Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Competitive Rulesets for Self Defence Training

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Competitive Rulesets for Self Defence Training

    This is something that I've been thinking about for a little while now. If we accept the aliveness principle, take into account the idea of delivery systems, etc., and that ultimately the only factor in the effectiveness of the alive arts (BJJ, MT, MMA, etc.) in a RBSD setting is essentially the tactics, can we train slightly more relevant (argue away) tactics in an competitive setting?

    Firstly, do you think it has any value? Secondly, what ruleset would you like to see?

    A rough sketch to get things going (with some effort to take into account common RBSD tropes like multiple attackers, etc:

    Take the MMA ruleset and equipment as a basis, maybe with some kind of clothed variant too. Single round (whatever length), stricter penalties for stalling (i.e. 3-5 seconds or so) whether standing or grappling (or holding a submission that hasn't succeeded in an allotted time), higher points for throws that end with the attacker standing, no head kicks, no pulling guard, etc.

    (Again, this is just a rough idea, argue the merits of these at will.)

    Thirdly, do you think that this kind of ruleset would have a significant impact on the application of current combat athletics (in this context)?

    *Hides*

    #2
    I am incredibly lazy, so I am not going to post the video, but somewhere on the interweb Matt Thornton talks about how his crew used to train in various "self defence" scenarios.

    He noted that those that did the best in those scenarios tended to be those who were best at fighting.

    Best solution, learn to fight.

    Comment


      #3
      When we spar in my Kali class, I just say "Alright boys, no nuts, no eyes and no throat shots. Anything else goes. " So we pull hair, wrench fingers, fishhook and stomp each other to or black hearts' content. We use minimal gear; just MMA gloves; or MMA gloves and padded sticks; or lacross gloves, headgear and small sticks; or lacross gloves and fencing masks. ...depending on the training.
      We use a timer sometimes and generally set it for 1 or 3 min. or we just go until everyone gives up. Wer do team fights, we do 2 on 1 3 on 1 and 1 against all and all vs all. We start guys backed 0into a corner with three guys he has to blast through to escape. We do

      Funny thing is, none of the rough stuff every really got anyone hurt. Any injuries were always from normal techniques or from bad form in blocking (fingers extended, etc...)

      So 1. yes it has value, 2 the above is the rules set we use, and 3 I don't know howmuch impact it would have on combat athletics. Athletics is by default a game with rules. Take jiujitsu for example. there a bunch of rules about not hitting and biting and all that. or MMA for that matter. Imagine MMA with breaking fingers and gouging eyes and cruching throats...its not an athletic thing anymore. For athletics, you do what you have to do to win...within the established rules. Combat has no rules so you do whetever you have to do to win. People interested in athletics are not going to be doing what it takes to win outside of the sport aspects. Someone interested in combat beyond competition however can learn a great deal by pissing all over those rules.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by bombom View Post
        I am incredibly lazy, so I am not going to post the video, but somewhere on the interweb Matt Thornton talks about how his crew used to train in various "self defence" scenarios.

        He noted that those that did the best in those scenarios tended to be those who were best at fighting.

        Best solution, learn to fight.
        Yeah, I remember that clip, but that's the idea: create a setting where the quality of fighter would be essentially the same, only the context would be different. I think it'd be interesting to see fights where some of the more common sporting tactics are no longer legitimate, and I'd like to see the effect this would have on the various delivery systems and the types of fighters it would produce.

        EDIT: @Killbot: I'm not even advocating allowing gouges and biting (but I think your rule set sounds very interesting), just a change in tactics. Keep the same competitive environment, but use a modified ruleset to make the priorities different.
        Last edited by RoughRobot; 2/23/2011 9:54am, .

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by RoughRobot View Post
          Take the MMA ruleset and equipment as a basis, maybe with some kind of clothed variant too. Single round (whatever length), stricter penalties for stalling (i.e. 3-5 seconds or so) whether standing or grappling (or holding a submission that hasn't succeeded in an allotted time), higher points for throws that end with the attacker standing, no head kicks, no pulling guard, etc.
          Sounds like slightly modified combat sambo.

          Comment


            #6
            Single round (whatever length), stricter penalties for stalling (i.e. 3-5 seconds or so) whether standing or grappling (or holding a submission that hasn't succeeded in an allotted time)
            I found this interesting. If you look at the early ufc matches there were no points, no stalling and no time limit. Stalling is a very valid tactic when fighting as well as a way to control and wear down your opponent especially with grappling. You win by submission or KO.
            Your proposed rule set favors aggression. Not necessarily bad but there is a bias for rewarding an attacking mind set. Using Combat Sambo as an example remember it was developed for the military where developing an aggressive attacking mind set is desirable. Not sure that's the right mind set for RBSD rules where survival is the goal.

            Comment


              #7
              +1 with Walrus Mike.

              If your true basic concept is Reality Based Self-Defense, the idea isn't to last for a pre-specified period of time for a round, it is to get to a position to be able to escape safely. Knowing that you have "2 minutes" left on a round and you are decisively defeating your "attacker" or "victim" and not allowing for "stalling" will generally lead to either indecisive striking at the beginning, knowing you have 3 minutes to fill, or excessive striking at the finish, knowing you might be penalized for stalling it out and not keeping up the action.

              Try just getting to a point of being able to disengage from the fight, regardless as to how long it takes. If you beat the guy quickly and soundly or the two of you keep on like Keith David and Rowdy Roddy Piper in They Live, it is more reality based then "well...I got two minutes left on the round...might as well just beat on his ass some more so I don't stall"

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Lindz View Post
                Sounds like slightly modified combat sambo.
                I must check out their rules.

                There could always be other qualifiers for a win, i.e. decisive pins (maybe requiring the opponent be face down?) or whatever else you think fits...

