Sport *IS* self-defense?

Quote:

The problem with "sport" as self defense is that it limits the scope of techniques you train. What you train is what you internalize. If you don't train them, you won't use them and many that are "not legal" are very useful if you are the victim of a criminal assualt.

I don't mean this to be a complete list. These are just techniques we incorporate into our SD training that you probably don't see in any sport competition.

Head butt to the face.
Knees to the groin or face.
Snap kicks or any strikes to the groin.
All manner of strikes to the throat.
Same to the eyes.
Head cranks.
Traps and joint breaks (NOT locks).

Hmmmmm......well, that was not my argument at all. I posit that resistant sport training IS self defense in spite of the limitations. The skills are transferrable to other situations. And even in the sporting context, you must actually defend yourself - if for nothing more than just a trophy.

BTW - some competitions do allow many things on your list:

eye strikes-

http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...ue#Post15947318

headbutts, groinstrikes -

http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...ue#Post15838029

Groin kicks were also allowed in some divisions of Ed Parker's Internationals tourney in California. Not sure if they still are.

Head cranks - allowed in some grappling tourneys

"All manner of strikes to the throat." "Traps and joint breaks."

True, I don't know of any competition that allows throat strikes. And I'm not sure what you mean by "breaks" and not "locks". I'm sure no school allows students to actually break each other's joints in class, right?

Quote:

Sport is a game, not self defense, because of the intent. Lacrosse is a sport...kobudo is not. Boxing is a sport because both people engaged step into the ring to fight with the intent to 'win' within boundaries. Karate, when used outside of the training context (which has plenty of rules, spoken and unspoken) is not an agreement between two people...and the intent is not to win but to survive.

I am afraid that seems like semantics to me. You win a boxing match by "surviving" the bout, yes? If you get KO'd, you did not "survive" it. Your kobudo practice has rules, right? How is that different from any other sport? If you say "I can change the intent", then why couldn't a boxer?

Not trying to be an a$$, just food for thought.

Quote:

Sport is not self-defense because you win or lose...not live or die

Not even every criminal assault ends in death. But in any case, I was talking about the skills imparted, not the lethal-ness of the practice. I mean, do you all disagree that boxers and Bjjers must defend themselves in competition?

Posted by: Joss

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 12:47 PM

When we spar, we do all of these things. Butterfly, this takes us back to the definition of sparring.

My guess is that you see it as a facimaly of two guys agreeing to a duel - emptyhanded - a boxing match but just with fewer rules. But with this scenario you still have the question of how close the replication comes to the real thing.

We don't train much that way. My basic premis is that I've got no business "agreeing" to fight anyone. Thus almost all my sparring launches from me in a "fence" position, and the attacker coming at me. My simple goal is allow him only one attack movement and to take full control of him from that point. You can peek into the SD section here and see the list of HAOV's we are using.

We ramp up to full speed and power on some attacks and then drop it down as control is gained and the middle and end part of the techniques occur. You are correct in that we don't apply full speed or full power head cranks. Not on eye gouges, groin strikes, either.

On others we haven't figured out a way to go full speed and power, so we tone it down to a level we can survive. Or we pad up the attacker, where we can, to get a little faster and harder. But we do it repetitively until it starts to become a natural reponse.

And repetitive practice is the key. I went through the first six years of karate in schools that avoided these targets and techniques. The result was I never used them. But now, even though we use control and slow deliveries in many cases, they are becoming natural. My experience has shown me that there is a tremendous difference between "knowing" a technique intellectually, and "knowing" it as a conditioned reflex.

So the basic division is this: do you NOT train them because you feel only full speed full power sparring is useful? Or do you train them a lot, even though it is often slow and with great care. We do the latter.

Posted by: Joss

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 01:06 PM

Matt, not to forget you...

Here's part of a post I did in the SD section where Jpoor asked if it might be dangerous to overlearn "tap and release" with regard to SD.....

******************
We see locks and chokes as "retention" measures. They are useful for stopping a situation without injuring someone. Their downside, though, is that they require your full attention and they HOLD it. Doing so, they leave you badly exposed while you provide that attention. They are employed at great risk if one is facing the possibility of multiple attacks. Then there are also the added risks Leo points out, above.

