What so great about sparring??? [Archive]

curtis

09-15-2003, 03:17 PM

What so great about sparring? For the majority of people it is just a waste of time!!! What do you learn? The answer is very little.
If you believe sparring is the only way to become good, you might as well forget the idea of learning all together.
All too many martial artists jumped right in to sparring, they never let themselves have the time that's necessary in order to learn. They're all to eager to smash their heads together, it's like some kind of primal instinct.
Sparring is like a tool, it is only as good as the person who can use it.
Like a tool, a certain amount of skill and knowledge are necessary, in order to achieve the desired results.
Also if sparring is a tool, you must realize that there are many other tools out there that must be learned, before anything of any value can be made, from these tools. It's like learning to carve, using dull knife/chisel, the end results are never satisfactory, and many more accidents are cause from dull tools, ( because of the extra force applied to a dull tool,causes you to have little control over the tools cutting edge.)
Although if the tools are sharp and finely honed, they will perform much better, and make the challenges seemed effortless.
There is no quick way to achieve mastery,in any skill ( be it in the skilledtrades, or martial artist.) it takes time and persistence, (AND practice!) there are no exceptions!
Take the time, that's necessary in order to learn. Then and only then, will you be ready to choose which tool you prefer to use. To achieve the mastery you desire.
Sincerely yours. C.A.G.

apoweyn

09-16-2003, 07:32 AM

What's so great about sparring?

It's essential to critical thinking.

I agree with you that little can be learned from banging on one another without instruction. But by the same token, I don't think it should be left very long before people get to take a move "into the lab."

Many schools teach a bucket full of moves, train them in the mirror, or perhaps on pads. Then, after a certain number of months, you get to spar. And we magically expect you to be able to use all those moves in sparring.

Doesn't make much sense.

To my mind, a better progression is to learn a move or two. Train them on the mitts, shield, etc. And then work controlled sparring drills with them (e.g., you can both only use jabs OR your opponent can kick and you can jab/cross).

I think the reason that people generally get unsatisfactory results from sparring is that they spend all this time perfecting how a technique should work. In a controlled environment. So the kick looks perfect in the mirror. Then the gulf between ideal and real is so wide when you get to sparring that many people can't effectively cross it. You end up just alternating throwing your best techniques, without any real sense of the objective or the results.

Wrestlers and boxers, on the other hand, learn to reconcile real and ideal much sooner in their education. And it shows.

Sparring is just a tool, yes. But, in my opinion, it should be a frequent checkpoint. Learn a technique, drill a technique, spar a technique.

Stuart B.

Dark Knight

09-16-2003, 01:04 PM

Sparring is a tool, an important tool.

In order to get good you have to have the basic skills of your techniques. You have to learn how to punch, kick, trap, combinations, flow… but you can practice this all the time, with out live training you will not have the skills when the time comes.

Look at Judo. The practitioners have to spend hundreds of hours practicing the throws, there are only 65 throws in Judo, but its not the number but how well you can do them. After practicing them for months the student tries them on a resisting moving opponent. Now it’s a lot different, the opponent does not move how you thought he should and the throw is not working.

The same goes for any style, if you have not practiced on a live opponent, you have not developed the timing and skills to pull them off.

I have fought with hundreds of people over the last 25 years, and many that came from styles that didn’t spar. They did not have the skills to make their fighting work. They looked good in practice, but not when the rubber meets the pavement.

Schools that spar do not throw students out on the first day, even in boxing you learn basic skills first, then you can spar. And after you start sparring a lot of time is spent on drills, constant practice of drills, combinations, flowing drills, techniques are going to improve, but sparring is an important part of it to develop the skills to make it all come together.

yenhoi

09-16-2003, 04:34 PM

What ap talks about is it. Progressive sparring. Where you still have many options available, so you can make tactical and strategic decisions. Full contact sparring is good 'tool', but you gain skil by working and playing the other stuff.

The main deciding factor in which partner drills are best comes down to which one has both people resisting? Not all drills where both people are resiting have to be hardcore full-striking events. For example, you can grapple and work submissions and takedowns and just about everything else in your arsenal with both people trying to "win."

Full all-out sparring doesnt really train a fighters attributes, its really more of a test that the fighter can learn from, make changes, and try again, rather then a method that actually molds your ability, like sparring with only a lead jab for round after round after round.

:eek:

curtis

09-17-2003, 03:46 PM

NUTS!

that's not to response I expected.

With everyone on this web site pushing sparring so heavily for years, I expected arguments. Not agreements on this topic.

A useful tool should be just that, a useful tool.

Thank you very much for restoring my faith in JKD. :-)
Sincerely yours C.A.G.

Judge Pen

09-19-2003, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by yenhoi

Full all-out sparring doesnt really train a fighters attributes, its really more of a test that the fighter can learn from, make changes, and try again, rather then a method that actually molds your ability, like sparring with only a lead jab for round after round after round.