                The "no stalling" rule was posited with the aim that in a genuine situation, the odds of your attacker letting up without you decisively finishing him are slim, so the rules would be a better reflection of that aspect of fighting for all involved. I was also leaning towards the idea that the amount of aggression would increase the chance of an early (T)KO on either side, rather than having the contenders trying to fill out a round.

                Also, let it be known that I would watch anything resembling Piper V David on PPV.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Are you thinking of this as another form of MMA, so to speak, or as a way to add realism to RBSD?

                  From you last post is sounds like the 1st.

                  That's cool but I think you're missing a big part of the self defense in your rules.

                  Are you going to have weight classes as well? What about male vs female?

                  Just curious.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    What if there were goals that weren't necissarily to "beat" the other player? How about we have a ring with a door or exit of some kind and the contestants each take turns either trying to throw the other out while one tries to stay in (more of a bouncer scenerio) or trying to leave while the other fights to keep you in the ring. Just a thought.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by M1K3 View Post
                      If you look at the early ufc matches there were no points, no stalling and no time limit. Stalling is a very valid tactic when fighting as well as a way to control and wear down your opponent especially with grappling.
                      No stalling? Then what the heck was going on during Shamrock-Gracie 2?
                      You make a good point though. Renzo Gracie says something similar in "Mastering Jiu Jitsu", I can't remember the exact quote, but the gist is that if a 250 pound man tackles you to the ground on THE D34DLY STR33Ts, and you immediately wrap him in a tight guard and hang on till security/police pull you apart, then you should count that as win.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Vince Tortelli View Post
                        No stalling? Then what the heck was going on during Shamrock-Gracie 2?
                        You make a good point though. Renzo Gracie says something similar in "Mastering Jiu Jitsu", I can't remember the exact quote, but the gist is that if a 250 pound man tackles you to the ground on THE D34DLY STR33Ts, and you immediately wrap him in a tight guard and hang on till security/police pull you apart, then you should count that as win.
                        LOL. What I meant is there were no rules or penalties for stalling.

                        Hell, I'm 57 yo and when I roll I call what I do playing a defensive game. To the people I'm rolling with it's stalling. Don't care, it works for me. I'm the slowest person on the mats at my school so I'll be damned if I'm going to give them young whippersnappers something to latch onto.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Vince Tortelli View Post
                          No stalling? Then what the heck was going on during Shamrock-Gracie 2?
                          You make a good point though. Renzo Gracie says something similar in "Mastering Jiu Jitsu", I can't remember the exact quote, but the gist is that if a 250 pound man tackles you to the ground on THE D34DLY STR33Ts, and you immediately wrap him in a tight guard and hang on till security/police pull you apart, then you should count that as win.
                          then go round out your game with some KE?PO and season that guard with some nut/eye shots to cleanse the palate

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by M1K3 View Post
                            Are you thinking of this as another form of MMA, so to speak, or as a way to add realism to RBSD?

                            From you last post is sounds like the 1st.

                            That's cool but I think you're missing a big part of the self defense in your rules.

                            Are you going to have weight classes as well? What about male vs female?

                            Just curious.
                            At the moment, I'm leaning towards modified MMA, because once you get too far into RBSD training (like including mixed gender/weight class training), you are pretty much guaranteed to be introducing a level of compliance, and losing the genuine competitive element which is so valuable to MA training.

                            Still though, the rules I threw up are just examples, I'm looking to see what other people think would be useful.

                            Originally posted by donoraen View Post
                            What if there were goals that weren't necissarily to "beat" the other player? How about we have a ring with a door or exit of some kind and the contestants each take turns either trying to throw the other out while one tries to stay in (more of a bouncer scenerio) or trying to leave while the other fights to keep you in the ring. Just a thought.
                            While I think this kind of training could definitely be valuable I, again, think you lose some of the ability to measure absolute performance against another person, reducing the competitive aspect, which will take away from the quality of the training.

                            Nothing fuels functional MA like genuine competition.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by RoughRobot View Post
                              At the moment, I'm leaning towards modified MMA, because once you get too far into RBSD training (like including mixed gender/weight class training), you are pretty much guaranteed to be introducing a level of compliance, and losing the genuine competitive element which is so valuable to MA training.

                              Still though, the rules I threw up are just examples, I'm looking to see what other people think would be useful.



                              While I think this kind of training could definitely be valuable I, again, think you lose some of the ability to measure absolute performance against another person, reducing the competitive aspect, which will take away from the quality of the training.

                              Nothing fuels functional MA like genuine competition.
                              But, you're not talking about a functional MA, you're talking about self defense. Big difference.

                              In your functional MA you are learning tactics and how to use them.

                              In self defense training if you are at the point of using anything beyond a fence then your self defense has already failed.

                              I think your modified MMA rules will work for some of what you are trying to do but you are going to have to come up with a different way to look at it and score it. One person is the aggressor and the other is the target. Aggressor wins by actually winning the fight ie victim taps outs or is overwhelmed. Victim wins by surviving the round (equivalent of the good guys showing up and stopping the fight), escaping the ring, or overwhelming the attacker.

                              Round lengths are variable say between 30 seconds and 5 minutes. Neither the aggressor nor the victim knows the length of the round.

                              No weight classes and M/F matches are a long term goal.

                              Aggressor may verbally abuse the victim before the timer goes off to set up the adrenal dump. Victim may respond with whatever you have taught them about controlling the situation including trying to maneuver to the exit spot of the ring even before the bell rings (maybe, not sure on this one). Once bell goes off victim may use a preemptive strike, they do not have to wait for the aggressor to attack.

                              Its ok if the victim loses a lot. You are trying to be realistic (Rbsd) and so sorry that's the way it is in real life.

                              Just my 2 cents/pence.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X