The bigger safety question, then, is does your training recognize that their use is limited, situationally, instead of random?

Here's a little question to help you see what I'm saying: If you lock someone up into a good functional lock, WHEN do you turn loose? Is it when the cops get there? Or is it when his buddies pound you to hamburger? Or maybe it's once you successfully complete court ordered mediation, weeks later?

The thing is - if you don't have this completely figured out - why did you put him into a lock? Because.... maybe it's just what came out of your training. If so, there's a problem.
*****************

My point is that retention techniques are where a sport training orientation can take a person unknowingly into situations that aren't wise.

I know it doesn't address everything you asked, but maybe it's enough to see my point of view.

Posted by: Neko456

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 01:13 PM

Boxing has changed it was once barefisted and they stood over the guy before he could stand fully he'd have to defend himself. Boxing was more like a real fight then, amazing they'd fight 60-70 or more rounds in fights those guys were amazing.

BJJ changed it doesn't use the deadly techniques of JJ, it uses the the tap out of judo. Old style JJ you didn't tap out they moved to the next hypothetcal move, striking and breaking stuff.

Sport is not self-defense because it doesn't have serious intent, continous fighting may not be that big a factor as is intent, you don't punch the temple, fient breaking the arm, sweep and stomp the head. You duck and fly in with your arm touching a guy like its a jousting pole or skip across the ring kicking head high (testicle dangling) trying to touch his head. In the old days it was closer to self defense bare fisted/feet at Brown/Black level there was no touching. You knew why you guards were lower you pee'd blood if hit by a punch to kidney!! Or a rib was craked or bruised if punched.I Remember Sandan James Steward a kenpo man, in sparring ostogari and down punch nobody (mostly TKD men) could stop him. They did kick him out the ring sometimes, he did hook kick their grions in some those kicking attempts. That was closer to self defense the down punch was crushing usually to the body. Karate Tournament players looked like the liberty figters on the stamp limping home but smiling through a bloody mouth.

Things change so that kids can get invovled and for safety, it happens to most contact activities look at wrestling once thought to be the Greek full spectrum contact art. Its really hard to be like self defense if its a fought like a game of touch or flag football.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 01:44 PM

Anything in sport can pretty much be transferred to self defense. And if you practice sport and compete, even more so. From my own training in class with people I know and respect, I'm pushed to be better. When I have competed against people I don't know, even with rules to protect each of us, I felt almost a fear for my life. They were out to win and I was out to win and there was no holding back. Of course I wasn't going to eye gouge them or bite them or hit any soft fleshy parts to inflict life threatening damage but we both were out to hurt each other and become the victor.

I do believe what you train you instinctively incorporate and use and if you limit that training it will effect your self defense skills. Take for instance that when training grappling and then ground'n pound was introduced it took some time for me to realize times I could punch. With time and more training this wasn't a problem but it had to be trained for me to retain and use it.

However I also believe in the "survival" instinct that if I'm in a life threatening situation I will resort to any means to survive or protect others I care for. If it is biting, gouging or any other dirty trick in the book I will use it and I don't have to train those to do it.

I think too many people get lost in this and get their backs up saying sport is not self defense because there are rules but what they don't realize is that those rules allow for the safety of each individual. Take for instance MMA and the UFC in particular as we all have watched this. If the ref did not step in to stop some fights then many of those fighters would be seriously injured or even dead. Yes of course the rules also do not allow you to do some techniques that could end the fight faster and would be more beneficial for self defense but that isn't the argument in whole. The training is similar and is transferable so anybody training both sport and self defense can easily do both. And those who do sport and compete, well they are more likely to be more effective in my opinion in a real life encounter due to they are using many of those techniques with resistance against actual people. Those that only train and simulate those attacks and don't have the full resistance of an opponent will not get it. And let me be clear on this, training with resistance in class is not the same as competing with resistance in a competition. The adrenalin levels are not the same. The fear is not the same. The aggression is not the same. Competition takes everything to the next level and if you train self defense then competing "with rules" will make you even better. So therefore I believe that sport can be self defense.

Posted by: Joss

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 02:24 PM

Dereck, you are saying two contradictory things.

