I wouldn't go that far I think, but I would still differentiate between training and either sport or SD. I think the difficulty here is in relating how any sport or codified engagements take on a 'fixed' mind-set. Where things you might encounter outside of that have no fixed parameters and or 'endgames', so you would have to train (somewhat) differently at times and carry another mind-set around with you - so to speak.
There is only one consistent code of the sparring I do: if any injury is sustained, it should be to the person of greater technical skill. That sounds like the opposite of a sportive paradigm to me. Also, I think you'll find that much spousal abuse is ritualised, and even codified. It is asymmetric in nature and so not "fair", but then neither is most of the sparring I do. This is not to say that sport has not had an effect on the evolution of violence in a wider sense. I think it has, but that does not mean that all training for violence is a unique product of sport. It is play! That is my point: not all play is sport. Just because an activity shares many similarities with something, it does not make it that thing. Yes, sport includes a lot of play that is less competitive than competition matches, but so do many human activities because we are mammals and many mammals learn by play and simulation. Going back to my mortar example, the video below can be described as play or simulation, but not a sport, even though there is an objective and some yard-stick of "winning" or "losing": [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQHWh-9AUX4"]120mm Mortar Live Fire Exercise! - YouTube[/ame]
Okay, getting right back to the original point, which is that "sportive" as a descriptor is useless. "Sport" is as uninformative and nebulous as "art" as a descriptor. If I have a pile of bricks in my back yard, that is not art. If I have a pile of bricks displayed in the Tate Modern gallery, that is art. If two cats play fight in my kitchen, that is not a sport. If ESPN have a pay-per-view cat fight match, that is a sport. As for universal training methods in sport, how does that apply to greyhound racing, badger baiting, fox hunting, dog fighting or **** fighting? I think the fact that this debate has dragged on for so long is indicative of the vagueness of the term "sportive", whereas the terms "pressure tested", "non-compliant" or "evidence based" are clear cut enough for us to agree on.
If you're solely sparring within your own group the familiarity lacks the unknown live edge of competition, i.e the tweak in your stomach as you face up to someone you've never seen before - you're unfamiliar with their body language, strength or tactics. I think it's optimal to combine both training in and out of your habitual circle ( if not in competition , sparring with other schools/gyms.)
As so often happens when discussing things I end up wondering why it becomes either/or. Do everything. Spar in different formats, compete if that's your thing, do SD drills, get fit, keep ya nose clean, avoid bad places and bad people, have fun, get clued up on street attacks but overall just enjoy your training, improve yourself (mentally, physically, spiritually) and don't worry too much about some nebulous street fight that in all likelihood will never happen anyway (unless your job/lifestyle make such things more likely). There are no rules that say you can't compete if self defence is your main aim and no rules that say you can't look into the context of self defence if competing is what floats your boat. Triangulate your aims and goals from multiple angles as no one way of doing something will fully cover all the bases. Don't be someone that can't hang in a structured spar for 5 minutes because all you do are eye jabs or someone that can spar well enough but gets sucker punched by some numpty outside the chip-shop that has a better understanding of real violence than you.
Yes, I'd agree with this. Except that I've had the most fear when sparring close training partners, and felt more in more physical danger in hard sparring than when strangers have tried to hurt me for real. There might not be the vitriolic intent when sparring with training partners, but I'd rather face an angry attacker than a dead-eyed and calmly efficient one. I'm also not arguing with the idea of competition as a crucible. This is not a "street vs. sport" argument. Absolutely. Do what you want. Echoing what I said above: this is not "street vs. sport", this is simply about how we define optimum training methods, to which I don't believe the term "sport" tells us anything meaningful.