:eek:

Occassional Full -out sparring is like maxing out when weight training and the progressive drill sparring is akin to the basic weight training sets that make you stronger.

As far as the method of introducing the technique, some people, i.e. forms practitioners, spend more time perfecting the techniqe in a controlled non-resisting environement; which is fine as long as they don't skip out on the drills and progressve sparring either.

chen zhen

09-20-2003, 04:35 AM

In my recent MA adventures.. JKDC and Vale Tudo.. I was thrown into sparring from day one. The techniques we had to work on was not drilled that many times before we had to do them on a resisting opponent, and that made it pretty hard to do it properly, and watching the other beginners, it looked pretty bad. It was like "we have to get through this tech today, as it is in our curriculum. lets try to teach it as quick as possible"
which makes up for some pretty sucky MA'ists in the end.

king chun

10-02-2003, 04:30 AM

lots of sparing = good martial artist (providing you train)

BAI HE

10-04-2003, 03:51 PM

Nothing like getting cracked in the head to figure out if your just going to "Adrenaline dump" and fold up like a tent.
After that? You can throw all yor drilling and technique out the window. Better to find out in class than on the street I suppose.
It is a usefull tool, but then again somebody who can spar well in a controlled enviornment may not be able to carry it over in a real conflict.

Let's face it, you square off with someone in class or in an "event" you know that there is an implicit trust and a set of rules guaranteeing that the other guy doesn't seriously **** you up. If it's an event or tourney? Unlike a real fight your foe is usually roughly in the same weight range and ability level.

I think that sparring is a very usefull tool for developing instinct , reflexes and a variety of applicable combat tools. But one shouldn't confuse success in sparring as being a tough guy outside the gym doors.

Well that's some stuff to think about I guess.

Taijiquan ninja

10-21-2003, 07:57 PM

first off king chun that statment lots of sparing=good martial artist is Entirely wrong. if you dont have a clue what your doing then you will get the crap beat out of you. in my opinion the best way to train is this:

Taijiquan ninja

10-21-2003, 08:00 PM

1learn a few moves.
2then practice on shields or pads.
3then practice on a mirror so you know what your moves look like and so you know what your body is doing when you execute these moves and so you know what it looks like when an opponet chooses to use this move.
4. then begin sparring only assuming you have not tryed to work out a strategy in the mirror to win that you are merely counteracting and predicting your opponets moves in your own defense and not in their defeat because when you practice the move in the mirror the mirror doesnt counter and when the opponet does then what? you take a hit thats what!

(note please excuse that it made this 2 seperate posts im not sure why it did this but its all one thing so read it together thanx:rolleyes:

apoweyn

10-22-2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Taijiquan ninja
first off king chun that statment lots of sparing=good martial artist is Entirely wrong. if you dont have a clue what your doing then you will get the crap beat out of you. in my opinion the best way to train is this:

Easy there, tiger. He never said anything about "not having a clue." In fact, he specifically said "if you train."

If you train, you have a clue. The real trick is to take that clue, form a hypothesis, and TEST THE HYPOTHESIS. That's where sparring comes in.

King chun is actually entirely correct. So are you. Sparring without training is better known as 'getting pummeled.' Training without sparring (which King chun is warning against) is an untested house of cards.

Dig?

Stuart B.

Taijiquan ninja

10-22-2003, 04:13 PM

yeah hey apoweyn yeah man i didnt mean that he said that i just meant that if someone read that then thought "hey all i need to do is constant sparring i can be the next Bruce Lee" in a sense he is right if you know what your doing that will improve your skills if you have no idea then sparring wont help you nearly as much as if you had trained thats all i meant by that line.

please refer to this link as a source of knowledge and inner peace
in the immortal words of conan o'brien "keep cool my babys"

Albino_Mantis

10-27-2003, 01:31 PM

There are obviously two schools of thought on this topic, and in the MA history you can find examples of people who trained one way or the other and became great fighters.

The question then isn’t whether or not sparring (in any type of training combination) works, the question should be, what works for you as the Martial Artist.

Since this is the JKD board, I will mention that Bruce Lee was about discovering what works for you the individual. He thought that each fighter had to find his own way in the battlefield. He did have some strong beliefs, one being, if you don’t spar then you never experience the sense or rhythm, time, or temp that evolve in a fight.

With that being said, each fighter needs to discover the road for them. Additionally, you need to make sure that you are with a teacher that you trust and respect their abilities. If they are great fighters, and you’d like to be as good as them, then you need to be able to trust that the way they are teaching you is what worked for them, and in theory will work for you. If you don’t trust them, respect their ability, or the way they are teaching doesn’t work for you, then you need to find a teacher who does fit that bill.

apoweyn

10-29-2003, 07:58 AM

Conceptually, I can respect that. The problem occurs when people don't test their conclusions. If you hold that forms training "works for you" and you decide that "your way" doesn't demand that you spar, how do you know whether you're right? How do you know whether you really have the ability to bring your techniques to bear on an opponent under varying circumstances?

