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

[zapruder_bjj]

In a fight, we never rise to our expectations but rather we fall to the level of our training.

You fight like you train...so theres your answer.

[rogue]

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.

In regards to training I think the first paragraph is correct, but once outside the kwoon the goals change for each person in different situations.

BTW, 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. Should have read point fighting champ instead of kata champ. Doh!

[Wood Dragon]

In regards to training I think the first paragraph is correct, but once outside the kwoon the goals change for each person in different situations.

Not really, as the objective is to achieve dominance (even, in the case of Self-Defense, momentarily) against a resisting/attacking opponent.

FYI, Army SF don't get a whole lot more H2H training than the average 11B Rifleman. MAC (Modern Army Combatives) is the Army-wide personal combat program. None of it would be unfamiliar to a serious martial arts practitioner. The only real difference is in the pedagogy.

SF does have it's own H2H program (with MAC as the base), but it's just the old USMC LINES system.

[Vash]

BTW, 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. Should have read point fighting champ instead of kata champ. Doh!

So . . . their preparation would be exactly the same. Except, they would also be shown how to walk with invisible lat syndrome and maintain the mindset that they can handle themselves.

(for the record, I've got a few too many trophies for point sparring and kata comps, so i can bust on them all day long)

[Wood Dragon]

I would point out (obvious to most, I'm guessing) that competition sparring and training sparring are two different things, with two different objectives.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Very rarely does anyone spar FULL contcxt, its usually hard contact , the full beingleft for competitions.
We (those that train for full contact fighting), must start off with medium contact, to get used to being hit and hitting, form there we go to hard contact, the difference between hard and full being the INTENT behind what we are doing - sparring being training and cooperative and competition being about winning.
Training hard enough to be "honest and true" reactions from your partner is crucial in developing fighting skills.
There are, as always, pros and cons with this, the pros being obvious, the cons being the possibility of injury and the development of "sport specific attributes" that can be counter-productive VS other systems or in the "real world".
Sparring is something this is crucial, the most crucial element, in the development stages of any fighter.
The good thing is that you can spar any way you like, as long as you maintain awareness of the pros and cons.

[SimonM]

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

My opinion is that the closer to simulating real fighting conditions a sparring exercise is the more effective it is at preparing a fighter.

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 twentieth century, since the end of the second world war especially, there has been a significant trend both in north america, europe and asia to keep military technology out of the hands of civilians. This has included the banning of martial arts weapons (canada, europe and china) and the dismantling, banning and/or regulation of fighting sports (north america, europe, asia). The fact is that a lot of those fighting legends lived prior to the twentieth century and they spent a lot of time... well... fighting.

When the challenge matches and the grudge fights and the duels all stopped a lot of martial artists found that their techniques were increasingly not being used. When they passed these techniques on to students and the students didn't go out and pick fights with every person they could find and instead started competing in tournaments that put greater and greater emphasis on safety over realism a broken telephone effect started that stripped a lot of the martiality out of the martial arts.

Add to that a generous handfull of mcdojos staffed by underqualified instructors and you begin to see the problem with many modern schools. What Vale Tudo, and MMA in general has done, more than anything else, is return to a more traditional method of testing and improvement: more realistic fighting with fewer rules.

Signed: Simon McNeil - Syncretic Traditionalist

[rogue]

Not really, as the objective is to achieve dominance (even, in the case of Self-Defense, momentarily) against a resisting/attacking opponent.

FYI, Army SF don't get a whole lot more H2H training than the average 11B Rifleman. MAC (Modern Army Combatives) is the Army-wide personal combat program. None of it would be unfamiliar to a serious martial arts practitioner. The only real difference is in the pedagogy.

SF does have it's own H2H program (with MAC as the base), but it's just the old USMC LINES system.

Have you trained with any SF?

We can talk about SF in another thread or off line

[Wood Dragon]

Have you trained with any SF?

We can talk about SF in another thread or off line

I'm an 11A. In as much as having worked with SF ODA's in Afghanistan (sharing an AO, conducting coordinated operations together and being part of the same TF), yes. Have I been a part of an SFG? No.

I am, however, a Level III MAC Instructor, and the Schoolhouse runs everyone through the same programs, w/o differentiation as to MOS. The SF guys with me were getting MAC Instructor-certified, then would get the LINES cert at Group.

This is current, as of JAN2007. It may be completely different now, but nothing's been said by the Schoolhouse.

OTOH, ARSOC units have much, much more in the way of discretionary funds, and can get trainers in for whatever, so an individual Battalion or Group could be learning Togakue-ryu, and we'd never know.

None of the above is OPSEC, BTW.

[mawali]

my friend stated

FYI, Army SF don't get a whole lot more H2H training than the average 11B Rifleman. MAC (Modern Army Combatives) is the Army-wide personal combat program. None of it would be unfamiliar to a serious martial arts practitioner. The only real difference is in the pedagogy.

