Why attend a SD school?

I assume that self-defence schools cover


1.) Not getting into a threatening situation (e.g. not walking down dark alleys while alone at night).

2.) Once in a threatening situation, how to de-escalate that situation (e.g. verbal and non verbal cues, removing yourself from the environment).

3.) Dealing with a threatening situation once physical confrontation is either begun or is inevitable.


This differs from Sport Arts such as MMA in so far as sport arts generally don't deal with the first and second aspects listed above, and the way that they deal with the third aspect is more focused in a number of ways.


a.) Sport arts focus on a 1 on 1 situation, and do not deal with multiple attacker scenarios.

b.) There are rules in sport arts (no-one in a boxing match is going to pull a bottle out).

c.) The aim in a sport contest situation is to win, escaping is seen as losing.


The first impression after examining these facts is that SD training is superior for a SD encounter than learning a sport art. In fact you would expect this to be true, as this is the sole purpose of SD arts. However, when we look at the first two areas in which SD arts differ from sport arts:

Not getting into a threatening situation.
Once in a threatening situation, how to de-escalate that situation.

You have to ask if training in these two areas provides any advantage. We know that competency in a h2h conflict is directly proportional to amount and quality of training, but can we say the same for conflict avoidance and de-escalation? Ignoring people in high risk roles (e.g. police, corrections officers) for the sake of brevity, people that tend to put themselves into high risk situations are generally gung-ho personalities (disproportionately young men), intoxicated or otherwise impaired, and disinclined to listen to advice on staying away from dangerous environments. Although they will listen willingly to a discussion on how it is best to walk away, the next time that they are in a bar and some sleaze pats their girlfriend on the bum they will take it as a deadly insult unable to be resolved by any action short of fisticuffs.

I believe that de-escalation and conflict avoidance are arts that you tend to develop with maturity, and that classroom/dojo learning will have little discernable effect. People that go into downtown areas for drinks and partying are unlikely to alter their lifestyle choices because a martial arts instructor suggests that they are putting themselves in danger. On the flipside, telling a 50 year old matron not to walk down dark alleyways at 3 in the morning is a complete waste of time, she already knows that doing this would be stupid.


This leaves us to compare the value of the training of SD schools versus that of Sport schools in a situation where a physical confrontation has either begun or is inevitable. Obviously, Sport schools spend a greater proportion of their time on physical confrontation, but (as noted above) the way that they approach that confrontation is different.

One of the obvious differences is that Sport arts do not cover multiple attacker scenarios. I would argue that in a multiple attacker scenario, the outcome depends far less on the training of the defender than on the intent of the attackers. In a 1 vs 2 situation you are very unlikely to win unless your opponents are either much smaller and weaker than yourself or highly intoxicated. In a 1 vs 5 situation you almost certainly will lose, and the extent of your injuries will depend purely on the will of your attackers. I do not see any value in training a multiple scenario situation as a positive outcome will depend on having incompetent attackers, and I believe in a SD situation you should always be operating from the assumption that your attacker/s are skilled.

Another difference is that the vast majority of Sport arts do not cover the use of weapons. This is definitely an area where quality SD training is superior to Sport training. For a sport practitioner to gain proficiency in use of (and defence from) weapons they would have to supplement their training with another art. Admittedly, the weapons training at most SD schools is sub-par, but at least the topic is covered.

A third difference is the intended outcome. In a SD school the aim is to protect yourself (and your friends/family), escaping is seen as a positive outcome. In a sport environment the aim is generally to incapacitate your opponent. Although Sport arts do teach skills such as escaping from a corner, or safely regaining your feet from being on the ground, they still operate on the premise that once you have removed yourself from an unfavourable position you will re-enter the fray. Although people argue that a practitioner of a sport art would make common-sense adjustments to ther style in a SD environment, I am of the opinion that generally people fight how they train.


Although the balance of factors above suggests that SD arts are superior to Sport arts in a SD situation, there is one major area where SD arts fail (in my opinion). The area of failure is training methodology. While sport arts are constantly refining their techniques and training methodologies through competition between schools, even SD schools that practice in a resistant manner generally only do so in-house. This generally leads to poor training methodologies. Generally the importance of physical conditioning (strength, anaerobic fitness, etc.) is de-emphasised, and unrealistic (too deadly) techniques and quick-fixes begin to creep in. Small woman are taught that they can disable attackers that are twice their size with a groin-strike.

Even supposedly realistic SD training is done in an unrealistic manner. A good way to show the different attitudes to realistic training is to compare the Sport training model of escalating levels of contact in training which culminate in competition, versus the self defence model which culminates in Redman Suit training.

When we take MMA as an example of a sport art, the progression of contact runs:

1). One-man drills such as shadow-boxing.
2). Two-man compliant drills (pummelling etc...).
3). Two-man non-compliant drills (try to execute this technique while your opponent tries to stop you).
4). Low-contact or restricted sparring (rolling is an example of this).
5). Heavy-contact sparring.
6). Limited rules competition.

