Styles/Sparring

[MightyB]

MB

I'll bite. My school is 'traditional' Tanglang and I'm pretty sure we use the standard guard position you don't like. You can see it in our 'chuji sanda' clips, where it's mostly open hand. However, the guard changes to fit the circumstance and is drawn in when we are largely punching full contact to the head and of course when not fighting against ourselves. In the case of sparring - using gloves changes things, for one, you can take shots on the glove, something you can't (and probably shouldn't) really do effectively without gloves. Anyone who fights using boxing gloves knows that they can not be held up in an extended guard for long and it goes without saying that the guard should be tightened. Open/extended guard is useful for catching, grappling and and takedowns. It has it's problems against certain opponents and when you are fighting against a predominantly head hunting striker such as a boxer, obviously best to bring the guard in tighter and of course withdraw/protect the chin. The chin was not a primary target traditionally, hence the general lack of fear of holding the head upright and confident use of extended guard as a controlling mechanism. On the other hand, extended guard and 'head on a beanpole' can be an intentional (but risky) way to entice certain attacks from the opponent.

The extended guard is not the only guard, it is only a snapshot of a guard that in actuality should shift to fit the purpose. The guard should not remain static and should not remain either permanently long or short. Ideally, at least one hand should at all times be within range to the guard the neck and head. Outside of range the guard can be wherever it likes or gone completely. In closing distance the guard should retract. On top of that, once fundamentals are mastered each fighter must develop their own unique guard. If you don't own it you can't use it.

I don't know about teaching this way being counter productive to martial development because if you are regularly fighting against boxers, kickboxers etc or fighting in your job or on the street, you will have to adapt or you will suffer the consequences. In other words if it doesn't work it gets quickly exposed and cannot be falsely imposed. 'Development' via exclusive intra-style fighting is always hampered. Doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't maintain the characteristics of your system, if they are worthwhile. If not, better to abandon your style and take up something better.

The guard position and waiting method that I gather you are referring to is a part of the basic fighting methodology/combat regulations of Tanglang. No doubt you would have already been taught this but the idea is that in a self defence, or for want of a better term 'street fighting' situation, unless you are initiating the attack (in which case there is really no need for a guard because you are already smashing them) you wait for your opponent to move first. This idea has been widely misunderstood because the second part is often ignored - when they do move you must beat them to the punch (to be specific - 'You attack, I simultaneously avoid and intercept') and if they do not move you definitely attack first, unless you want to avoid conflict. You should not just sit and wait, unless of course you choose to, which you may do if you are a counterfighter or if you are outnumbered, injured, gassed, thinking, looking for exits, weapons etc. In this case (i.e the case of a break in fighting) a guard is warranted, as may be a little 'sitting and waiting'.

In the ring, the extended guard and entrapment mentality is generally counterproductive (though not generally as big an issue in sanda). Besides which you will be penalised for inactivity. In a self defence/fighting situation it can be very useful if it has been trained effectively. Of course it can be a disadvantage against certain opponents.

BT

This is a good, thought provoking post.

[B.Tunks]

I could have probably been a bit more economical by just saying, yes it (the extended guard and the 'waiting' method) has its flaws but it also has it's place. I am confident it has it's place because I/we have both failed and succeeded with it.

I was also interested in the 'guard' method taught by your teacher and whether it conflicts with your current understanding.

BT

[MightyB]

I could have probably been a bit more economical by just saying, yes it (the extended guard and the 'waiting' method) has its flaws but it also has it's place. I am confident it has it's place because I/we have both failed and succeeded with it.

I was also interested in the 'guard' method taught by your teacher and whether it conflicts with your current understanding.

BT

I've modified what I was taught. It's still in-process. It's a modified "mantis guard" in the sense that it's still basically a mantis guard, but I've squared up more and keep the hands up and tight. This is mainly because of sport fighting and feeling that I wasn't free enough to initiate the attacks and I didn't feel that I was getting my rear hand into the game enough. I'm always working on it though and feel that's still a work in progress.

I'm not one for allowing too much freedom in the basic guard hand positioning. That's because I don't want any confusion. I don't want a student to mistake the range and I don't want any variance between using gloves or being bare-handed. Consistency leads to less doubt. Also, I don't like allowing the students to be too creative with the lead hand because I don't want them developing the habit of dropping it like Ali whether from fatigue, laziness, or trying to be fancy.

[B.Tunks]

I've modified what I was taught. It's still in-process. It's a modified "mantis guard" in the sense that it's still basically a mantis guard, but I've squared up more and keep the hands up and tight. This is mainly because of sport fighting and feeling that I wasn't free enough to initiate the attacks and I didn't feel that I was getting my rear hand into the game enough. I'm always working on it though and feel that's still a work in progress.

