was doing some light sparing with my son

[Aslan]

We were just going through some simple blocks and strikes the other night - something we used to do more often but stuff seems to keep getting in the way.

We started talking about dumb things we've seen people do in tournaments, like falling backwards and doing a kick to the opponents stomach. This can work in a tourney, because you can score a quick point. But it would be suicide on the street.

Another one is to ball up you body so that the point zone is covered. Sure the other guy can score a point, but on the street you're going to get the crap beat out of you.

After going through a few others, it became clear to us that picking a school based on the number of trophies on display would be a bad thing - if you are interested in self-defense or offensive skills.

If you want to pick a school because of the competition or sporting aspect of the art, then that would probably be a good indicator to go by.

just some random thoughts I thought I'd share....
:devil:

[Wylycoyte]

I think it also depends on the nature of the tournaments. Games of tag like you describe aren't the same as full contact matches.

[Aslan]

True, I should have specified "point" tournaments, as opposed to full contact. Although there are still a lot of restrictions present in full contact matches as well.

My main point, is that the schools that emphasize tournaments are probably teaching bad habits to their students. (At least from a street survival perspective)

:devil:

[Wylycoyte]

Yep. Dont disagree with your main point at all.

[Wylycoyte]

Here's something pretty relevant that was posted on another forum by a man who goes by Belisarius.

"Gents, I wanted to say that I personally am extremely pleased with this thread. I think it is a microcosm of the highly productive direction that TPI is going in. Rather than endless "sport vs. street" issues and the attendant false dilemmas, what we have is that multi-disciplinary and integrationist approach that has been missing in so many online discussion boards.

To use a highly simplified model, I think we all know that unarmed combat systems can be grouped into four rough categories:

A) Things that work in the ring AND work on the street.

B) Things that work in the ring BUT DO NOT work on the street.

C) Things that don't work in the ring BUT work on the street.

D) Things that don't work in the ring AND DO NOT work on the street.

I think it is fair to say that the number of things in Group B is far less than the number of things which just totally suck (I believe that most MAs fall into Group D and try to disguise it through rhetorical constructs), so a good primary filter is to look at MMA for a point of departure, just as a good first pass is to look to the aggressive, squared-off, MI-based shooting turret approach used for handgun, rifle, and shotgun in USPSA 3-Gun competition. Ambush-oriented tactics, decision-making under uncertainty, the amygdala hijacking phenomenon, ECQ shooting while engaged in HTH, and so on are critically important and these normally won't be addressed by combat or tactical sports, but we can form an empirically verifiable, high-performance foundation first and then address these kinds of concerns.

We can take the MMA platform and then attempt to carve out the dumb Group B stuff, while also attempting to harness the useful Group C stuff (using multivariate scenario training to build decision skills, HighGear/Bulletman to save wear & tear and work the foul shots, airsoft or Sims FoF for the gunfighting, etc.). There's no need to compromise on testable performance standards; the stuff can all be integrated into one basic fighting platform.

We have systems based around the sucker punch, such as WWII Combatives; systems that piggy-back on the body alarm reaction and our genetically-hardwired "autopilot" specifications to introduce useful frame positions from which we can scramble to other, specific techniques; and systems based on nasty clinch work and edged weapons integration (FMA) to incorporate and fill in various gaps and weaknesses left open by the rule structures of combat sports. I'd put all of these in "Group C". I think it is interesting that smart specialist guys like Blauer have seen the tactical athlete/MMA-Gunslinger-Operator writing on the wall and already started to orient themselves in that direction."

http://www.totalprotectioninteractive.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1576&page=4

[DJetAce]

Just try balling up when a few of them bounce you and one of them has a club. You will be lucky if you make it to the hospital. I am not a beliver in ground fighting as anything but a bad situation made worse.

Most of these gound fighters are very very strong. So how do they teach it to people who are not very strong? Simple, weight classes in sparring. That way, a 140 lb man won't have to ground fight a 220lb man. That is what's wrong. There should be no weight classes in such as UCF. That way, for the lighter weight guys to win they will have to come up with methods to defeat ground fighters without groundfighting!