so you have to find other ways to win.

...Maybe that means you don't slam your fist against "your opponent's face exactly the same way in both environments." Maybe in self-defense, you do something like feign submission and hit 'em with a brick ...then run away.

[YouKnowWho]

Only a skill that has been tested successfully many times is your real skill. Any skill that has not been tested is a skill that you think it may work but whether it will work or not, you truly don't know.

IMO, you have to "test" your

- punching skill in boxing environment,
- kicking/punching skill in kickboxing/MT environment,
- throwing skill in SC/Judo/wrestling environment,
- ground skill in BJJ environment,
- short weapon skill in short weapon combat environment,
- long weapon skill in long weapon combat environment,
- kicking/punching/throwing integration skill in Sanda/Sanshou environment,
- kicking/punching/throwing/locking/ground skill in MMA environment.

You then have to "simulate" your "street self-defense" testing environment by adding plastic knife, rubber brick, multiple opponent's, ...

The term "combat sport" can be extended into whatever that you want to "test" your skill for. It has no limitation. The important thing is to "test" your skill against someone who does fight back. If you can "simulate" a "safe" environment to "test" your skill, that's "combat sport".

Let's take the throwing skill "combat sport" for example. You can make it as simple as "Whoever can get the head lock on the other will win that round". The whole "combat sport" is used to "test" your "head lock" skill and nothing else. This way you can truly concentrate on just one technique. After you have fully test it, you can then change your "combat sport" rule to test other skills.

[LaRoux]

On the other hand, self-defense is never a "fair fight" between equals. You use whatever deception and dirty tricks you can. For example, I remember a seminar given by a old boxing/fma instructor I've known for years. During one demo segment, he told the young, fit BJJ instructor at his gym to attack him full on. "Tai", the BJJ guy, obliged by taking the FMA guy to the mat, mounting him, and proceeding with the old "ground and pound".

The FMA guy (on the bottom) tapped out with his left hand, and asked everybody watching to give their opinion as to who would walk away from this encounter. We all said "Tai", the guy on top, of course. Then the FMA guy he asked Tai to open his gi top. Inside was the FMA guy's right hand with a metal training knife that he had been working across Tai's gut and chest.. Tai's eyes bugged out in surprise. "I never even knew that was there" he blurted. "If this had been for real, I'd be like ...so dead."

This is the difference between self defense and sport. In self defense, it is assumed that the other guy is bigger, stronger, or better than you are, so you have to find other ways to win.

...Maybe that means you don't slam your fist against "your opponent's face exactly the same way in both environments." Maybe in self-defense, you do something like feign submission and hit 'em with a brick ...then run away.

If you want to train self-defense, you train just like the sports guys do. The only difference is that you incorporate your self defense training into it using pretty much the same methods the sports guys do.

As far as realistic self-defense training, I have a feeling that the FMA instructor was pretty clueless himself if that was the extent of his story.

[Kellen Bassette]

It can be tough to train realistically for 'da streetz' because you never can account for all possible variables, but I believe the most realistic, best way to prepare for a real life self defense situation is with combat sports training. Like YKW was saying, you don't have a technique if it hasn't been tested, you just hope you have one.

Also agree about weapons, multiple opponents and such. This is a difficult thing to train realistically, but you got to be creative and find a way to train relatively safely, with true non-compliance. It's just so few and far between to find guys that actually train realistic weapon/multiple opponent defense. There is such a tendency to go into heavy compliance mode with your partner in that sort of drilling; and I think training that way may be worse than not training for the situation at all.

[Grumblegeezer]

First, to YouKnowWho, thanks for stepping up and clearly articulating your position so that this discussion can continue.

As far as realistic self-defense training, I have a feeling that the FMA instructor was pretty clueless himself if that was the extent of his story.

Sorry, LaRoux, I don't see what was so clueless here. This guy has been doing boxing, grappling and FMA for decades. He even trained a bit of WC with me back in the early 80s just to check it out. Now in his fifties, he trains others, and his fighters have done pretty well around here in competition.

As far as the demo --he asked his partner Tai to take him down to make a point, ...that you don't know what the other guy has ...or will do. I (and everybody else) thought he made that point pretty well. Maybe I didn't describe it properly. If so I apologize.

