Sparring questions??

[Vash]

Yes, please fill my cup. Oh, wait . . . I'm non-cma, I ain't got no cup . . . it's a ****ing bottle

It has been thus far my understanding that a martial art was a system of keeping your ass (and other important parts of one's anatomy) intact. Like I said before, if I use a Dragon-Clears-a-****ing-Path that looks like a spinning ****ing crecent kick, or a shuffle punch to the throat, it don't matter if it's in my style. If it ain't, and it worked in that instance, then the style is so much ****.

[Laughing Cow]

I see MA training twofold:

1.) Improving my current abilities, by showing me how to move more efficient, breath better, etc.

2.) Prepared me mentally & physically as much as possible for the real thing.

This is done via different training methods:
meditation, forms, drills, sparring, etc.

Nothing I do during the MA training will come close to the real thing, all it can do is teach , correct and improve.
Too many factors in the real thing you can't gather for everything during your training.

MA training won't make you into a fighter nor give you things that you haven't got from the word go.

Problem too many people see MA training as the silver bullet for SD and think that their MA training will keep them alive and unharmed during a confrontation.
Like any other training in life it is simply there to prepare you for the real thing, no person fresh out of law or medical school will be 100% prepared for what their profession will ask of them either..

There are certainly great benefits to be gotten from MA-training, but I think that SD is the least of them.

Seeya.

[joedoe]

As a karate-ka I would have thought you would understand the whole thing about not using techniques outside of the style. After all, in karate tournaments you can only score a point in sparring if you use a karate technique and you kiai at the same time. Or has this rule changed?

[Vash]

Laughing Cow:

Actually, that's exactly what I think. I got into martial arts because . . . well, I don't know why. Hell, I honestly can't say why I do martial arts, other than it feels right to, and wrong not to do it. But, in my training, I have certain goals: I want to ENJOY it and I want to be able to USE it. I've been in ONE altercation since I started Isshinryu. One day at my job as a K-Mart *****, I was pushing carts in the rain. Had 27 on a line. The last 14 decided to go after a dude's truck. I caught them before they did, but got sandwiched 'tween the two. Dude gets out, obviously drunk. Says some stuff, takes a swing. I use a two-hand circular parry (which is not in the original Isshinryu curriculum). Dude slips, gets up, says something, leaves. Was that a part of the schools curriculum? Yep, but not the style as a whole.

What was I talking about? Oh, yes. I'm not trying to perfect Isshinryu. I'm doing martial arts. I love my style, but I don't want to be limited to it. But, that statement leads to the question of whether a system or style can limit one and still be a style.

Oh, well. 6 Billion People = 6 Billion and One Different Opinions on One Subject. Kew?

Joedoe:

Tournaments? I give a ****. I suck mucho-ass at tournaments. Hell, I sucked at track. Performance anxiety. I ran a 4:49 mile by myself over hills and through curves, but on a flat as all hell track, I ran a ****ing 6:18 as a career best. So, to sum up: none of my goals in martial arts includes being good at tournaments. ESPECIALLY after seeing those hellacious musical forms. Like the Scrubbing Bubbles meets The Matrix.

Actually, there was one tournament I loved: it was a little inter-dojo thing. Ishsinryu and Gojuryu. It was absolutely awesome. Won 1st in sparring, empty-hand kata, weapons kata, 3rd (with my then-girlfriend) in two-man kata. That was cool. More of the -do as to my preferred -jutsu, but wtf.

The hell was I talking about?

[Vash]

Here's what I was trying to say:

I am in martial arts for a variety of reasons. Indeed, I study a style that has a set curriculum of techniques and fighting theories, but I will extrapolate and expound on these as I see fit. After all, I'm a ****ING MARTIAL ARTIST, not a MARTIAL XEROX MACHINE.

Not that staying 100% in style is bad. Just not me.

[scotty1]

I have also recently visited a taiji class in my area. They were using muscle power too!

So I said to them, "what the he!l are you doing using your muscles to move?"

To which they said "what the he!l do you expect us to use?"

I did not think such an impertinent question was worthy of an answer, so I simply tut-tutted and walked away on my jelly and noodle legs.

[MasterKiller]

This is why I find it perplexing that people always point to techniques to differentiate styles. Why care about it if it's not the fundamental essence of the style, but more personal preference? Wouldn't you be more likely to see someone using your style's tactics and ranges in a fight than fine motor skills?

Well, because some techniques are closely tied to the findamental essence of a style. If your primary weapon is the Tiger Claw, everything you do is going to center around using that technique. White Crane fighters use the Crane's Beak. Eagle Claw fighters use the Eagle's Claw. In each style, blocking is different, striking is different, and for all intents and purposes, the techniques are different because of that.

Some styles don't have specialized 'claw' techniques, per se, but focus on other aspects. In my school, we throw a shltload of elbow techniques standing up, in the clinch, and on the ground. I would say that 35% of my striking training is done with the elbows as a primary weapon. Drive an hour down the road to Rich Mooney's school, and you won't see his Tiger-Crane students using elbows like we do.

