full contact sparing
StephieXXX
dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner)
wrote
>nob...@nowhere.com (D.J.S.) wrote:
>>In article <5u111m$6js$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Razor"
<s34...@student.uq.edu.au> writes:
>>> The art I am training does not do full contact sparing until after about 3
>>> years of training.
>>That is because if you don't have a good control, you can seriously hurt
yourself or your sparring partner.
>3 years to gain enough self control to *spar*?!?! This sounds like a
>school where sparring, fighting and practical, realistic self defense
>(ie. chaos) isn't stressed. If this is what you want, go for it.
It sounds to me like a school where technique is stressed.
Don Wagner
steph...@aol.com (StephieXXX) wrote:
>dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner)
>>3 years to gain enough self control to *spar*?!?! This sounds like a
>>school where sparring, fighting and practical, realistic self defense
>>(ie. chaos) isn't stressed. If this is what you want, go for it.
>It sounds to me like a school where technique is stressed.
I don't see it as an "either/or" issue but 3 years is too long to wait
to attempt to put theory to semi-practice. Stress technique as much
as you'd like but also stress realism and application.
We're not talking some no holds barred tourney or instigting bar
fights...just controlled sparring.
Technique without application? If thats what you want thats fine by
me.
--Don--
My post was censored on RMAM
and all I got was this lousy sig file.
StephieXXX
Subject: Re: full contact sparing
From: dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 19:23:18 GMT
Message-id: <5uhp3p$f...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>
steph...@aol.com (StephieXXX) wrote:
>dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner)
>>3 years to gain enough self control to *spar*?!?! This sounds like a
>>school where sparring, fighting and practical, realistic self defense
>>>(ie. chaos) isn't stressed. If this is what you want, go for it.
>>It sounds to me like a school where technique is stressed.
>I don't see it as an "either/or" issue but 3 years is too long to wait
>to attempt to put theory to semi-practice. Stress technique as much
>as you'd like but also stress realism and application.\
It depends on your time scale. It is a pretty normal time for traditional
Japenaese karate. If your style is based on precision strikes, it seems a
bit too short.
>We're not talking some no holds barred tourney or instigting bar
>fights...just controlled sparring.
Title is about "full contact sparring", who knows what "controled sparring
" is.
>Technique without application? If thats what you want thats fine by
>me.
better than the other way around.
StephieXXX
dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner) wrote
steph...@aol.com (StephieXXX) wrote:
>>>dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner)
>>>I don't see it as an "either/or" issue but 3 years is too long to wait
>>>to attempt to put theory to semi-practice. Stress technique as much
>>>as you'd like but also stress realism and application.\
>>It depends on your time scale. It is a pretty normal time for traditional
>>Japenaese karate. If your style is based on precision strikes, it seems a
>>bit too short.
>I started my MA training in Okinawan Shorin Ryu. I was applying what
>I was learning (at whatever level I was at at the time) from a very
>early point in my practice...months rather then years. Application,
>especially (and I hate this term) "Self-defense" should be able to be
>practiced in class without injuries pretty quickly if the goal is
>realism. I'm not speaking of a high level of skill, just applying
>what you are learning against a semi-realistic opponent.
My apologies for getting short here, but your last point is without basis
or common sense. Let us apply your training theories to training jet
fighter pilots. You are going to send the up in a jet fighter so they can
get started on their realism. It might be prudent to teach them a few
things first, and perhaps let them fly a stabiler aircraft first.
I do not know how you approach your martial arts, but I find mine require
a deep understanding that takes years to develop. They are closer to level
of training required by a jet pilot than by a nintendo pilot. Most of the
techniques simply will not work against an average attacker until after
several years of practice. If you practice before then, you "cheat"
technique in the effort to win and practice lots of bad technique.
In blocks for example we teach minimal motion. We start with light, slow
attacks and gradually increase the speed and strength. At the end of the
time, the student can deal with most attacks and still use minimal motion.
Only then is he ready to learn about strategy and tactics that assume a
high degree of skill in technical blocking. Sparring before that point
will just teach him stategy and tactics of unskilled blocking. That is
what we want to prevent.
If you want quick fighting skills, get a gun or a knife and start with
that weapon.
>>Skill comes with practice. Effectiveness comes with realism.
Effectiveness also requires skill. Realism without skill is wasted if not
dangerous.
>>>We're not talking some no holds barred tourney or instigting bar
>>>fights...just controlled sparring.
>>Title is about "full contact sparring", who knows what "controled sparring
>>" is.
>I'd say controlled sparring is a tool used to lead a new student into
>full contact training. Or it could be what some schools call "full
>contact".
My school calls "full contact" lethal self-defense. Is that what we are
talking about? Or are you talking about what we call "limited attack,
padded sparring". - We see little realism in padding that makes defense
unnecessary.