Here, you recognize that what you train - or don't train - limits your SD skills.

"I do believe what you train you instinctively incorporate and use and if you limit that training it will effect your self defense skills. Take for instance that when training grappling and then ground'n pound was introduced it took some time for me to realize times I could punch. With time and more training this wasn't a problem but it had to be trained for me to retain and use it."

Yet here you say exactly the opposit, that in a survival situation you suddenly don't have to train the techniques to use them.

"However I also believe in the "survival" instinct that if I'm in a life threatening situation I will resort to any means to survive or protect others I care for. If it is biting, gouging or any other dirty trick in the book I will use it and I don't have to train those to do it.

With all respect, real life says this doesn't happen. The FBI experienced this with dead agents that were policing their spent brass in a firefight - because that the way the worked their shooting ranges. There is another incident where a Canadian cop took a knife away from an a guy - then handed it back because that's the way they worked their classes.... over and over and over.

The lesson is that once the adenaline hits the blood stream all you get back is the way you practiced.

And if you are a sport grappler, for instance, and spent all you training learning to set up locks and hold them till the guy taps.... what do you think you are going to respond with when it's the real deal? That's just fine if you have the opportunity to safely sit on the guy till the cops come. But... what if they aren't the first ones there?

Posted by: Neko456

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 02:52 PM

Joss I agree you eventually fight the way you train. Because a lot of people think taking someone down is a safe way to fight in a gym, they will or can respond that way on the hard concrete on the streets even if you pound and ground a guy out, you are still mangled and bloodied.

I agree with Joss that self defense is different then sport. Sport training can enhance the reflexes that aids self defense but it takes a concisous effort to Pound and ground standing up, to lock and snap instead of lock and hold. I think even if you don't break if you snap the hold and move on to something else that hurts its better then waiting for a tap or being startled and letting go because they scream out in pain. In self defense you should train they are suppose to scream and you should too. Training rolling if a guy screams usually you will let go of the hold.

Dereck you train sport and think it crosses over to self defense we will see when you need it, as hard as you train you should do ok, but I just hate that you might try ground fighting on concret with those bad knees and ankles or was it shoulder and ankle? If they take you there, you got to do what you got to do, but don't go there yourself. Unless its your only strong suite. My 2 cent.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 03:05 PM

Here is one point that many don't get. THERE IS NO WAY TO 100% INSURE ABILITY TO PERFORM ON THE STREET. Training has to be safe or else your won't be training long and really won't be ready to defend yourself. What if you can't escape and must fight to the finish? Training for sport can help to develop attributes. When training to fight I also like to go for high percentage. The head is larger than the throat. Although striking to the throat may be considered a "deadly" technique, the head is larger and can be easier to hit. Also some people have very muscular necks and a strike to it may not produce the desired effect. This is true with many "deadly" techniques. Its also about position. Training to gain a dominant position is more important than "deadly" techniques. I also think there are a lot of severely violent people involved in martial arts. Everyone wants to collapse a person's trachea, break someone's arms so the bone is poking through the skin, etc. Many times an elbow to the temple, a knee to the face, a palm strike to the skull, or a fist to the jaw, or a throw onto the concrete will work just fine.

And actually I bet I could make a sport out of your fence drill Joss. Would that make it an ineffective way to train?

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 03:22 PM

Joss, I do believe that what you train is important as I gave you the example in my own training with ground'n pound, however I wasn't in fear for my life or was not protecting anybody but myself in a training situation. I had to get my mind set around this and did. If I for once thought my life was in jeopardy my survival instinct would have kicked in and I would have grab a handful of hair, or gouged eyes/nose/face/groin/etc. I would have done anything and everything to survive because that is instinct. Years ago when younger and got into too much trouble and fights, I did not have a lick of training with the exception of junior/high school wrestling. I have not always been on the winning side of things and have resorted to some dirty underhanded survival techniques that I did not train for but knew to use. Perhaps I didn't explain it well enough and I hope this clears it up better. Training and surviving are two different things. Many people with no training are good at self defense just like many street fighters have no training but could kick many trained people's butts. There are many good trained fighters out there but the better fighters are those who can instinctively fight and then learn training.