As an former Marine, I have seen the opposite!
At least, since the Gulf War, more units are being taught H2H and there seems to be more exposure/application/concept/principle due to the apparent closeness of urban combat dynamics! When I entered in the 1976, H2H was unit based depending on where you were located and your MOS. One unit might be taught judo (the local judo expert), another wrestling, another karate with somewhat of a grappling and escape solution. It was never standard. In boot camp, we received a 2 day introduction!

Now (within the last 5 years but officially 2 (I think) where a Marine Corps Bulletin was signed officially implememting the MCMAP programme as part of a all Corps impetus to officially train personnel to make this training an essential part of espirit de corps. There is even a MOS designation for the person who carries out the training!

[SimonM]

So what does this have to do with the amount of sparring in martial arts training curricula?

[rogue]

I'm an 11A. In as much as having worked with SF ODA's in Afghanistan (sharing an AO, conducting coordinated operations together and being part of the same TF), yes. Have I been a part of an SFG? No.

I am, however, a Level III MAC Instructor, and the Schoolhouse runs everyone through the same programs, w/o differentiation as to MOS. The SF guys with me were getting MAC Instructor-certified, then would get the LINES cert at Group.

This is current, as of JAN2007. It may be completely different now, but nothing's been said by the Schoolhouse.

Excellent, your information is more up to date than mine as the guys I hang out with have now all retired. I thought LINE was dropped?

OTOH, ARSOC units have much, much more in the way of discretionary funds, and can get trainers in for whatever, so an individual Battalion or Group could be learning Togakue-ryu, and we'd never know.

There is that, and from what I've been told there is or at least was a lot of institutional knowledge that would get passed down from the old experienced guys. Not sure it's still this way but each of the guys I get together with were expected to go and master a martial art on their own. Of course that method does have it's down sides but supposedly it did keep things unconventional.

I've seen a few variations of some common techniques that

None of the above is OPSEC, BTW.

Not to worry, I've learned to have a very short memory.

BTW, What's the main differences between levels I, II, III & IV?

[SevenStar]

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.

the last three are great. the first has its uses, but IMO is inferior to the latter in terms of actually learning to fight.

a system that does no sparring is definitely setting a person up to fail in a time where other schools and styles do spar. application and experience are key. can you imagine piloting a plane on your own if all you have ever done are flight sims? How about being on a battlefield and your only prior training was through videos and lectures? In theory, you would know what to do, but realistically, you would have problems applying it.

we have slim to no knowledge of what some of these fighters were actually like. If you have seven guys who train, but NONE of them spar, someone is bound to be better than the others. If he fights all seven and wins, he is now an undefeated fighter...

[Wood Dragon]

Now (within the last 5 years but officially 2 (I think) where a Marine Corps Bulletin was signed officially implememting the MCMAP programme as part of a all Corps impetus to officially train personnel to make this training an essential part of espirit de corps. There is even a MOS designation for the person who carries out the training!

Errr. None of that contradicts my post....

I said that Army combatives training is fairly stable across the Combat Arms, to include SF, and that SF uses the same system as the rest of the Army (MAC), with an arguable boost from LINES (a system that has it's own major flaws, as the USMC found).

OTOH, due to MAC (and the competitive elements), combatives has finally carved out a niche on the unit training plans. This was not the case with the old 21-150 Combatives "system", which no one trained or sustained due to it's lack of any real pedagogy.

Which brings us back to the difference between MAC (and, indeed MCMAP) and civilian systems. Primarily it is one of pedagogy (teaching method). The demographic is different, so adjustments are made to take that into account. So is intensity (we only have x# of training hours at BCT/OSUT/BOLCII/III, at PLDC and BNCOC, and on the unit training plans, so the maximum amount of utility is squeezed out of the time invested). Lastly, training context is different, as few civilian martial arts practitioners come off a a 10km speed hike and are told to put on the gloves and fight some random Soldier from another squad.

The MCMAP and MAC are fairly comparable, though MAC started out with lessons learned from watching the USMC insitute their program, so it's a bit better tuned. The use of the MCMAP-style belt system is currently being argued back and forth.

A good video for MAC, with the developer himself: https://www.benning.army.mil/videos/video16/

[SevenStar]

my friend stated

As an former Marine, I have seen the opposite!
At least, since the Gulf War, more units are being taught H2H and there seems to be more exposure/application/concept/principle due to the apparent closeness of urban combat dynamics! When I entered in the 1976, H2H was unit based depending on where you were located and your MOS. One unit might be taught judo (the local judo expert), another wrestling, another karate with somewhat of a grappling and escape solution. It was never standard. In boot camp, we received a 2 day introduction!

Now (within the last 5 years but officially 2 (I think) where a Marine Corps Bulletin was signed officially implememting the MCMAP programme as part of a all Corps impetus to officially train personnel to make this training an essential part of espirit de corps. There is even a MOS designation for the person who carries out the training!

a while back, I compared notes with some buddies of mine who were involved with MACMAP - it was basically just basic striking (pretty much unversal), joint locking and basic judo and bjj. They also told me that (at the time, anyway) it was only required that marines go through the first two belt levels (I think it was tan and green, or something). Anything after that was optional.