What characteristics in training describes a person being trained for sport, and for self defence?

Question

Simply put, what differences in training (based on your martial art) would let you know if someone was being trained for sport, and what about self defense?

Answer 1

We do many techniques that are not allowed in sport martial arts. There are no rules.  When we train we are always looking for flaws that might be countered by someone with good skills. We tend to also look at the alternatives if a technique fails.  Training also consists of training to defend against strikes, kicks, locks, throws, ground fighting, and weapons defense. The weapons defense includes both modern weapons and traditional martial arts weapons.  As for the sport aspects, we do not train for tournaments. This is mainly because they have to many rules.  90% of what we do would not be allowed in competition anyway.   In tournaments the judges stop the fight ever time someone scores a point. Before continuing the judges make sure that the fighters are behind the starting lines. That gives both fighters an equal chance to score the next point.  This stopping things is not the way a real fight goes. Once one fighter is in control he should never give the opponent a chance to take control of things.

Answer 2

For self defense: you train in real-life situations, and consider a no-quarter type of fighting.

For sport: you train with a set of rules, for points.

Answer 3

there is much crossover in the methodology that SHOULD be followed by both that makes good training good regardless.

training with limiting strikes does not only indicate trainign for sport, generally these rules are the same or similar rules applied for sparring regardless because even non sport schools dont' want the liability of a broken student in the hospital suing (and you can get around waivers).

I would designate the differeneces as the following:

1- if your sparring and training includes heavy emphasis on training in a specific type of arena and USING THAT TYPE OF ARENA AS A TACTIC OR TECHNIQUE and it drives the techinques you learn, Ie: using the ring to cut off a fighter or learning to be a "technical fighter that scores on points and wins rounds".  although this skill can be utilized to cut off surroundings in the street.

2- focus on power, as stated above would be more important than focus on using the "ruleset to win".

3- when your instructor doesn't teach you outside your ruleset-

your ruleset might be realistic, but if your goal is to become a good boxer, then of course you are looking to become a good boxer and not expand your skillset because thats your bread and butter (if you are going career).

there really isn't much way to separate the two so long as you are training under a realistic ruleset, an unrealistic ruleset (like tkd) indicates training for sport.

however, if this is some way to denigrate "sportative" styles in a pathetic attempt to make yourself have false confidence that your (insert generic art here) will protect you against a boxer/mt/bjjer/sanda/samo, etc. who has trained against fully resisting opponents and you have not, you are going to be in for a rude awakening when your *** gets koed, submitted, etc.

most sportative styles might be broken into standup or grappling but the basic rulesets that offer realism are the ones that are pretty much similarly applied for safetys sake in "non sport" arts' sparring.

show me a school that permits eye pokes, groin strikes and biting, and I'll show you a lawsuit waiting to happen if it hasn't already- such a school would be closed down very quickly.

the lines between effective fight training and realistic sportative training under realistic rulesets are very very very blurry indeed.

whetehr you come down to sport or not I think really is how you apply what you have learned, because even hard contact non-sport styles will spar under safety conditions to prevent uneccesary injury to thier students. JUST LIKE A SPORTATIVE STYLE'S RULES.

I think the bigger question is "what are the limits of yours tyle and do you recognize them".

if you train in non-sport, and its a striking only style, then you are in the same boat as a boxer or mt guy when they face a bjj guy or jiujitsu guy.

Answer 4

Realistic training

fully resistant partners

hard contact  not bone breaking knockout contact but hard enough to let him know that could have been the result besides the possible lawsuits if you start breaking bones and handing out concussions pay back is a ***** if you get all badass with the wrong guy.

Throws and locks a must and any gloves worn must be designed to allow for them.

Controlling the clinch

No rounds it continues non stop until the instructor calls stop.

If you train as the above it's up to you what avenue you wish to explore sport or self defense or both.

Understand that you can make it as real as you want but sparring is a learning process not a real fight and you may be top dog in your dojo but in someone elses not much.

Answer 5

I could tell if some one was sport trained for self defense verus traditional trainng by the way they talk, and they way they fight.

Sports fighters tend to pull punches if point or are used to gloves and rules if in the ring. Self defense are just basics to get you away and safe and traditionalist are very strict minded and what I would worry about the most. Just my opinion.

All ways are beneficial, it depends on what the user needs it for.