Neko, I don't discount going to the ground if it has to but trust me, I'd rather not fight if I have to. I'd rather keep things standing up myself but faced with a better striker and taking into account my surroundings and other people, I'd have no problem going to the ground to survive. Thank you for your concern though. As for the injuries ... neck and knee. As for my training I can't really say we are sport though those can be elements to the training if you wish. TKD/BJJ is more self defense in nature but we are encouraged to test ourselves by doing sport. By doing sport I can honestly say it is more intense then training in class as you do put it on the line as somebody is trying to hurt you and you are trying to hurt them.

Posted by: matchhead_jack

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 03:56 PM

Outside of the vein of conversation but on the topic. Paintballing is a sport, SWAT CQB (Close Quarters Combat) is a martial art (according to Musashi Miyamoto). Would you rather put firearms in the hands of a really good paintball player for a hostage rescue or a really good SWAT officer who routinely practices CQB with live rounds? Both individuals have a much better chance of success than Joe walking down the road but the SWAT officer will have the advantage.

Posted by: Joss

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 04:11 PM

Dereck, I've read lots of your posts and always found them informative. Right now, though, it's like you are coming so very close to saying that SD training, in a life or death situation, is not important because instinct kicks in and makes it unnecessary. If this is true, wouldn't it mean that MA training (whose foundation concept is building useful skills into reflexive responses through countless repetitions) is basically invalid?

Or if this is only true for those already blessed with good instinctive skills, what about the rest of us?

My position is not that sport MA is bad. It is that sport MA has pitfalls when one tries to apply it directly to an SD situation. The pitfall is that: what you train is what you will get. This does NOT mean that all sport fighters will have their a$$ handed to them by all SD people, by any means. SD is totally situational and there are exceptional people in the sport venue whose skills are amazing. My skills wouldn't make me one of them. I represent the run of the mill. So I don't have the luxury to believe I can train one way and respond another when the chips are down.

Maybe we're getting to that point where we have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 04:33 PM

Joss, what is wrong with training to punch someone in the jaw, knee strike them in the nose, kick them in the leg, etc? Yes, you will respond how you train. Understand that I am not a big sport guy, however, I do see the skills that such training produces. It develops very solid basic technique. Which, in case you have not heard, can be very effective in self defense.

Posted by: Joss

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 05:22 PM

"If you think that sport trained folk will not be able to add to their repetoire under pressure, then I assume other folk's eye gouges and throat shots would fall short for the same reason, right?"

Sorry Matt but I don't follow. Who are these "other folks"?

Posted by: Meliam

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 05:41 PM

I would say that it depends on the sport. After training Knock-Down Karate, BJJ and Muay Thai before i got into Krav Maga i can assure you that most of the guys I trained those "sport" systems with would be really good in a self defense situation.

I would take a full contact "sport" system where the practitioners are used to hit and get hit over a system where a bunch of people talk about how dangerous their techniques are and pat each others backs but never see anything that looks like real combat.

Self defense trained in an environment like most Krav Maga schools teach it is a different matter.

But again put a good Krav Maga student up against a Muay Thai fighter or a BJJ fighter and I bet the fight would be even. Most so called 'Sports" systems do have strikes and techniques that are forbidden in a sports fight but would be used in a life or death situation.

Mike Tyson once said "After you get hit once all your strategy goes out the window" if you never fight but all your knowledge is academic you will not do good in a fight.

Meliam

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 05:45 PM

Josh, sorry this is not what I'm saying and if that is the way it is coming off then I blame lack of sleep over the last week. I but good faith into training and reflexive response due to countless repetitions. I'll try to explain better ... I hope.

Those that train self defense I think have a step up then the average person but I don't dismiss that there are people out there with no skills that can protect themselves as effectively as well whether it is a fighting instinct, size, no fear, or what have you. I also believe that people that train self defense that also compete and transfer those skills to sport are even a higher step up then just the person who only trains self defense. Those same skills are now being used as close to reality as they can within rules set out for the safety of both individuals. I also believe that those that train only sport are able to take many of those same abilities and use them in a self defense situation as much of the skills are the same (kicking, punching, clinch, knees, elbow, RNC, armbars, etc). I don't dismiss the fact that they don't have all of the skill set of the person that practices and competes, but most definitely like the person who just does self defense training, sports people are again probably a step up then the average person; both could be better.