[LaRoux]

Sorry, LaRoux, I don't see what was so clueless here. This guy has been doing boxing, grappling and FMA for decades. He even trained a bit of WC with me back in the early 80s just to check it out. Now in his fifties, he trains others, and his fighters have done pretty well around here in competition.

As far as the demo --he asked his partner to tie him down to make a point. That you don't know what the other guy has. I (and everybody else) thought he made that point pretty well. Maybe I didn't describe it properly. If so I apologize.

So, what was his follow-up training after his demo?

[Grumblegeezer]

Whoops, I got called away in the middle of posting this. Happens a lot. Still haven't found a reliable defense against the wife on the warpath with a huge "Honey-do list" on a Saturday afternoon.

Anyway, I frankly don't remember the instructional context. It was at a seminar that provided a sampling of the several arts taught at that gym, and the general thrust promoted cross-training, and testing your skills against resisting partners to develop a well rounded set of skills. All pretty common-sense and straight forward. That one piece kinda stuck out though, and I thought of it since it seemed related to the theme of this thread.

[LaRoux]

Anyway, I frankly don't remember the instructional context. It was at a seminar that provided a sampling of the several arts taught at that gym, and the general thrust promoted cross-training, and testing your skills against resisting partners to develop a well rounded set of skills. All pretty common-sense and straight forward. That one piece kinda stuck out though, and I thought of it since it seemed related to the theme of this thread.

Seems kind of strange that the gym was promoting a seminar on cross training in their systems and going against resisting partners, yet this was the first time those two instructors from that gym had cross trained with each other with resistance.

Something doesn't quite add up with this story.

[Grumblegeezer]

There is such a tendency to go into heavy compliance mode with your partner in that sort of drilling; and I think training that way may be worse than not training for the situation at all.

Very true. In our VT group we begin training techniques with a lot of compliance until the skill set is somewhat developed. Then we increase the resistance. The problem is that too often members of the same club or class don't really know how to offer meaningful resistance. Take some of the grappling defenses taught. They have to be really tested against guys who know what they are doing, not against another chunner "playing the role of wrestler"...or "boxer", or whatever. That's how some of the garbage we see gets spread around.

In short, I think it's in the student's best interest to get outside of his clique and test his stuff. 'Cause a lot of things won't work ...at least the way they are traditionally taught.

Weapons present a different set of problems. And where I live the most common weapn is a handgun. You don't need a permit to carry (open or concealed) here and an awful lot of folks carry. I've even been to martial arts classes were both students and instructors carry under their sweats. Some of them anyway. You'd throw a low shot to the side and hit something hard. Your partner would reply, "Sorry dude, that's my piece." Really! It's a strange world.

[sihing]

Only a skill that has been tested successfully many times is your real skill. Any skill that has not been tested is a skill that you think it may work but whether it will work or not, you truly don't know.

IMO, you have to "test" your

- punching skill in boxing environment,
- kicking/punching skill in kickboxing/MT environment,
- throwing skill in SC/Judo/wrestling environment,
- ground skill in BJJ environment,
- short weapon skill in short weapon combat environment,
- long weapon skill in long weapon combat environment,
- kicking/punching/throwing integration skill in Sanda/Sanshou environment,
- kicking/punching/throwing/locking/ground skill in MMA environment.

You then have to "simulate" your "street self-defense" testing environment by adding plastic knife, rubber brick, multiple opponent's, ...

The term "combat sport" can be extended into whatever that you want to "test" your skill for. It has no limitation. The important thing is to "test" your skill against someone who does fight back. If you can "simulate" a "safe" environment to "test" your skill, that's "combat sport".

Let's take the throwing skill "combat sport" for example. You can make it as simple as "Whoever can get the head lock on the other will win that round". The whole "combat sport" is used to "test" your "head lock" skill and nothing else. This way you can truly concentrate on just one technique. After you have fully test it, you can then change your "combat sport" rule to test other skills.

