Sparring/Randori......or not?

[Wood Dragon]

Having started out in a JKA (Shotokan) club, and run the gamut through Judo (Kodokan) to Kyokushin and Daido Juku....I've pretty much seen it all, with regard to sparring/randori.

JKA: jiyu kumite. Any and all techniques, but with surface contact only. No penetration of any kind. Strikes are pulled immediately upon contact with the opponent.

Judo: Randori. Full contact. Throw them if you can. No striking at all.

Kyokushin: No strikes below the knee or to the major joints. No groin shots. No hand techniques to the face or skull. Throws are occasionally allowed (a association-based variation). Full contact, Knockdown Rules. No pads.

Daido Juku: No ground and pound (simulated only). Wear full helmet. Any and all striking or throwing techniques allowed, including to the cranium and face (which is fairly well protected by the helmet). No intentional joint attacks or groin shots. Full contact.

Which leads us to:

Question: Which approach is optimal for serious martial arts practitioners? Why?

Question II: Do systems which practice no full contact (in the manner of Judo or Kyokushin/Daido Juku) sparring set up their practitioners to fail (as their training is unlike the actual combative environment)?

Question III: Why is sparring of this type so scarce in "traditional" styles? Especially the systems reputed to produce (at one time) superb fighters?



Note: this is not a "traditional vs. MMA" thread. I'm more interested in the reasons behind the current state of affairs.

[TenTigers]

I would think a combination of all of the above as they each develop different attributes which add up to the sum of its parts. Just as chi-sao is not the be all, end all, but simply one small part of developing a WCK fighter. They are like ingredients in a recipe.

[mawali]

1, The optimal approach is the utilization of all three, i.e. throwing, punching and grappling keeping in mind individuals have strong preferences for at least 1 so if they cross train, they develop a secondary skill.

2, Judo is as full contact as you get when you compare to hitting and punching. Again it is just one skill. I started with TKD and eben though my instructor was a
6th degree black belt, he utilized judo as well. He though it absurd that you can defeat a person with kicks only though for the untrained oppponent, it is valid.
Be well rounded and be able to adapt should be the motto.

3, I have no idea why sparring is so sparse but I think it is due to the BJJ phenomenon, where you actually have to put the person down and tap /submit, which is good for UFC events! In real life people will actually swing at you first, to sucker punch then jump on you!

What I have seen is that in the entertainment venues, with karate vs a grappling art, karate comes out a loser and this is not to say karate is itself deficient but probably the training methods are, perhaps, antiquated. Even the top MMA japanese styles tend to follow a jujitsu/boxing/grappling format vs a pure karate orientation.

[Wood Dragon]

Clarification: I'm not talking about practicing different ranges (grappling, striking, etc), but the actual intensity of sparring itself (or lack thereof).

IOW, why no full contact sparring in, say, Wing Chun (or Isshin-ryu)? What's the underlying rationale behind the decision not to?

[WinterPalm]

Put on headgear, a cup, a mouthpiece, some shin pads (or not if you're feeling malicious and want to get some decent lumps), and some kind of gloves and go at it. It will keep you safe and you can go very hard.

It also depends what you want to do...if you want to be a good judoka....it probably doesn't require you to kickbox and vice versa...but for real fighting with no rules, it helps to have an understanding of fighting from many angles and styles.

[jdhowland]

... why no full contact sparring in, say, Wing Chun (or Isshin-ryu)? What's the underlying rationale behind the decision not to?

There might be a couple of different explanations for why hard contact free sparring was not emphasized in different schools.

In the case of Japanese karate-do, the arts were new to Japan and were made to conform to Japanese educational standards in a very short time period. The emphasis was on kata and physical education. This is because modern karate as first taught/developed by Itosu was restructured for elementary and middle school students in Okinawa. The first karate enthusiasts in Japan were university students and the idea of karate as moral and physical education prevailed. Funakoshi may have been limited (by his employers, his teachers or perhaps his own conscience) in what he was allowed to teach. There was little respect for Ryukyu culture at the time and karate was soon "Nipponified" to make it more acceptable to educated Japanese. The war isolated the various clubs from Okinawan sources and in its aftermath many styles and ryu developed separate identities from what may have been considered a single art form. In other words, karate in the first half of the 20th century may have developed into its modern form, but was also stunted in its growth. Kumite was developed and patterned after kendo and Kodokan judo training methods but the emphasis never returned to all-out fighting skills. If it was ever intended to exist in the modern conception of karate-do. Chosin Chibana has been considered by some to be the greatest karateka of the 20th century. He reportedly felt that kata training was the essence and entirety of karate. Some of his students refuse to allow jiyu kumite within their schools, although they do allow practice of bunkai.

Kyokushinkai is another story. Mas Oyama was a professional wrestler, among other things.

In TCMA there is a sad lack of emphasis on free sparring although many schools allow hard contact during technical drills. I suppose the reason for this is that it is not advisable to allow your students to hurt each other or form rivalries. It is better to encourage them to learn their free-fighting skills on the street or in arranged matches with other schools.