Haha nice. Although Yeah I would say it's a match still if you keep score and play it as such. I train Thai but don't compete. I train with fighters. I do the same work as them. I spar with them under the same conditions. The only thing I don't do is the cut and the personal mental prep required. I'd say I'm training Thai boxing. Anyway, I take your point about sport not necessarily being a perfect descriptor for a particular training style (pragmatic, game orientated, athletic, pressure tested, built on existing evidence, evolving etc) vhowever given how pervasive that training is in sports and how similar the training is across combat sports in particular I don't think it's as obfuscating as you are trying to paint it either We always talk about training methods being the primary filter for practical technique and for forging ability... I think sports training is the best template for practice to context specific functionality. If you don't agree then you don't agree
But are you a Thai boxer? Don't worry, that question is rhetorical, I'm not looking to drag this out any further. Definitions that we take as self-evident often fail to live up to scrutiny. I think the crux of my problem is that "sport" is an abstract noun. It does not, in and of itself, describe any definitive process or action. I think you then have to spell it out, saying that you feel full-contact combat sport training methods work best. Where it all started (if you'll forgive the edit): Requires so much assumption and shared bias that I don't think it is good as a definition. You need some verbs or concrete nouns that describe a process, I think. For instance, I feel that visualisation and mindful, slow motion solo practice are great training tools, and there are professional sports' people and psychologists that would agree with me. You sounded dubious about those practices earlier, and I suspect that I do more of it than you. Does that mean I am more "sportive" than you? Maybe at times you are more sportive, and me others? I don't disagree with the kind of training methods you are talking about, I just don't think there is anything intrinsically "sportive" about them. You obviously do, which is fine, but I have yet to be convinced that myself, or what little I have seen of JWT's training for instance, is within a sportive paradigm. You seem to disagree with that, so here we are
The thing I keep coming back to is how wide "sport martial arts" is a group. Art Jimmerson was sport trained. Orlando Weit was sport trained. James Toney was sport trained. And it didn't do a lick of good for them. Because while their training was good for the sports they competed in (boxing, thai, boxing) it wasn't up to snuff for where they ended up (NHB, NHB, MMA) and was exploited by someone that had a better grasp of the context than they did (Royce, Remco and Couture). All I'm saying is that the context of self defence is different to sport and that does make a difference IMHO (without in any way saying that sport martial artists can't defend themselves).
Indeed. I'm not a Thai Boxer (I feel that implys an active competitor, but that's subjective I guess) but I do practice Thai boxing. As you say its been dragged out and I don't see anyway if resolving our contentions. The positive is that semantics aside we seem to agree in what constitutes an effective method. Which is more important that how we choose to convey it grammatically or semanticly.
Deffo different contexts. I think a grounding in all ranges of combat is a key component when considering your self defence efficacy though. Geoff Thompson advocates judo and boxing as a base for example.
I was just browsing and spotted this and I don't aim this point at any one in particular or mean to pick at your point, smitfire, but there is another side to what you express here and that is that people can take advantage of those people who are weaker, lacking confidence, etc by putting forth the idea they have a way that is easyier or a special way to train for a chaotic, randomly violent encounter. It's a downside of the SD scene, for me. They almost feed of it. They dumb everything down and make it seem easy or hide behind and overcompensate on the soft skill side, which of course is important to a degree ,but when you see what some claim these weaker , confidence lacking people should do if it goes physical...well it can be awful. Surely it's better to be truthful and let people realise there's no easy way, it's hard, it's tough, it means losing at times etc but will be worth it and build these people up to not be weak and build their confidence in a realistic way rather than feed their fantasys. People could simply say ok.....if it goes physical and your not ,on a regular basis , against people better than you building your physical ability, your likely screwed and what I say might not work and these soft skills might not work. There is a lot of doubt and unknown in SD and this should be accepted and be shown to be normal. As in its unpredictable, chaotic and random in the way you will have to move and how you could find yourself in a situation and how to get out of it.
I don't think anyone here would disagree that the world of martial arts is full of con artists selling "quick fixes", "fight stoppers", ways to "defeat any attacker" and all that rubbish. It's been that way for decades, and the "free lunch" phenomenon happens in almost all sectors of business. Some people will always part with their cash if you offer them something for nothing, and the idea of being able to beat people up without putting in the hard graft is appealing to people who feel intimidated or scared about having to change their body and their mind.