I'm not one for allowing too much freedom in the basic guard hand positioning. That's because I don't want any confusion. I don't want a student to mistake the range and I don't want any variance between using gloves or being bare-handed. Consistency leads to less doubt. Also, I don't like allowing the students to be too creative with the lead hand because I don't want them developing the habit of dropping it like Ali whether from fatigue, laziness, or trying to be fancy.

Reasonable and completely understandable. There are definitely holes as far as usage in sport fighting. You are right about rear hand use as well (particularly in the 'power hand forward' position). I agree about not allowing too much freedom when teaching guard to beginners. It is risky to teach a roving guard without developing solid defence and ability to strike effectively from the standard guard first.

Cheers.

BT

[gilbride100]

Change isn't always an evolution from inferior to superior, but an adaptation to changed circumstances. Modern boxers will sometimes put down the old bare-knuckle boxing stances and methods without considering that the rule-set and equipment was different. If you look at the way boxing was done in the 18th century vs the 19th century vs the 20th century and then consider the rules and the equipment for each of those eras, you can see that in each case the boxers were adapting their methods to the situation.

So, considering that empty-hand fighting in old China was not primarily for military or village-defense use (they had weapons for that), it makes sense to ask what it was probably used for. The obvious answer is that it was mostly used for boxing matches, i.e. platform challenges. The next obvious question is "what were the rules, whether written or unwritten, for platform boxing matches?"

I think the answer to that question will explain a lot of what we see in TCMA, and also why the same methods do not work as well under a different set of rules.

[Lucas]

Change isn't always an evolution from inferior to superior, but an adaptation to changed circumstances. Modern boxers will sometimes put down the old bare-knuckle boxing stances and methods without considering that the rule-set and equipment was different. If you look at the way boxing was done in the 18th century vs the 19th century vs the 20th century and then consider the rules and the equipment for each of those eras, you can see that in each case the boxers were adapting their methods to the situation.

So, considering that empty-hand fighting in old China was not primarily for military or village-defense use (they had weapons for that), it makes sense to ask what it was probably used for. The obvious answer is that it was mostly used for boxing matches, i.e. platform challenges. The next obvious question is "what were the rules, whether written or unwritten, for platform boxing matches?"

I think the answer to that question will explain a lot of what we see in TCMA, and also why the same methods do not work as well under a different set of rules.

who let all these realistic people in here?


j/k, good post.

[TenTigers]

who let all these realistic people in here?


j/k, good post.

freakin noobs...

[Lucas]

freakin noobs...

[KC Elbows]

I've been working on footwork drills for sparring in classes the last month. I've been having to weed out tendencies for students to use footwork learned from this kung fu or that for common manuevering that are actually intended for very specific locks and throws, and make no sense in the context of fighting for position at striking range. Trying to ingrain that normal motion is sometimes good, teach them about squaring up and not squaring up, etc.

[-N-]

im confused, MA is about being able to protect yourself, not the other way around.

It's ok to protect yourself by attacking and killing the other guy

[-N-]

I think TCMA takes on a quasi-Bhudhist approach of passive/defensive only and it's in the forms and the stance. Everything seems to be "if he does this then I do this".

Maybe for beginners.

But we definately train to take the fight to the other person.

I had an student that went to Japan and did aiki-jitsu there for 20 years. He knew how to use his techniques if the other person attacked, but some stuff he thought was useless.

After he started learning Mantis, he finally realized how to attack to setup his aiki-jitsu techniques. And he started liking the stuff that he thought didn't make sense before.

I actually have to work on defense with one of my students. He doesn't come to class regularly so when he does, I just drill him on methods of blitz attacking to end the fight quickly. The more traditional way compared to sport and sparring.

I took him to an open mat last weekend. He had no problem initiating and overtaking his opponents. But he was kind of lost unless he was attacking.

It was his first time outside our group. I had to tell him not to hit people so hard.

[-N-]

I had an student that went to Japan and did aiki-jitsu there for 20 years.

He got his black belt here in the US and went to Japan in his twenties. He was old school, but they still kicked his azz. He was a white guy who would go to the schools and ask the master to "Please teach me a lesson". He stayed for over 20 years because he saw he had a lot to learn. By the time he came back to the US, he had a 20 something year old half Japanese son with him.

The dad and I worked out together. He told his son to join us, but the son wanted to do Muay Thai instead. After a couple years, the dad was kicking the son's azz, so the son joined our group as well.