Nothing is ever guaranteed in fighting or SD, you can test to the max and still not win, just watch any UFC/Boxing match where they follow the fighter in their training, someone has to lose...But if you don't train you learn nothing, and the more you train and test the better "YOU" will get, but the Variable is the "OTHER",,,it's always your skill vs. his skills, who knows who wins until it is done...You do the best you can with what you want to do with it..Individual Intent is key, obviously someone with more intent in regard to their skills will do more with it and on paper be more effective,, We all don't have the same Intent, so therefore the effectiveness is different, but saying all that anyone can lose on any given day

J

[LaRoux]

Nothing is ever guaranteed in fighting or SD, you can test to the max and still not win, just watch any UFC/Boxing match where they follow the fighter in their training, someone has to lose...But if you don't train you learn nothing, and the more you train and test the better "YOU" will get, but the Variable is the "OTHER",,,it's always your skill vs. his skills, who knows who wins until it is done...You do the best you can with what you want to do with it..Individual Intent is key, obviously someone with more intent in regard to their skills will do more with it and on paper be more effective,, We all don't have the same Intent, so therefore the effectiveness is different, but saying all that anyone can lose on any given day

J

Which kind of negates your theory that effective self-defense is easy to learn and apply.

[sihing]

On another thread there was a post noting the difference between the more limited physical training required for self-defense application and what was necessary to succeed in sport competition. YouKnowWho responded with the post below:



On one hand, I definitely see his point. There's no reason to think that less will be demanded of you when fighting for your life in a self-defense situation than in sport competition. If you can't knock down an opponent in a ring, what makes you think it'll be easier in a back ally? If you want to be good at self defense, I agree that you need some sparring to realize what you have to be able to dish out, and what you need to be able to take in a fight.

On the other hand, self-defense is never a "fair fight" between equals. You use whatever deception and dirty tricks you can. For example, I remember a seminar given by a old boxing/fma instructor I've known for years. During one demo segment, he told the young, fit BJJ instructor at his gym to attack him full on. "Tai", the BJJ guy, obliged by taking the FMA guy to the mat, mounting him, and proceeding with the old "ground and pound".

The FMA guy (on the bottom) tapped out with his left hand, and asked everybody watching to give their opinion as to who would walk away from this encounter. We all said "Tai", the guy on top, of course. Then the FMA guy he asked Tai to open his gi top. Inside was the FMA guy's right hand with a metal training knife that he had been working across Tai's gut and chest.. Tai's eyes bugged out in surprise. "I never even knew that was there" he blurted. "If this had been for real, I'd be like ...so dead."

This is the difference between self defense and sport. In self defense, it is assumed that the other guy is bigger, stronger, or better than you are, so you have to find other ways to win.

...Maybe that means you don't slam your fist against "your opponent's face exactly the same way in both environments." Maybe in self-defense, you do something like feign submission and hit 'em with a brick ...then run away.

Nice post, and nice example SD is different in so many ways, so many more variables to deal with,,,that does not mean a SD person is more effective in SD than a sport person... Human Beings are very versatile, and can function in so many different ways, there are no guarantee's with this stuff,,you just do the best you can with what you have and Intent..

J

[Grumblegeezer]

Seems kind of strange that the gym was promoting a seminar on cross training in their systems and going against resisting partners, yet this was the first time those two instructors from that gym had cross trained with each other with resistance.

Something doesn't quite add up with this story.

No, the head guy planned it and asked on of his assistant to help him demonstrate. Whether or not the assistant actually knew what was going to happen ahead of time or not I really don't know, and is irrelevant to the point of the thread. I was just trying to illustrate a point. Can we move on now?

[LaRoux]

No, the head guy planned it and asked on of his assistant to help him demonstrate. Whether or not the assistant actually knew what was going to happen ahead of time or not I really don't know, and is irrelevant to the point of the thread. I was just trying to illustrate a point. Can we move on now?

The assistant knowing or not knowing is totally relevant. If he knew in advance (which he most likely would have if he was his assistant), then the whole thing was just play acting and had not very much to do with demonstrating what really happens in a SD situation.

[sihing]

Which kind of negates your theory that effective self-defense is easy to learn and apply.

I never said SD was Easy to learn or apply, you've misunderstood or misquoted..

It takes work and dedication, but can be done in short amounts of time, I've experienced it, so who's to say it isn't true for me?

My experience is only a story for you, and visa versa..

What I am talking about is Development of basic tools, not application, one can develop what they need to know and do in SD situations quickly, to apply it successfully is the variable, and is dependant on many variables,,, so in other words no one knows if it will work successfully vs someone attacking full force until it happens for them..but learning/developing something in the area of SD will have some effect on how they are able to handle it vs. nothing at all...

J