Sparring questions??

[Vash]

apoweyn:

You said everything I felt, except you said it better, more coherently, and with a hell of a lot less swearing. Bravo, indeed.


By staying in style or not staying in style, here is what I mean (if I do much more clarification, my ass is going to be transparent. Maybe I should just think before I speak?): Adherence to the guidelines of a particular style is good. But, adherence to the Dogma of a style, allowing for no interpretation of or variation on techniques, is bad juju.

Now, what are we arguing about? We are each preaching to a choir from a completely different religion. We aren't going to change a body's view(s) on this. We will give some extremely delicious food for thought, though. Like someone said earlier (or maybe it was in a sig), we all walk different paths. Just cause someone's on a different road doesn't mean they're lost.

Mother****er.

[MasterKiller]

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.

Sure it's OK. But it's also either directly or indirectly leading to an amalgam of styles. If it works for you, then it works. And there is nothing wrong with it as long as you can use what you learn.

But I think this approach is why some people have a hard time understanding what makes style A different than style B. The more you blend things together, the harder it gets to distinguish the individual flavors.

Adherence to the guidelines of a particular style is good. But, adherence to the Dogma of a style, allowing for no interpretation of or variation on techniques, is bad juju.

I've never said otherwise; and, in fact, I was trying to make this point when I was talking about an individual's ability to display 'flavors' of a given style.

[fa_jing]

Well, my more genuine answer is that you should be using what you train in class (if applicable), otherwise you are wasting time training that. My junior was like that, he would train the wing chun drills, but it would all go out the window when he sparred. OTOH his (our) JKD did show in the sparring, as well as his football skills. But even his fighting is changing due to osmosis or something, the wing chun (the large part) of classwork is seeping into his personal fighting style. My sifu wouldn't stop us unless someone was hurt, but he constantly yelled out coaching advice (when not sparring us himself.) Mostly on the line of, keep your hands up, go lighter, directions to break, relax Keith, etc.

However, we were certainly never admonished for using something "outside of the style" - unless it violated our basic fighting principles, like taking a full step forward on a rear-hand punch. we might get a "don't do that."

We were instructed to choose for ourselves 1-2 techniques per round, and try to train them to be effective by looking for opportunities to employ these. Sometimes we followed this advice. When we did, it was very helpful. However, most of the time we lost track of this directive as we became lost in the moment.

Sifu had an important piece of advice - you should be able to vary the intensity level of your sparring from 1 to 10.

Thank heavens I'm a JKD guy. That means I get to practice TMA to my hearts content, while never being limited by stylistic boundaries.

[Judge Pen]

It's nice just to be able to sit back and read MK and AP's posts. You get a good, well-reasoned opinon from both persepctives.

I am a MA "mut" in most regards. My earliest training was essentially TKD and my primary study is, of course SD, with some periods of bjj, isshin-ryu, chuan fa, and aikido thrown in to boot. I primarily see my SD influence in fighting and I have difficulty applying, say aikido, when I square off and spar. However, if someone comes up behind and grabs me then the aikdio influence kicks in. Same thing if someone sweeps or throws me: the work I had in bjj kicks in too. Now I wouldn't last against an experienced ground fighter, and I would never intentionally take a fight to the ground, but its nice to have a background just in case.

I guess my rambling point is that most people need to try other styles to find what works for them in different situations. When you train with a teacher of style A try to apply what you learn in style A. I don't think it makes it difficult to distinguish the different flavors as long as you have made an honest attempt to learn the subtleties of each style before you combine them into whtever works for you.

[apoweyn]

MasterKiller,

Sure it's OK. But it's also either directly or indirectly leading to an amalgam of styles. If it works for you, then it works. And there is nothing wrong with it as long as you can use what you learn.

But I think this approach is why some people have a hard time understanding what makes style A different than style B. The more you blend things together, the harder it gets to distinguish the individual flavors.

Quite right. More to the point, I blend things together because I don't want to distinguish between individual flavours.