And this can be compared with the SD progression of contact which generally runs:

1). One-man drills.
2). Two-man compliant drills.
3). Low-contact or restricted sparring (not at all gyms).
4). Redman Suit scenario training.

Now, although in my opinion scenario training is superior to training in a ring for SD, Redman Suit training is far less realistic than even heavy-contact sparring (let alone competition). The excessive protection of a Redman Suit means that the wearer has to choose one of two options when responding to attacks. Either he can mimic what he would expect his response to an attack would be (if he wasn't suited), or he can just accept that his responses will not mirror an unsuited persons. Neither of these is ideal, although the first is probably more harmful to the development of good technique than the second.

A second issue with Redman Suit training is the cumbersome nature of the suit means that the attacks are slower, and the suit wearer is weaker against grappling techniques than would be the case in the absence on a suit (enhanced leverage combined with decreased flexibility, speed, vision and balance).

This really shows that contact is either de-emphasised at SD schools, or trained in a manner that is far less useful than a heavy sparring session. Experiencing heavy contact is crucial training, and although many SD schools train to inflict heavy contact, almost none train to deal with receiving it.

When you combine these weaknesses with the fact that SD schools generally train to deal with either unskilled attackers (i.e. "grab my sleeve" or "throw a haymaker") or borderline static attackers (i.e. "throw a punch but leave your arm out"), then in a SD situation I would much rather have a Sport art practitioner watching my back than someone who has trained in SD specifically, and if I was to train for SD confrontations I would choose a sport art to train in.

 

Hi Kave

Thank you for an interesting post.

The above subject areas are huge, particularly the first one. Whether people need training in these areas depends largely on their upbringing and school environment as well as their genetics. The difference in focus between self protection schools and sports schools on the third element is quite natural because they are dealing with quite different (though overlapping) psychological and physical entities.

While it is often cited, I think item b is a bit of a straw man. There are more variables and risks in a real fight than in a sporting competition, but depending on the environment in which the fight takes place one or more of the combatants is always restrained/hampered fully or partially by an inability to bring themselves to do certain things.

The quality of training offered by different providers varies considerably. I've seen a lot of self protection stuff that is dross dressed up as gold. But any good self protection instructor would point out to the housewife that actually she is less likely to get attacked walking down a dark alleyway than she is in the high street because the majority of violent crime happens where people are the majority of the time. Robberies in the areas we already know are dangerous are minority events. Real self protection training would have worked on her awareness in crowds.

Does the training work? I'm trying to think of a polite way to put this. Most of the research I've done on the subject matter comes from police, psychologists and prison service professionals and is the results of thousands of people's experiences in conflict management. It is the stuff taught to very professional people who police our streets and they make it work on a regular basis. It doesn't just work because of the uniform, the numbers or the weapons, although those obviously can be inhibitors to violence. Most of the personal training I've had in conflict resolution has come from former prison officers and hostage negotiators and is used to train care workers and doorman. While doormen don't always have a great image, they too in my experience tend to avoid more conflicts than they create against people often very determined to kick off.

No conflict resolution training is going to guarantee that you will walk out of every situation without a fight, but any training is better than no training. I am aware of some lower quality stuff out there, but most of the people I talk to and work with are very very good at what they do.

You mentioned that you don't believe that training multiple attacker scenarios has any value.
In the country where I predominantly teach, multiple assailant events make up roughly 40% of violent incidents. Last year's BCS recorded that one on one fights made up 66% of incidents, two on one 9%, three on one 6% and four or more 19%.
The value of the training depends upon its intensity and the degree of realism you can put into it (or not). I have run lots of multiple attacker events over the years and certain truths become apparent:
1. It is not always easy for two people to effectively attack one person without getting in each other's way - this applies to three people as well, once you get to four people the person can be smothered if you can box them in but it becomes hard to land decent shots and damage is caused more by the length of the attack and being able to force the other guy to the ground through weight and stomp on them.
2. Training in multiple person events teaches good movement to reduce the efficiency of assailant numbers.
3. The more people have trained in multiple person events the more likely they are to be able to deal with them.
The thing about groups of people is that they are just people. Some strong, some weak, some aggressive, some not. Sometimes taking down just one person can cause the whole group to run. Furthermore I've found that students who have worked with multiple numbers under pressure are calmer and better at dealing with the one on one situations, so the multiple training has benefits that extend beyond that scenario.
Obviously for the training to have value there has to be a degree of pressure and I recognise that not every self defence group does that.
The video below breaks down one 'brown belt' student's first simulated training event. It looks at his three acclimatisation one on one events (the same thing at three different speeds), and then his first and second experiences of two on ones. The two on ones start at 4.12.
He is now much much better at dealing with multiple person situations because he has had practise.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJJ_A6o8v1k"]Simday 2 Coaching Observations - YouTube[/ame]

I agree. A lot of groups don't test their stuff against other people and this is a weakness.