I've not trained at a lot of facilities but what I have seen is even when training self defense there are still rules within the training to allow for the safety of those training. I practice low kicks frequently and I am not above kicking somebody's legs out from under them or attacking the knee whether it is a roundhouse or side kick. However in training I cannot do this otherwise I would no longer have a training partner and I would most likely be asked to leave. The same thing with the RNC; I can apply this but I stop when the person taps for their safety.

Now whether training self defense or sport they both sort of have rules. With the argument of many, if I get used to my partner tapping is it not possible out of instinct from repetitiveness that I may stop in a self defense situation if they tap purely out of instinct? Or that because I don't sink my fingers deep into somebody's eye socket and only simulate the eye gouge that I may simulate in a real life encounter.

I believe this can happen and whether sports training or self defense they both have flaws but I think it also comes down the the individual. The individual can make the difference and their understanding of the technique whether sport or self defense of how they will react to those situation. Plus again I believe in the survival instinct that in situations many will be able to apply those techniques they know and make them more deadly whether they had sports training, self defense training or both. And again I don't dismiss the survival instinct in those without training such as many women who will instinctively use their nails to scratch an assailants face or to go for a vital area such as the groin or eyes. They did not need training for this, they just knew to do it during the adrenalin rush to survive. Trained is better of course.

If this still reads differently then your belief then yes perhaps we are on different thought patterns or are close but not quite there. I just don't see as great of a difference in sports training and self defense as others do and perhaps that is due to not seeing others ideas of training. Ours is training to learn techniques to protect and then using those techniques in class with partners but also putting it on the line if you so desire by competing thus taking your skills to the next level. When training in class we are bound by many of those same rules for safety of our partners whether it is kicking and punching each other, clinching up and throwing knees and elbows, sweeps and throws, joint manipulation, etc. And in training you cannot use your full force which again in a real life encounter there is always a possibility that somebody may not use their full strength due to this repetitiveness ... however this is where again I feel that the survival instinct will kick in and you will know to kick and punch as hard as you can, to use your full strength to administer as punch pain and damage as possible.

My apology if I've taken this thread out of its realm.

Posted by: JKogas

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 05:55 PM

I think a balance is always required. I hate using the term sport to describe athletic training. This is why I’ve always used the term “aliveness” to describe it. Another term is combat athletics. Without such training as your “core”, you’re just not going to be very good at fighting. I believe this can be fairly easily demonstrated.

Certainly once the delivery systems of combat "sports" are well in place, simulating the foul tactics isn’t a bad thing to do. I believe their place is more limited in sparring however, unless you have some VERY experienced and controlled individuals who are participating.

As I have always believed that fighting is always about positioning (regardless of range), he who controls the position, controls the fight. If you can dominate position, it doesn’t matter WHAT technique you’re using to end it. Simplicity rules and as such, I would stay with the tried and true and not so much the things that are truly only performed in “theory”. Just my opinion.

-John

Posted by: wristtwister

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 08:57 PM

Quote:

* Are limited rules sport fighters defending themselves in competition?

Of course they are defending themselves, but not with the kind of intensity they would if their lives were threatened. Intent has a lot to do with intensity, and when you're "looking for a knockout", you aren't "trying to kill" your opponent, and vice-versa... so the level of intensity is different.

Quote:

* Are the rules inherent in ANY martial arts practice effectively making them sports/combat athletics?

Absolutely. Even the MMA pro-circuits have rules to protect the fighters, and referees to jump in to save their bacon if they're getting hammered. Sport karate and other MA have pads, chest protectors, and guards to help them protect the limbs and body parts of the participants... and the rules strictly limit what kind of techniques you can use and what level of force can be applied.

My friend, Mr. Hino, placed 2nd in the world championships of karate because he knocked out his opponent something like 7 seconds into the match. Absolutely they structure the rules to make them combat arts, but "controlled" sports.

Quote:

* Are these skills more transferrable to SD situtations? Less? No different?