[rogue]

Which leads us to:

Question: Which approach is optimal for serious martial arts practitioners? Why?

Depends on what you mean by serious martial arts practitioner and what the goal is. For example are you talking ring, self defense or H2H for LEO's and elite military.

Question II: Do systems which practice no full contact (in the manner of Judo or Kyokushin/Daido Juku) sparring set up their practitioners to fail (as their training is unlike the actual combative environment)?

[i]You'll have to define actual combative environment, but IMO training is training, sparring is sparring and real world is real world and that's where anyones training can come up short.[i]

Question III: Why is sparring of this type so scarce in "traditional" styles? Especially the systems reputed to produce (at one time) superb fighters?

Because that's not what pays the bills and those who want contact have gone elsewhere.

[Vash]

If a school is not using sparring at regular intervals, then it is not teaching a martial art.

Spar at various intensities, with various rules, allowing for complete expression of a system's curriculum, and voila, you got someone who can bang.

[rogue]

Is a martial art really a martial art if it never gets used for it's intended purpose, or just training?

[Vash]

Is a martial art really a martial art if it never gets used for it's intended purpose, or just training?

Hell if I know.

I have the unfortunate knowledge that most of the techniques in Isshinryu karate, from Seisan to Naihanchi, can work to save one's ass. Aside from that, I dunno.

I know there are many tertiary benefits I've received from my karate and weight lifting which tend to reduce the size of the bull's eye predators look for. But, I dunno if it would be any different if I was just a bodybuilder who did Okinawa-based folk dances.

[lkfmdc]

Question: Which approach is optimal for serious martial arts practitioners? Why?

In MMA, newbies tend to rush in, try and get a takedown and a lot of time is spent on the ground. This is why the stand up in MMA is still relatively low. The good strikers in MMA all have done some sort of kb rules

I believe, and have experience and results on my side mind you, that you should do Muay Thai rules, San Da rules and MMA rules. They are all very close to "fighting" yet develop different skills in different ways

Muay Thai: develops kicks, punches, knees, clinch to strike, and mental and physical toughness

San Da: takes the "muay thai skills" and mixes them with wrestling and takedowns/throws. IE learn how to strike against wrestling and how to wrestle against striking. Concepts of distance, timing, etc

Mixed martial Arts: give you "full picture", especially that a few strikes don't stop a takedown necessarily, how hard it is to fight when the action moves from standing to floor (and back again often)

Question II: Do systems which practice no full contact (in the manner of Judo or Kyokushin/Daido Juku) sparring set up their practitioners to fail (as their training is unlike the actual combative environment)?

Doesn't matter how much technique and theory you know, if the adrenaline and stress are new to you it will all go out the window

Even very good BJJ guys change up/freeze up if they get hit in the face and have never been hit that way before.

"full contact" (actually a false name, but let's say at least CONTACT for now) is about learning how to get hit, getting used to gettting hit and learning to respond when getting hit

Question III: Why is sparring of this type so scarce in "traditional" styles? Especially the systems reputed to produce (at one time) superb fighters?

IN the past, people didn't spar, they fought. However, and most don't admit to this, a lot DIED. The ones who lived to see more fights got better, the ones who lived a long time became "superb fighters". Hardly the method we should be aspiring to

People didn't spar because
1) they believed the techniques were too deadly (before the first American rules kickboxing matches people thought that those deadly side kicks and punches would mean everyone would die! - how wrong they were!)

2) in a lot of situations, there wasn't a lot of people around to spar with

3) there usually wasn't equipment which allowed for safe sparring

[Wood Dragon]

Depends on what you mean by serious martial arts practitioner and what the goal is. For example are you talking ring, self defense or H2H for LEO's and elite military..

The goal for all of the above categories is similar, even if it differs in scale:

Namely, the application of violence (force, if you like) to a problem of personal combat.

If you aren't covered by that definition, well, you aren't a martial arts practitioner.

[Wood Dragon]

Doesn't matter how much technique and theory you know, if the adrenaline and stress are new to you it will all go out the window

More importantly, a live opponent (who is also seeking to dominate the fight, himself) is a completely different animal than uke.

Techniques become much, much more difficult to apply.

[rogue]

The goal for all of the above categories is similar, even if it differs in scale:

Namely, the application of violence (force, if you like) to a problem of personal combat.

That's more a means to a goal rather than a goal itself. The goals of a LEO, a ring fighter, a kata champ and a Green Beret may not be the same.

[Vash]

Still, the goal with each is total proficiency in a given circumstance with a given set of tools and operational procedures. And the steps to reach proficiency would have the same principles, ie technical introduction, no-resistance, no-resistance in circumstance, full resistance.

of course, with the kata/forms champ, that would probably qualify as having "guest judges" look on disapprovingly as a bunch of fatass parents sat in the corner and yelled derogatory comments about the performers mother.