>>Technique without application? If thats what you want thats fine by
>>me.
>better than the other way around.
>Being able to apply what you know at the level you know it is of more
>value from a martial standpoint then being able to look good and not
>apply what you know.
Another silly statement. How about bayonette charging. If you are at the
level where you can run, but not use the bayonette, you want to apply this
for real? How about just doing a complete fake drill of running and
embedding your weapon in a fixed motionless target? That would make sense
for me. In the same way, we do drills where the student blocks known,
controlled attacks, rather than experience the "realism" of getting his
head knocked off by some unforseen strike that he is not supposed to be
able to deal with.
>Having good technique and control _are_
>extremely important aspects of any style, but I feel the delivery
>system should be developed too.
Of course, but before the technique and control are available? I say no.
Get the fundamentals sound first, and then mixing and matching them will
be relatively easy.
Don Wagner
steph...@aol.com (StephieXXX) wrote:
> dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner) wrote
>>I started my MA training in Okinawan Shorin Ryu. I was applying what
>>I was learning (at whatever level I was at at the time) from a very
>>early point in my practice...months rather then years. Application,
>>especially (and I hate this term) "Self-defense" should be able to be
>>practiced in class without injuries pretty quickly if the goal is
>>realism. I'm not speaking of a high level of skill, just applying
>>what you are learning against a semi-realistic opponent.
>My apologies for getting short here, but your last point is without basis
>or common sense. Let us apply your training theories to training jet
>fighter pilots. You are going to send the up in a jet fighter so they can
>get started on their realism. It might be prudent to teach them a few
>things first, and perhaps let them fly a stabiler aircraft first.
Nope. We're going to throw them in the simulator first (training in
class). The "real application" is probably something that most of us
wish to aviod. The jet fighter also flys with a trainer before he
solos, the MA stylist is taught by those in class with more
experience.
>I do not know how you approach your martial arts, but I find mine require
>a deep understanding that takes years to develop. They are closer to level
>of training required by a jet pilot than by a nintendo pilot.
In mine you keep learning, growing and practicing. At any one point
in time you use what you know at the level you can actually do it.
> Most of the
>techniques simply will not work against an average attacker until after
>several years of practice.
Maybe you should put some thought into simple, practical self defense
so that the years you spend in training will actually make a
difference if you do need to resort to the physical before the deep
understanding. Shouldn't the physical aspects of "self defense" have
"KISS" as a goal.
> If you practice before then, you "cheat"
>technique in the effort to win and practice lots of bad technique.
You make it sound like an inexperienced "winner" is somehow bad. I
don't advocate bad technique over skill, just usefulness over show.
>In blocks for example we teach minimal motion. We start with light, slow
>attacks and gradually increase the speed and strength. At the end of the
>time, the student can deal with most attacks and still use minimal motion.
>Only then is he ready to learn about strategy and tactics that assume a
>high degree of skill in technical blocking. Sparring before that point
>will just teach him stategy and tactics of unskilled blocking. That is
>what we want to prevent.
And it takes years of training before a person "blocks" in sparring?
It still seems too long to me.
>If you want quick fighting skills, get a gun or a knife and start with
>that weapon.
Frankly I do think that weapons are very important to understand,
practice and use...but lets not get into that debate here.
>>>Skill comes with practice. Effectiveness comes with realism.
>Effectiveness also requires skill.
It certainly does not. Drawing upon the wit and wisdom of the UFC,
Tank "roolz!" Abbot is effective but does not possess what you or I
would can martial arts skill.
> Realism without skill is wasted if not
>dangerous.
Dangerous? Maybe if brute force is the only thing being taught.
Wasted? Thats dependent upon the student and the teacher.
>>>>We're not talking some no holds barred tourney or instigting bar
>>>>fights...just controlled sparring.
>>>Title is about "full contact sparring", who knows what "controled sparring
>>>" is.
>>I'd say controlled sparring is a tool used to lead a new student into
>>full contact training. Or it could be what some schools call "full
>>contact".
>My school calls "full contact" lethal self-defense. Is that what we are
>talking about? Or are you talking about what we call "limited attack,
>padded sparring". - We see little realism in padding that makes defense
>unnecessary.
Other then cups we don't use any protection other then uncommon,
common sense and the goal of not purposefully sending someone to the
emergency room. In stickfighting we use light street hockey gloves,
fencing masks and cups...somepeople use knee and elbow pads but that
more for groundfighting then for protection.
We call "lethal self defense" lethal self defense. It's not something
that can be practiced with any degree of realism in any class. You
can't poke someone in the eyes, follow through with a throat strike,
pop a knee or shoulder out, etc... Nor should we want to.