I have much love for martial arts of all sorts. And I can definitely see the appeal of throwing yourself, heart and soul, into the practice of one of them. But for my own practice, I prefer less distinction between styles.


Stuart B.

[Laughing Cow]

Apoweyn.

I have studied a few styles in the the time that I learned MA.
Some got mixed up and overall my results were not that satisfactory.

I really like my current style and have decided to make it my main and only style from now on.
So, yes, I ditched many years of study and had to unlearn a lot.

Since I decided to concentrate on my current style alone I have found more joy and better results from it.

Maybe it is because I found a very good Sifu or a style that really fits me, but I and many other students I speak to have come to the same conclussion.

Cheers.

[norther practitioner]

I primarily see my SD influence in fighting

With so many styles represented there, what is the biggest influence from the SD curriculmn to your sparring?

[Laughing Cow]

Apoweyn & others.

If I see a guy that sez I study Chen TJQ than he should look like he has done Chen TJQ and shouldn't show other influences.

Note, I am not talking about if the fighting ability is good or not.

Some people simply want fighting ability but than they shouldn't claim be doing style X or Y orZ.

If you mix and match and amalgate than you left styles behind and are simply doing what suits you.

For me there is a difference between a person studying an art to fight and a stylist. I am a stylist in short I want to become as good as possible at my style.

Maybe it will affect my fighting ability and maybe it won't.
OTOH, the more I concentrate on my style the more I find in it.

I also believe that you can't master a style unless you fully concentrate on it.

Cheers.

[Vash]

Understand where you're coming from. I'm almost the same way (except for how I'm of a totally different opinion).

I've been doing Isshinryu for about 3 years, take away 6 months for injuries. I've not yet really scratched the surface of the style.
I just don't want to not learn and apply stuff from outside the curriculum.

[rogue]

If I see a guy that sez I study Chen TJQ than he should look like he has done Chen TJQ and shouldn't show other influences.

Even if he's studied another art Chuckling Bovine? I agree that a Chen stylists should be able to see the Chen style in the fighter but if the guy has other skills then he should use them. I've found that when sparring a fellow TKDinker that a little Isshinryu inside game is unexpected, a little bit of push hands in the clinch is fun too. I study certain styles of karate but if I learn something that isn't karate, such as the tiny little bit of Yang Tai Chi that I picked up, I'm going to use it.

I just don't want to not learn and apply stuff from outside the curriculum.

Vash, maybe because Tatsuo Shimabuku was the same way? A large part Shorin, a good part Goju, and mix in some ideas from God knows where and we have Isshinryu. Sensei was a good role model in how to merge styles and ideas and create something coherant.

[omarthefish]

Boy, skipping the middle pages was a good idea. I thought for sure sonner or later it was going to come down to talking about if you fight the way you train.

My training has been pretty eclectic, so I'm not sure. Currently I'm doing Muay Thai and so I get to bang around every class. When I first started at the gym there was some minor *****ing about me "doing kung-fu" and some minor criticism that "that's not how we do it here", but fortunately none of it was coming from the teacher. As long as it didn't violate any of his MT principles it was all good. These style boundries are fuzzy things to me anyways. Mt 'principles'?

-keep your hands up (duh!)
-no fighting southpaw unless you're left handed (I can deal with that)
-always counter attack everything (still no conflict with my gong-fu background)
-keep your feet moving. Don't put rest weight on your front leg (if you do, it will get kicked)

It's not like there's anything he's taught me that my gong-fu teachers would have objected to either. Good gong-fu is good gong-fu. But at the same time, I definately brought lot's of gong-fu technique to the ring. I have a reputation for being extremely agile. I'm told I 'move well' and a classmate last night commented on what a moving target I was compared to most people. Well, that's the bagua coming through. Another night, after feeling my opponents defense was a little too solid I mixed things up a bit and at the side lines someone joked, "What was that!?! Drunken style?". No, I never did drunken but I definately stole some drunken foot work from Fu-Hok and was advancing in a very Hung Gar way. It worked and I backed my partner into a corner. Forearm senitivity from that stuff has helped me et up some wonderfull punching openings too.