You can confirm that you have aim by working on focus mitts. Or power by working on bags. Etc. But the actual event calls for all those things to be synthesized, with the addition of less tangible qualities, like being able to read an opponent or control your own reactions to conflict.

Someone who decided that sparring wasn't for them isn't going to get that kind of feedback until (God forbid) the event itself.

Stuart B.

p.s. All that said, I'm talking strictly in terms of a study of martial arts as combat. If your sole purpose for practicing is exercise, fun, self actualization, whatever, obviously that logic doesn't apply. And I'm cool with that. That much is definitely up to the individual to decide.

But if application is important to a person, I think sparring is a must.

Albino_Mantis

10-29-2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by apoweyn
Conceptually, I can respect that. The problem occurs when people don't test their conclusions. If you hold that forms training "works for you" and you decide that "your way" doesn't demand that you spar, how do you know whether you're right? How do you know whether you really have the ability to bring your techniques to bear on an opponent under varying circumstances?

You can confirm that you have aim by working on focus mitts. Or power by working on bags. Etc. But the actual event calls for all those things to be synthesized, with the addition of less tangible qualities, like being able to read an opponent or control your own reactions to conflict.

Someone who decided that sparring wasn't for them isn't going to get that kind of feedback until (God forbid) the event itself.

Stuart B.

p.s. All that said, I'm talking strictly in terms of a study of martial arts as combat. If your sole purpose for practicing is exercise, fun, self actualization, whatever, obviously that logic doesn't apply. And I'm cool with that. That much is definitely up to the individual to decide.

But if application is important to a person, I think sparring is a must.

Stuart,

I agree with you 100%. If a person is looking at training for the possibility of using the techniques on the street, they will need to spar, and if a person is practicing for “Health” they don’t need to.

Personally, I feel a lot of people focus too much on the combat side of the MA and not enough on the on the “Spiritual” aspects. As far as I have ever heard, it was monks who started the MAs and they did it to help with their meditation. So, basically that means the sets are supposed to be a form of meditation, and in you think about it, so is sparring. But, people attach too much ego to their sparring. They enter the “ring” with the idea that if they loose they are less than their opponent, if they win they are better. Another way of approaching sparring is, if you reach the point of action with out thought, you win, if you are unable to disengage your mind, you loose. Doesn’t matter who walked away with the most point (most number of hits landed), just were you able to quiet the internal dialog.

I have been able to accomplish that on a few occasions, but I have never been able to do it on “command”. To me that is the ultimate to strive for, for it reaches into every aspect of your life (kind like what the monks were striving for, minus the celibacy). ;)

apoweyn

10-29-2003, 02:57 PM

Nice! Well said.

I don't honestly know whether I concentrate too much on the combat. I don't think so. I think the general 'combative' outlook is a bit ridiculous. This popular conception that life is a daily struggle for survival in the concrete jungle.

That's just not my experience.

So, for me, it's not so much that I put more emphasis on fighting than... self actualization(?) It's just that I see the two as inseperable, as you suggested.

There are lots of martial arts training methods that skirt around the experience without really hitting the experience. There's a lot to be gained from the physical practice of a skill, the conditioning, etc. I can't deny that. But surely there must be some value we see specifically in a study of personal conflict. Otherwise, why didn't we gravitate toward yoga? Or running? Or any other physical practice. Any one of them could afford us some spiritual benefit if we focus on it that way. And yet we chose martial arts.

I agree with you that it has to have something to do with that relationship between you and the aggressor. But without sparring, that's something that gets hinted at, hit upon, and referenced without actually being addressed.

All that is to say I agree with you. (I'm a bit long winded.) :)

Stuart B.

Albino_Mantis

10-29-2003, 04:00 PM

“But surely there must be some value we see specifically in a study of personal conflict. Otherwise, why didn't we gravitate toward yoga? Or running? Or any other physical practice.”

Yes and no. I think that those of us who post on this board fall into this category (me especially, I spent years as a competitive fencer, and that is purely built around combat for combats sake), but not everyone who does the MA falls into that category. There are still a number of people out there who see it as a form of meditation or dance and nothing more. If you were to ask them to use their MA to hurt someone, even in their own defense, they’d look at you like you were from another planet. The thought is just too inconceivable to them. If you asked them to “dance” a set, they’d fall all over themselves for the opportunity.