Maybe you can argue that the difference in technique is a secondary result of their strategy differences. But since technique is the most obvious difference apparent, at least on the surface level, that is how we tell one style from another.

Not that staying 100% in style is bad. Just not me

If someone only studies one style with one teacher, how can they not stay within their style? Unless you are making shlt up, the only techniques you will be exposed to are the one's your teacher showed you. I think we take for granted the amount of information available today that lets us sample other styles. 10 or 20 years ago, if your teacher didn't show you a technique, you would not have been exposed to it until someone hit you with it. Therefore, you had no choice but to 'stay within your style.'

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Vash.

Do you REALLY want me to answer that one for you?

Maybe we need to do so for the non-tcma guys.

Let me know if your cup is empty to receive the SHOCKING truth.

Pretentious arsery. The other white meat.

[apoweyn]

Laughing Cow,

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Hmmm.

This has turned into an interesting discussion.

MK you and me think along similar lines, 2 or 3 other posters also got what I am talking about.

Some of us get what you're talking about just fine. We just disagree.

I have been recently going to a few schools in the neighbourhood and checked theirsparring out.
For the most part what I saw was more like "fight-club" than well structured and well-executed sparring.

I know I've been harping on this lately. But do you have footage of you sparring? Maybe I've lost my perspective. But I honestly don't know what I should expect structured and well-executed sparring to look like. Somewhere between rehearsed drill and blatant arseup, from what I can gather.

It seems very easy to point at sparring and say why it's wrong. But those same people seem to have an almost impossible time pointing at sparring and saying "that's what I'm on about." Surely, there are visible examples we can look at. Because if there aren't, then it seems to me that we're talking about a purely theoretical situation. Sparring should this, it should that.

But nobody can show me where it does this and it does that.

It appears then someone over here sez we free-spar or we do 100%-sparring they mean ANYTHING goes haymakers, ground-grappling the works. Once the protection is on anything goes but what seems to be lost the most is the ability to use their style.

I say again: Two different approaches. With two different objectives. 1) Perform the style effectively or 2) defeat the opponent effectively.

Both are valid interpretations of the point of martial arts. Though one seems to offend your sensibilities.

Objective being to BEAT the opponent and WIN the fight, no emphasis on good techniques, principles or anything.

If you're able to defeat a trained opponent with it, isn't it a good technique? A sound principle?

What, exactly, are you looking for?

Yes, there's sloppy technique in sparring. And yes that's a problem. But, again, without being able to see a GOOD example of what you're advocating, it's difficult to conceptualize a sparring session in which the fighters resemble the forms. Or is that not what you're advocating?

One TJQ school I went to I could NOT see the difference between their Tui Shou and their San Shou, never mind that the students relied too much on force vs force and similar to execute a technique. Moves were slow, jerky and full of muscle power.

Please, please, please get a camera and post footage. Contrary to what you might think, I would desperately love to see genuine kung fu effectively used in sparring. I honestly would.

Sparring is a tool like forms, drills and so on, unfortunately I think many people misunderstand sparring to mean anything goes fighting, or it's time to get rid of frustrations, etc.

That's NOT a misunderstanding. It's a different use of the tool. Anything goes fighting is a logical extension of training. Not the only extension. But a logical one. Giving you the opportunity to experience and deal with mental and emotional duress, constantly changing tactics, and yes brute force (which, while potentially aesthetically offensive, goes a long way).

The reason why I asked if you use techs NOT included in your system is because a LOT of people these days cross-train.

IMO, if you study style X than your sparring in the school should only use techs from style X unless you study multiple arts under the same sifu.

As an opinion, that's cool. I disagree. If I'm sparring in a school, I'll honour the rules of their school. I don't go to a taekwondo school and start kicking people in the thighs. Because, regardless of my personal feelings, they have their way. And I'm in their house. I don't go over to people's houses and put my feet on the coffee table either.

But if I went to a school that did allow low kicks, but emphasized snapping them from the knee, I'm still going to throw mine thai style. In my experience, seeing something in action doesn't generally offend people. It makes them want to learn about it. And that's a good thing.

As one poster said you need to re-evaluate your training continously to see if it still meets your goals(which might change over time).

Example:
Does my sparring help me develop and refine the style I am stuyding or do I want sparring to test if I can be a bad tough guy.

I see a lot of guys advocating sparring, but why are they doing it to better themselves or to feed their ego that they beat another guy.

Here's that bias of yours again. Freesparring doesn't result in feeding the ego. Quite the opposite actually. Even the best among us get beaten from time to time. Someone is always better, especially when more tactics are available.

I sparred a guy recently who, stylistically, didn't have my experience or savvy. He pummeled me. Horribly. Because he had the attributes and he had the intent.

One of the nicest guys I've ever met. There wasn't a person in that place who didn't KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that this guy had kicked my arse. But was he c0cky about it? Nah. He was friendly. Told me I'd scared him with my kicks (which I seriously doubt). And thanked me profusely for my help.

Is that the ego monster you refer to? Because that's the type of character I've consistently encountered.