Any skill you learn in fighting is transferrable as a fighting skill for self defense. Whether or not you want to try to shoot in and tackle a guy on a gravel parking lot is your choice, so if you have other "toys" to play with, you might make a different choice... but if it's available, it's usable. Some hurt more than others.

Quote:

* Does intent alter the nature of the practice, or the skills gained/used/lost?

Absolutely! The main problem with Aikido practitioners is that they usually have to reach black belt levels before they understand that their entire art works off the attacker's force. If you don't intend to hit me, I have to make up the difference in the force required to do my technique, so it makes it more difficult and changes the timing of the training. That's the reason people look so bad when they're attacked for real and don't have the timing to actually handle a "real attack". Of course, you have to ratchet up the training as your students gain skills, but if I tell you I'm attacking with X technique, you better think I'm trying to knock your brains out with it, because I'm coming at a speed you should have to use whatever level of technique you have. Stopping before I hit you is my option... not yours.

As for the eye gouges, driving the nose cartilege into the brain, etc., those are practiced on the "rubber Bob's" that are available... same with neck strikes and chin strikes. I don't have to break your neck to train to do so, but the "half man" dummies provide an adjustable tool to be able to train against all sizes of opponent and see how your particular techniques work.

The old martial arts schools in Japan used to have about a 1/3 casualty rate of students killed or permanently injured. They didn't have the tools available back then to do what we can do today in training, so while we don't necessarily poke somebody's eyes out in training, it doesn't mean we can't gain the skills to do exactly that.
"In the old days", we used cardboard cutouts suspended on a string to practice eye strikes, and we were deadly accurate with them. Nukite and nihon nukite strikes are first class weapons in the real world, and unless your opponent is already blind, his first option is going to be to protect his eyes... or he's going to be fighting at a great disadvantage.

Posted by: idaho

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 09:10 PM

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outside of the vein of conversation but on the topic. Paintballing is a sport, SWAT CQB (Close Quarters Combat) is a martial art (according to Musashi Miyamoto). Would you rather put firearms in the hands of a really good paintball player for a hostage rescue or a really good SWAT officer who routinely practices CQB with live rounds? Both individuals have a much better chance of success than Joe walking down the road but the SWAT officer will have the advantage.
------------------------------------------------------------

Hello everyone, first message..don't usually "actively participate" in forums....but....this struck me as an odd comparison primarily because the effectiveness of SWAT CQB, SWAT team entry, hostage rescue, etc (something I have some experience with) got markedly improved and the training much more "realistic" when the team/man began training with....you guessed it "paintball". Now most use air soft or rubber bullets or similar, but you get the idea. Actually firing rounds that either hit or missed...and just as important, taking rounds, that hit or miss jumped the effectiveness of the teams drastically.

Now, I don't entirely disagree with Joss's points. I have only seen 1 or 2, but watch a fight where kicking to the groin is allowed and it is absolutely comical. I dont have to tell you what the #1 defensive priority was! Almost to the exclusion of all else.
I am not a huge bjj fan, I have trained it for several months and while I find it "necessary" I dont particularly enjoy it. I can say, however, that unless you train with, I believe the term was "aliveness", you are counting on a lot of things that probably won't happen. Poking someone in the eyes isn't exactly easy..if you are close enough to hit their trachea, they are close enough to tackle you, etc. I think arts like judo, boxing, bjj, and similar are absolutely necessary if you think you might actually need to defend yourself in a physical (unarmed) altercation, with someone who has any fighting skill at all.

Posted by: JKogas

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 09:41 PM

That whole thing about training on dummies and cardboard cutouts - then thinking you have the same ability on a resisting, moving and attacking human being of skill and physical conditioning is what gets me. I suppose I'll just never understand why people think that sort of thing is actually effective.

-John

Posted by: wristtwister

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/23/07 11:47 PM

John,
maybe every tool in fighting doesn't come from one on one training. Some skills are accuracy skills, others are practiced for distraction purposes. While you don't think they have any value, I can assure you that the finger strikes to the face and open fingers around the eyes are a major distraction in a fight, whether or not you gouge the eyes.