Again, I want to stress that most of us who are posting on this board have at least some degree of interest in the combat side and using that as PART of our personal growth. BUT, that is a far cry from wanting to live a life of pure combat. Despite what posters on other threads may feel, I still strongly believe that NO ONE in the US has to live a life where violence is a constant reality. I believe that everyone has the power of choice and the choices we make dictate what happens in our lives. But… that is a topic for a different day and a different thread. But if anyone is interested in discussing this, feel free to start a thread on it and I will be more then happy to chime in.

apoweyn

10-30-2003, 09:53 AM

Sidenote: I'm taking a fencing class at the moment myself.

Anyway, I understand what you mean. There are definitely people involved in our hobby that aren't interested in the fighting. And I can completely respect that. But I wonder how that thought process took place.

If you were drawn to, say, taiji I can understand it. Taiji is frequently marketed as a reflective practice along the same lines as yoga. Moreso than it's actually marketed as martial art, in my experience. Or something like capoeira. I can see someone coming to that strictly as a cultural study, stemming from an interest in dance, or simply because it looks like a bucketload of fun.

But when you get down to most other martial arts, I'm more mystified. (Please note that 'mystified' is a long way from 'offended.' I've got absolutely no problem with people training just for fun, exercise, etc. Hell, I'm an avid supporter of the 'McDojo' model. It fulfills the needs of a certain sort of student perfectly. And that's cool.)

Mostly, I'm curious as to what inspired that choice in the first place. Someone getting into martial arts and realizing all sorts of benefits aside from (or even instead of) the fighting makes perfect sense to me. But what was it that sparked the interest in the first place? For me, it was certainly the fighting (however unrealistic my conception of that was at the time). And I suspect that most people's way in was the same. Images of being able to best opponents effortlessly, etc. But then you get in and find other, more important benefits. Or realize that getting hit isn't that much fun. Or whatever.

In any event, bottom line is that I'll support a person's reasons for training martial arts, almost regardless of those reasons. But that if someone continues to train on the basis that they are learning to fight, then they need that gauge.

Thanks for hashing this out with me.

Stuart B.

Albino_Mantis

10-30-2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by apoweyn
Sidenote: I'm taking a fencing class at the moment myself.
Who is your fencing coach?

Originally posted by apoweyn
Hell, I'm an avid supporter of the 'McDojo' model. It fulfills the needs of a certain sort of student perfectly. And that's cool.)

Can I have a side of fries with my McDojo?

:D

apoweyn

10-31-2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Albino_Mantis
Who is your fencing coach?

Well, understand that it's a short course through the community association in my neighborhood. So I'd hesitate to call them my coaches. It's more like an introduction. (I fenced a bit in college too, but they were pretty slack from a stylistic standpoint. SCA'ers mostly. But that worked out well, because a large part of my motivation for fencing was to give eskrima a try with a sword.)

But it's the Old Towne Fencing Club in Alexandria, Virginia.

http://www.mindspring.com/~escrimeuse/

Can I have a side of fries with my McDojo?

:D

Consider it supersized.

Seriously, I have a problem with schools misrepresenting what they do (real self defense!). But I don't have a problem with casual hobbyists doing martial arts. I don't think they're watering down the arts or anything. They're just doing something different than I hope to.

Stuart B.

SevenStar

11-10-2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by apoweyn
What's so great about sparring?

It's essential to critical thinking.

I agree with you that little can be learned from banging on one another without instruction. But by the same token, I don't think it should be left very long before people get to take a move "into the lab."

Many schools teach a bucket full of moves, train them in the mirror, or perhaps on pads. Then, after a certain number of months, you get to spar. And we magically expect you to be able to use all those moves in sparring.

Doesn't make much sense.

To my mind, a better progression is to learn a move or two. Train them on the mitts, shield, etc. And then work controlled sparring drills with them (e.g., you can both only use jabs OR your opponent can kick and you can jab/cross).

I think the reason that people generally get unsatisfactory results from sparring is that they spend all this time perfecting how a technique should work. In a controlled environment. So the kick looks perfect in the mirror. Then the gulf between ideal and real is so wide when you get to sparring that many people can't effectively cross it. You end up just alternating throwing your best techniques, without any real sense of the objective or the results.

Wrestlers and boxers, on the other hand, learn to reconcile real and ideal much sooner in their education. And it shows.

Sparring is just a tool, yes. But, in my opinion, it should be a frequent checkpoint. Learn a technique, drill a technique, spar a technique.

Stuart B.

Excellent post.

SevenStar

11-10-2003, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by chen zhen
In my recent MA adventures.. JKDC and Vale Tudo.. I was thrown into sparring from day one. The techniques we had to work on was not drilled that many times before we had to do them on a resisting opponent, and that made it pretty hard to do it properly, and watching the other beginners, it looked pretty bad. It was like "we have to get through this tech today, as it is in our curriculum. lets try to teach it as quick as possible"
which makes up for some pretty sucky MA'ists in the end.

sounds like a bad experience. I haven't had the same in my adventures in sport fighting.