Full contact is using P/K, standing grapples, takedowns, throws,
wrapping, groundfighting, chokes and other submissions. Injurys do
occur but I've seen worse and more frequent ones occur at any gym I've
ever been a member of (pulled muscles, tendons,bruises, etc.)
I feel you should push the realism to the limit to improve technique
and skill. The limit is different for each person at whatever degree
of skill they are at at the time.
>>>Technique without application? If thats what you want thats fine by
>>>me.
>>better than the other way around.
>>Being able to apply what you know at the level you know it is of more
>>value from a martial standpoint then being able to look good and not
>>apply what you know.
>Another silly statement. How about bayonette charging. If you are at the
>level where you can run, but not use the bayonette, you want to apply this
>for real?
You use that in class or out in the real world? ;-)
We are not in disagreement (I hope) that self defense is only a small
part physical confrontation, correct? Running is self defense and I
encourage this as a viable technique to people I train with and to
myself as well. On the other hand, if I have a knife and I'm forced
to use it I'm goign to draw upon what I've learned in class and use it
how I practiced it as well. If my training was only extremely
controlled, predicable attacks by a willing attacker then that is
probably the way I'm going to fight when it matters.
> How about just doing a complete fake drill of running and
>embedding your weapon in a fixed motionless target? That would make sense
>for me. In the same way, we do drills where the student blocks known,
>controlled attacks, rather than experience the "realism" of getting his
>head knocked off by some unforseen strike that he is not supposed to be
>able to deal with.
Then I think you should have a talk with the teachers and experienced
students working with the more inexperienced students. You can push a
newbie past where they are without taking their head off. If you
review what they did right and wrong afterwards and offer
encouragement and advice they will progress much faster then endless
static drills. Drills are important but I feel that realism is too.
>>Having good technique and control _are_
>>extremely important aspects of any style, but I feel the delivery
>>system should be developed too.
>Of course, but before the technique and control are available? I say no.
>Get the fundamentals sound first, and then mixing and matching them will
>be relatively easy.
Our disagreement is in the amount of time required and when to
actually put theory into practice. We should always be working of the
basics and fundamental princilples in our styles, schools and general
training...thats a given for anyone taking this stuff seriously.
--Don--
Sometimes they fool you by walking upright.
StephieXXX
dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner) wrote:
steph...@aol.com (StephieXXX) wrote:
> dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner) wrote
>>I'm not speaking of a high level of skill, just applying
>>what you are learning against a semi-realistic opponent.
I have already stated that my goal is attaining a high degree of combat
ability (enough to defend my self from 99% of people liky to attack me by
developing my martial arts.
>>My apologies for getting short here, but your last point is without basis
>>or common sense. Let us apply your training theories to training jet
>>fighter pilots. You are going to send the up in a jet fighter so they can
>>get started on their realism. It might be prudent to teach them a few
>>things first, and perhaps let them fly a stabiler aircraft first.
You would just crash the simulator 1 zillion times. No simulator practice
is going to teach you the performance limits of the aircraft or help you
get a "feel" for the motions of the plane. These things require study and
practice at an elementary level.
>Nope. We're going to throw them in the simulator first (training in
>class). The "real application" is probably something that most of us
>wish to aviod. The jet fighter also flys with a trainer before he
>solos, the MA stylist is taught by those in class with more
>experience.
I would suggest that a first step might be to practice lots of acrobatics
in the plane without worrying about shooting or getting shot down.
My martial arts a pretty good (they should be after a couple decades), but
I still spend huge amounts of time doing kata and working on my own
balance, movement. and body alignment. Until you learn this the first
time, your defense capability is going to be zilch. Why not just give the
beginner a few years to learn this before asking him to do it while dodge
punches? If he can't do it without the punches, he is not going to do it
with them. If the students really are worried about fighting, we teach
them a few cheap tricks that will work until they can use technique.
>I do not know how you approach your martial arts, but I find mine require
>a deep understanding that takes years to develop. They are closer to level
>of training required by a jet pilot than by a nintendo pilot.
In mine you keep learning, growing and practicing. At any one point
in time you use what you know at the level you can actually do it.
How do you use a telegraphed punch? At first the karate punches are going
to be terrible until you build up and retrain the muscles. All that you
will learn is that you can't rely on your strikes for power and accuracy
and that is exactly what I don't want my students to learn.
>> Most of the
>>techniques simply will not work against an average attacker until after
>>several years of practice.
>Maybe you should put some thought into simple, practical self defense
>so that the years you spend in training will actually make a
>difference if you do need to resort to the physical before the deep
>understanding. Shouldn't the physical aspects of "self defense" have
>"KISS" as a goal.