In your personal opinion. How DARE you so commercially define "Art"?!?!() Seriously, all an exhibition at the Tate means is someone is willing to pay you for a pile of bricks you call art.However,if you deem that pile of bricks IS art,it's "art" even if it's in your backyard. That's the mainstream perception/practice in the art "community" worldwide. I have to work with art media on a daily basis so I'm pretty familiar with this-and with piles of bricks,McDonald's cups,paint thrown at canvases,and Tate Gallery publications. Be just a pile o' bricks to me,tho'.Wherever it am displayed.But hey,somebody's gotta be a Philistine! We now return you to our regular scheduled arguments-I mean programming.
Please excuse the hiatus in the discussion. I've been busy with politics - perhaps worth a thread in its own right. I am worried I'm going to end up arguing with you about the essence of a discipline. I think any of us would be hard pressed to find much in any of our disciplines which was not present in others though all have "idiosyncrasies". The only systems I can claim to understand (though to no great depth) are taekwondo (WTF - and the SD applications of the poomsae ), Wudang TCC (with the same preoccupation ) and FEKM krav maga. Krav Maga is certainly syncretic. I.e. it will adopt techniques that fit the principles of speed, simplicity, effectiveness and control, as we understand those principles, and that can be learned, retained and applied accordingly. So in that sense it might be deemed composite. But the style in which these are learned (how something is taught is integral to km) and practiced is quite distinctive even before we get into the techniques and drills and teaching sequences which are as well. Also, what makes a discipline distinctive is, more than the techniques which are unique to it, the combination and particular emphasis given to the various areas within the whole. https://youtu.be/LWN5DlVEP_I handgun seminar https://youtu.be/p7HACDyUybA handgun details Yann https://youtu.be/7G0qO0VTsho RICHARD stick defences - attack arm up straight - Going Straight At The Attacker’s And No Attempt To block/Control the Initial Attack. https://youtu.be/SpssSAkVNUE time ref: 02.39 going almost straight into a knife attack rather than stepping out of the line (we can discuss whether this is wise, but it does seem particularly FEKM-RD) Time mark 03.53 again the stick defences going straight forwards https://youtu.be/9E1BqmiSAmU . Time mark 00.43 - Defence against forwarded pushing throttle- I have seen similar but the stepping back to 90 rather than turning further is distinctive. Time mark 08.09 forward-dragging headlock (I call it a playground grab when I teach the defence, in France they tend to call it 'prise rugby'. Is there a more technical term?). It is taught early on in the syllabus, unlike the more distinctive weapon-threat responses even though it has several components. The distinctiveness is in this emphasis on such a common attack. Finally, I would let FEKM krav speak for itself alongside other disciplines. The style of movement and the choice of techniques to showcase itself IS distinctive. https://youtu.be/KqwQg1zf8Fw And https://youtu.be/DpEeZxyJ0Vc
Distinctiveness I was answering Hannibal about distinctiveness. I don't really want to get into technique though I could explain what you find no good in a face to face (allowing for some not great video production. )
I think it's very hard to make judgements based on compliant choreography. One of the best ways to assess the core principles of a system, to my mind, is to look at them in unfamiliar contexts. So for me that might be in a pure submission grappling context, or for Knee Rider that might be against multiple opponents. That is where you will see the principles really being worked. You can make anything have a veneer of efficacy when all parties have agreed an outcome beforehand. EDIT: Remi, this does not mean that I'm saying Krav is not distinctive in any way, just that these kind of demos are perhaps not the best way to illustrate your point.
Distinctiveness I agree. However the purpose of my post is not to demonstrate efficiency but distinctiveness. In the videos principally that of immediate and direct linear attack as a defence. On the 2 on 1s, manoeuvring to fight 1 person asap - not as a general principle but as a taught drill. We do it a lot. Efficiency is Darwinian. There is a reason the IDF's main H2H discipline is not Wudang TCC or WTF TKD. Still I would be interested in videos where km is assessed in real fights.