I'm not a fan of the redman, it lacks reality. The armour I use puts very little restriction on movement and you feel pain and get winded when hit hard (especially in my homemade skins stuff).

Good self defence schools train to defend against HAOV because that is what you will get except in very rare circumstances. People who don't tend to train against HAOV tend to get hit by them because they aren't used to spotting the telegraphs and at close range action beats reaction. I will agree with you though that a lot of the groups use pretty weak attacks.

 

I felt the knees and sticks they got me with through JWTs armour and the the strikes to the head

 

You had Mitch's nice Spartan Training Gear, albeit the older version than the one currently on sale. My stuff is far more flexible (no plates) but with that comes greater 'feeling'.:Angel:

 

Hi Kave

I think you make some good points but also some gross generalisations. One point in particular caught my attention...

I have to disagree. Conflict avoidance strategies may fall on deaf ears but de-escalation skills can be taught effectively in a training environment. I've been doing so for some years and can confirm that several of my students have effectively used them.

They're probably not as good as I am at de-escalation but then I have the advantage of both experience and training. On one hand, no amount of training is a replacement for experience. But on the other hand, there are plenty of people who have experience of real assaults but fail to learn anything about de-escalation.

Mike

 

I understand from your bio that you developed your de-escalation skills while working in a security environment? Although my security experience is not as extensive as yours, I worked in the industry for a few years as a "mobile patrolman". I saw many security guards that had effective de-escalation skills, and just as many that were more likely to inflame situations. I definitely did not notice de-escalation skills being developed on the job, instead I saw that people tended to respond to threats in a manner that reflected their personality. The difference between calm and agressive guards that I noticed was that the calm ones seemed to last longer in the job, so senior guards seemed to have better skills, but that was because the aggressive ones left, not because of any amazing skills developed on the job.

Did you have much useful conflict de-escalation training yourself, or just what you picked up on the job? Are you sure that your abilities aren't purely the result of being a person who is calm, well spoken, and not naturally aggressive (the traits that I believe go with effective de-escalation abilities). Perhaps you did some courses in de-escalation that were more useful than the training offered where I was working (which admittedly was minimal).

 

From your videos, your armour definitely seems far better than a Redman Suit, but the helmets seem to be overkill, especially for the attacks that are being used. The two main problems I see with the helmet are:

1). It changes tactics (discourages head strikes).
People may target the body more, as they are aware that their headstrikes will be ineffective against the helmet. The effectiveness of headlocks, chokes and many other moves are drastically altered. The person being attacked is encouraged to throw strikes without having to worry as much about the effectiveness of their own guard (often not guarding themselves at all).

2). It hides the effect of headstrikes.
People do not get to develop the understanding that although a punch in the face is unpleasant, and tends to lead to blood noses and cut lips, it is something that you can fight through. The importance of a good defence of your head is also de-emphasised. The protection provided by the helmet will alter natural reactions to being struck in the head, but this will not carry through to a non-helmeted situation. Although people shouldn't be being knocked out in training, being rocked a few times teaches you valuable lessons that cannot be learned by any other method.

I think scenario training is excellent, but if the level of protection is too high (as it almost always is) then it's value is negated. The people who might gain the most from scenario training are those who already have experience in a heavy contact striking sport art (Boxing, Muay Thai etc.). Without experience with proper contact, I believe that someone who has trained solely in a protected SD environment will find all their training will go straight out the window as soon as that first solid strike to the head lands.

 

Quite the opposite I think. I've never been totally happy hitting people in the face. Even with boxing gloves on. It's not in my nature.
Put a helmet on though and I felt much happier doing so.
The first time I ever did helmeted sparring I unbalanced a guy and as he stumbled kicked him in the face hard enough for the (admitedly crappy) face mask to go back and cut his forehead. Never would have done that without a mask.
Obviously helmets aren't perfect. But then neither is getting repeatedly punched in the face.
Like in all things I think you need to "triangulate" what you want to achieve by using multiple approachs, none of which are perfect but which attempt to negate the flaws in each approach.
Getting hit in the helmet (steady!) can actually increase the effect of a hit because they increase leverage on the head and strikes don't slide off them as easily as a sweaty head IMHO. They offer a bigger target too.
Swings and roundabouts.

 

What benefits would you say are gained by wearing a helmet? I would argue that the tradeoffs generally aren't worth it (although it would probably have value in specific training, such as that involving weapons).