The "dead" training is used for accuracy drills and movement is done by taking the cardboard and having someone hold it and move it as if sparring with someone. The object is to strike in the area of the eyes, not necessarily to gouge them out.

I'd be interested to hear how you train those techniques...

Just for giggles, here's another discussion of pretty much the same thing...
http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...0&fpart=all

Don't worry though, these guys don't know anything either...

Posted by: Neko456

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/24/07 11:56 AM

Wow another Jkogas and Wristwister debate among this interesting topic, both making some good points. Ecletic/realist and Trad/realist both seeking alive training but from different parts and ideas encompassing their strong foundation and opinion. Where is my buttered Pop corn!! This should be good as were the many others debates like Lomatta vs Robinson. different as night and day but championship effective.

Being an old trad fogy I have to really discourage doing a jab in place of a finger tip strike to the eye, fighting. Boxers or streetfighters with boxing background sometimes will take or try barely lean away from a jab to counter with a heavy righthand. Knowing this you finger tip eye strike using the extra length of fingers over the fist, the right hand is in on its way but its disrupted and changes to both hands covering his eyes. A jab just won't give you those results, with just more then a slight touch. It changes from you being staggered or Ko'd into a near helpless foe in front of you. Been there done that.

Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/24/07 12:10 PM

Regardless of whether sport "is" self defense or not, we can probably all agree that sport doesn't hurt your ability to do martial arts. If you enjoy sport on the side or even as part of your self defensive training, it is more hours spent training sensibly and vigerously, which is a good thing in my book.

Posted by: wristtwister

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/24/07 12:21 PM

Neko,
John and I don't really disagree on the fighting part of this issue, it's how you train to get there. I still like the older methods of developing skills that are valuable to have, and aren't necessarily built from fighting itself. There's a lot of football learned at training camp that doesn't show up until they're running the plays for real in a game... but the skills training isn't necessarily done in scrimmages. That's where I'm coming from. There are a lot of training exercises that are useful without being "combat exercises"... and the last time I looked, every team has a different philosophy of how the game is played.

How do you do "alive" weightlifting... throw the weights at each other? No, you have exercises and lifting routines to build strength individually. Does that strength show up in fighting... absolutely.

I'm just saying that not every skill or part of fighting is built in combat training. You have to have a basis of training that gives you the tools of fighting... alive, "dead" or whatever, it takes more than one method to develop good skills because the skills require different things... body mechanics, stances, movement concepts, etc.

Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/24/07 02:44 PM

First you learn the drill then you apply.

Too much alive training leads to sloppy technique.

Not enough alive training leads to unexecutable technique.

Skip either one, to your peril.

Posted by: wristtwister

Re: Sport IS self-defense? - 07/24/07 06:36 PM

Roger that, Kimo...
Like everything else in life, people go overboard on one side of something and think that everything else is useless... especially in training. The "all or nothing" mentality will get you killed most of the time.

Having perfected skills, whether "live" or static, are good to have in the toolbox. Live training helps with timing and technique selection, but it's nothing more than scenario training or randori. If you "go hard", it can be very similar to any fight you might encounter, but you don't have to kill each other to develop the skills to do so.

Over the years, I've had my share of full contact fighting, grappling, and getting slammed, so I'm not a wuss about getting hit, or thrown down... but I learned most of those skills in training classes, not in randori. All I did there was to learn to see the openings to use them, and get the timing for making them work. As you say, learn the skill, then apply the skill.

I'm not so sure I agree that too much live training makes sloppy technique, but it does lead you to try things that you can't do (at least not correctly) so you end up in a "wad" on the mats, or get your lights knocked out. When I did judo, it seemed that the Judoka had an answer for everything I did, and if I learned that... they had another answer for "their answer".

Incorporating all that into karate, and adding jujutsu and Aikido, gave me a pretty well rounded training... but I liked boxing, and a few other "minor arts" as well... so the answer doesn't lie in any "one" art, but in what works for you and what you like to do.

Luckily, there are combat arts out there where you can bust each other to pieces if you want, or simply practice kata and one steps... so there's room out there for everybody. Which one is best?... the one you choose and like for yourself. You can make it as real as you like...

Sport *IS* self-defense?