I guess my point is that although technically, everything I do is Muat Thai, I'm borrowing HEAVILY from my gong-fu stuff. Nobody notices or cares. They just say I have a very 'unorthodox style'. I've absorbed a lot of odds and ends and fight in my own style. Hey! I guess I'm doing JKD and didn't even know it!

[David Jamieson]

Hey! I guess I'm doing JKD and didn't even know it!

*in my best jimmy stewart voice*
"why omar, gosh, that's what it's all about isn't it"?

cheers

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by norther practitioner

With so many styles represented there, what is the biggest influence from the SD curriculmn to your sparring?

Fair question. I'm heavy on hand techniqes which is probably because I'm working on our Hsing-I primarily right now. The blocking techniques that I use come out of a few forms, mainly Black Tiger and Tiger-Crane. Our most basic forms, short forms, teach several sweep/kick combinations that a use often. Finally I'm trying to employ more evasiveness through Pa Kua. Up until black you primarily learn tiger, crane/various birds, and short forms. Several people I fight either tend to use primarily tiger or crane.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Apoweyn.

I have studied a few styles in the the time that I learned MA.
Some got mixed up and overall my results were not that satisfactory.

I really like my current style and have decided to make it my main and only style from now on.
So, yes, I ditched many years of study and had to unlearn a lot.

Since I decided to concentrate on my current style alone I have found more joy and better results from it.

Maybe it is because I found a very good Sifu or a style that really fits me, but I and many other students I speak to have come to the same conclussion.

Cheers.

Laughing Cow,

No arguing with that. If you're more satisfied with one approach than another, that basically legitimates itself, as far as I'm concerned.

My conclusion has been different. Sort of. One of my closest friends and sparring partners has stuck with basically one style (though he does have some exposure to boxing and judo) and has been similarly pleased. I can even recognize the appeal of that.

But I went the other way. And I've been thoroughly satisfied with that too.

I'm not even sure that reflects a difference in learning styles or whatever. I think that people are adaptive enough that whatever choice either of us had ultimately made (or will ultimately make), we'd end up satisfied.


Stuart B.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Apoweyn & others.

If I see a guy that sez I study Chen TJQ than he should look like he has done Chen TJQ and shouldn't show other influences

Note, I am not talking about if the fighting ability is good or not.

Some people simply want fighting ability but than they shouldn't claim be doing style X or Y orZ.

Would you do me a huge favour and stop saying "simply" as if learning to effectively fight other trained fighters were a bit like walking out to the mailbox for the paper.

You want to do right by your style. And I respect that. But the alternatives aren't simpler. They aren't easier. And they aren't morally bankrupt. Our future conversations would be a lot more productive if you could please bear that in mind.

As for claiming that you're doing style X when you've got influences from style Y in there, I don't really see the big fuss. People have a base. A frame of reference through which other influences get filtered. I don't personally think it's necessary to list all of those influences every time.

Grandmaster Canete (Doce Pares eskrima) says he does eskrido and pangamot. He doesn't feel obliged to then explain that he also has experience with karate, boxing, blah, blah, blah. Asked to go into detail about his background, he will. But he doesn't feel the need to qualify it every time. His base is eskrima. It's the framework through which his experiences in boxing, karate, judo, etc. are filtered.

That approach makes sense to me.

If you mix and match and amalgate than you left styles behind and are simply doing what suits you.

There's that "simply" again. Yeah, it's dead easy. I hardly even work at it anymore.

For me there is a difference between a person studying an art to fight and a stylist. I am a stylist in short I want to become as good as possible at my style.

I think that's a perfectly valid choice. In fact, I think I made that distinction myself in our earlier discussions.

Maybe it will affect my fighting ability and maybe it won't.
OTOH, the more I concentrate on my style the more I find in it.

That's absolutely true. But then, the more you concentrate on combining two things, the more you find in that too. It's the nature of careful consideration. Not the specific mode of learning.

I also believe that you can't master a style unless you fully concentrate on it.

Can you master a style even if you do fully concentrate on it? What does that mean?


Stuart B.