I definitely agree that SD training can and should involve heavy contact, and if it does it would be excellent (and my argument against it would fail). My only issue is I have never seen an example of heavy-contact SD training. If you have any video evidence that any SD guys submit themselves to a similar level of contact as Sport Striking guys do (i.e. comparitive to what would be experienced in a match in Muay Thai, Boxing, Knockdown Karate or similar), then I would be very interested.

 

No, but taking and participating in fights is one of the ways which they develop their skills. Each match is not an end but merely another step along the path. Taking a fight allows you to both assess your skills, and further develop them. Losing teaches as much as winning. Competition can almost be considered a facet of training (and one that is just as important as drilling and sparring).

I am not suggesting that this level of intensity should be trained regularly, but it should be trained. If the nature of the art makes it impossible to gain this experience through competition, then an in-house alternative should be created. Once every 6 months would be a reasonable timeframe, even yearly would be better than not doing it at all.

 

Unfortunately I can't speak for Muay Thai, but in my MMA gym we have a beginners class of around 18 regulars of whom none fight. In our intermediate class we have about 6 regulars and the ratio is 50/50 fighters. I guess that works out at around 13%.

I can see the point you are making, but no-one at our gym who doesn't fight would claim to be competent in MMA. It is clear to all at our gym that competition helps imbue attributes that will not otherwise be gained from training. In fact I would say that a large portion of turnover in our MMA classes is as a result of people realising that to develop in MMA they need to either choose to compete or remain mediocre, and they find both options unpalatable.

 

Those opportunities ARE available to anyone who is determined enough to join a Competitive dojo/gym and get in the ring. But they are not the point.

It's true, fighting competitively offers huge bonuses, the ability to test a portion of what you know -namely that which is safe for your level of competition- against a relatively anonymous and incredibly resistant opponent can heighten a practitioners appreciation for technical nuances and strategy in a way that sparring may not.

However what these specific "Sim-Day" scenarios offer, is not necessarily the ability to understand "fighting" in the broad abstract sense of people punching one another. But the context -there's that word again- in which fighting happens.

Sim Days offer the unique experience in letting people get a glimpse into how the confusion of the pre-fight verbal can foster inertia, how having a crowd of individuals can hinder your manoeuvrability and force you to remain vigilant or understand when and why certain attack strategies might -not- be appropriate in various circumstances.

From what I see...

No one is saying that a well run SD experience will give you the same martial arts expertise on karate-do as an Enshin knockdown fight. What they ARE saying is that this kind of scenario training provides an invaluable understanding of how your karate-do fits into the chaotic bigger picture of real world violence.

 

And all I am saying is that ideally (to acheive the stated purpose of an SD school) they occasionally need to at least provide the opportunity to develop that awareness of real-world violence whilst experiencing contact that is closer to what would be experienced in a real-world environment.

Alternatively they could be straight-up with their students and say "you will struggle the first time that someone punches you full force in the face with the intent of harming you, and you will find it difficult to utilise your training. We do not cover this level of contact here for safety reasons, and if you wish to experience it you should take up a heavy contact sport art that includes striking and take a fight or two. Without this experience your development will be somewhat limited".

 

I think you're kind of over-estimating the protection offered by head guards. You'll find in a lot of combat sports head-guards are utilised.

Head-guards help provide protection from cutting and bruising but the actual nasty concussive side of striking doesn't go away. In fact I lost my second MMA fight -in an event that uses headguards- thanks to my opponent absolutely rocking my world with punches, panicking me and making me go for a very bad shot that was sprawled leaving me open for a guillotine.

IMHO fighting with head-guards means you don't need to worry too much about aesthetic injuries but it's far from a pillow-fight

Think of boxing, those big gloves help prevent cuts and broken knuckles but they do nothing to mitigate the over-all force of the blow.

 

I think the issues involved can be best explained by an encounter I had at training on Thursday.

We had a guy who has spent the requisite three months in our beginner class, and stepped up to join the sparring/intermediate class. In our beginner classes we are taught the basics of striking, focusing on shell and guard-work, jab, hook and cross for punches, and the teep and thai roundhouse for kicks. Grappling instruction is in the basics of takedowns, takedown-defence, simple armbars and chokes.

As soon as sparring started this guy was all spinning-kicks and flailing punches. All techniques he had been taught went straight out the window. He was totally unable to deal with the increase in the level of contact. This is standard for anyone who is sparring for the first time.

A similar drop in usable ability happens when the intensity is raised further the first time you step in the ring. If you watch first-time fights (locally we have the ICNZ Grassroots series which is all first-timers), you will see BJJ purples getting choked out by poorly executed guillotines, and guys who are excellent strikers in training throwing ineffective flailing punches while their guard falls apart.

Training is important, and training safely is very important. However, learning to deal with an attack made with real intent to harm cannot be done with light-contact training. Not everyone is willing to make the sacrifices required to develop their skills in a combatitive environment (in fact very few are), but those that wont make those sacrifices should not be being taught that they can defend themselves.