Besides, adhering to style leaves just as much room for ego gratification. Perhaps more. Because there's suddenly an additional gauge for the ego. There's more than just "do you win." Because nobody wins forever. There's the additional "are you good at the style." And that is something that persists, whether you win matches or not. People can garner all sorts of accolades for their skill in a style without putting it to the test. Belts, titles, the admiration of students. You can't tell me that doesn't appeal to the ego just a little. That it's all for bettering yourself.

In short I see the same misunderstandings that Tui Shou gets iin some TJQ circles applied to sparring.

Just some thoughts to spark further discussion and flames.

Over to you then.


Stuart B.

[scotty1]

*clap clap clap*

Bravo

[MasterKiller]

But if I went to a school that did allow low kicks, but emphasized snapping them from the knee, I'm still going to throw mine thai style.

If you were going to a school to learn their style, and you continued to use your kicks in class, you are wasting your time and the instructors. If you have learned both ways, like Thai kicks better, and use them sparring, that's a different story. You were taught two techniques by two different instructors, and you have chosen the best one for you.

At the same time, a western boxer who continually uses low leg sweeps is no longer a western boxer. He has modified the style in which he was taught, and it has become something else.

Most of you guys who don't like the style classifications are coming from a background of two, three, or even more schools in which you studied. You have created amalgamations for your personal benefit. You may study BJJ the most, but adding Muay Thai to that means you are no longer a pure BJJ fighter. Even adding Muay Thai kicks to your TKD means you are not a pure TKD fighter. Does it mean you aren't effective? Hell no. It just means you aren't fighting like instructor A taught you, or like instructor B taught you. You have mixed the training, which may or may not work, depending on you. Now, if instructor A is teaching you to use both BJJ and Muay Thai at the same time, then he isn't teaching either art, by definition, he is teaching something else (we'll call it MMA).

I have been with the same school since day 1. Now, I have two different Sifus, mind you (one teaches me in-depth Chin Na and ground work on a private basis), but the two training regiments do not conflict. I don't have one guy teaching me Kick A, and another teaching Kick B. So, my only option is to learn Kick A, practice Kick A, and use Kick A. Therefore, when I kick someone, it looks like I was taught and reflects the style in which I train.

Effectiveness has more to do with personal ability than choice of technique, just as I said earlier. If I learn 5 Chin Na moves completely and thoroughly enough to use them at will, I will defeat most people who learn 50 techniques so-so. Of course, individual ability can only compensate so much for POOR technique (regardless of style). That's why finding a good instructor is crucial.

[apoweyn]

If you were going to a school to learn their style, and you continued to use your kicks in class, you are wasting your time and the instructors. If you have learned both ways, like Thai kicks better, and use them sparring, that's a different story. You were taught two techniques by two different instructors, and you have chosen the best one for you.

Only assuming that the only valuable asset of their school is their low kick. If I go there to learn something from them, but not everything from them, then it's hardly a waste of either of our time. Besides, I'll practice the low kick as they teach it, see what I think of it, and then make an informed decision. That's also not a waste of time.

But when it comes to freesparring, I'm going to use what I'm going to use, within the agreed-upon rules.

Now generally, since very few things I've seen qualitatively suck, I end up using both types of low kick (for example). Both have merit under the right circumstances and for the right purpose. So I've learned something. They've taught something. And generally, everyone's happy.


Stuart B.

[MasterKiller]

Only assuming that the only valuable asset of their school is their low kick. If I go there to learn something from them, but not everything from them, then it's hardly a waste of either of our time. Besides, I'll practice the low kick as they teach it, see what I think of it, and then make an informed decision. That's also not a waste of time.

It's a waste of time if you don't give the training a chance. The reason most people don't fight like Kung Fu is because they don't accept the training. At some point, you have to give in and actually try to use what you are being taught.

If you do Kung Fu forms 10 hours a week, but still fight like a Muay Thai fighter when you spar, you are wasting those 10 hours. You could spend them better doing Muay Thai drills. Of course, that's only if your taking KF for fighting. Some people train for health reasons, etc, but rarely will those types of people become serious fighters anyway.

[TonyM.]

That was the best explanation I've read in a long time MK.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
It's a waste of time if you don't give the training a chance. The reason most people don't fight like Kung Fu is because they don't accept the training. At some point, you have to give in and actually try to use what you are being taught.

If you do Kung Fu forms 10 hours a week, but still fight like a Muay Thai fighter when you spar, you are wasting those 10 hours. You could spend them better doing Muay Thai drills. Of course, that's only if your taking KF for fighting. Some people train for health reasons, etc, but rarely will those types of people become serious fighters anyway.

MasterKiller,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. If my objective is to fight in a certain style, then I absolutely have to give the training a chance. And even when I'm learning at a different school, I'm still going to give the training a chance. After all, I still want to understand a technique before dismissing or accepting it. Right?

So yes, you should definitely try to use what you're being taught. But to my mind, it's also okay to use what you're not being taught in that place provided it doesn't conflict with their sparring rules. My first loyalty isn't to a particular style. It's to my own line of inquiry.

You and I differ in viewpoint mostly because we differ in approach. And that's fine. I don't have a problem with your choices and priorities. I do have a problem with any insinuation that one person is doing things right and another doesn't "get it."


Stuart B.