Not if you are aiming at a very high level of self defense. "Simple" jet
fighters and "simple" tactics don't win dogfights either. High performance
aircraft are difficult to handle because there is a inverse relationship
between stability and maneuverability. In martial arts, most things should
be simle, but it seems to take humans a great deal of time to learn to do
simple things reliably and without adding extra stuff that messes up the
simple stuff.
When I demonstrate a technique that has two simple motions, my student
invariably perform it in five or six at first, because they lack the
balance and the trained muscle memory I have. Then I watch my instructor
do it and he does it as one motion. I believe that nearly perfect
repeatability is a key aspect of advanced martial arts. When I do a judo
throw it is identical every time. With a single uke from a single starting
position two dozen throws will have my feet within a half an inch of the
first and the uke will land within an inch. The purpose of makiwara and
heavy bags is to make develop the same type of repeatabiliy. Only when you
have perfect confidence in your own movement can you hope to compensate for
your opponents attemps to confuse you.
>>If you practice before then, you "cheat"
>>technique in the effort to win and practice lots of bad technique.
>You make it sound like an inexperienced "winner" is somehow bad. I
>don't advocate bad technique over skill, just usefulness over show.
"winning" is fairly irrelevant to mastery of technique. My students using
good technique would not "win" against me more than 1 in 10,000 trys, but
might do 1 in 1000 using totally bizarre movements. Does this mean I want
them to practice bizarre movements? No, I want them to use good technique
so that they can get down to 1 in 100 eventually. The bizarre techniques
will never get better that 1 in 1000.
>>In blocks for example we teach minimal motion. We start with light, slow
>>attacks and gradually increase the speed and strength. At the end of the
>>time, the student can deal with most attacks and still use minimal motion.
>>Only then is he ready to learn about strategy and tactics that assume a
>>high degree of skill in technical blocking. Sparring before that point
>>will just teach him stategy and tactics of unskilled blocking. That is
>>what we want to prevent.
>And it takes years of training before a person "blocks" in sparring?
>It still seems too long to me.
I specified "skilled" blocking in a style that stresses technique.
Three years does not seem a long time to me if you are pursuing "art".
Do a "frozen dinner" style martial art if you want something faster.
What is better gourmet meal or a frozen dinner if you want something in
seven minutes?
>>If you want quick fighting skills, get a gun or a knife and start with
>>that weapon.
>Frankly I do think that weapons are very important to understand,
>practice and use...but lets not get into that debate here.
maybe not, but they certainly render a lot of technique irrelevant.
>>>Skill comes with practice. Effectiveness comes with realism.
>Effectiveness also requires skill.
>It certainly does not. Drawing upon the wit and wisdom of the UFC,
>Tank "roolz!" Abbot is effective but does not possess what you or I
>would can martial arts skill.
Sorry, but I don't take UFC as an indication of much. Like WWF there are
not anywhere near enough injuries to be on the up and up. I have been to
(bad) judo tournaments where 20% of the contestants left with
incapacitating injuries and we were not trying to hurt each other. Karate!
Just forget it. The whole idea is to break things.
>> Realism without skill is wasted if not dangerous.
>Dangerous? Maybe if brute force is the only thing being taught.
Most of my higher karate students could hit you hard enough to break your
jaw, and in 1 out of a 100, they would probably miss an inch too deep once
and do it (particularily if you were sparring).
>Wasted? Thats dependent upon the student and the teacher.
I agree, if you do a very technical art without skill you learn little.
On the other hand, in plain streetfighting practice makes perfect enough.
>>>>We're not talking some no holds barred tourney or instigting bar
>>>>fights...just controlled sparring.
>>>Title is about "full contact sparring", who knows what "controled sparring
>>>" is.
>>I'd say controlled sparring is a tool used to lead a new student into
>>full contact training. Or it could be what some schools call "full
>>contact".
That is what you said, but I still don't know that the tool looks like.
Is it more like a hammer or a saw?
>>My school calls "full contact" lethal self-defense. Is that what we are
>>talking about? Or are you talking about what we call "limited attack,
>>padded sparring". - We see little realism in padding that makes defense
>>unnecessary.
>Other then cups we don't use any protection other then uncommon,
>common sense and the goal of not purposefully sending someone to the
>emergency room.
Unfortunate that is exactly the goal of karate. If you are not trying to
do that what are you trying to do? For example, an opening move in Goju is
to break the opponents front or standing knee. Exactly how do you execute
that move safely?
>In stickfighting we use light street hockey gloves,
>fencing masks and cups...somepeople use knee and elbow pads but that
>more for groundfighting then for protection.
>We call "lethal self defense" lethal self defense. It's not something
>that can be practiced with any degree of realism in any class. You
>can't poke someone in the eyes, follow through with a throat strike,
>pop a knee or shoulder out, etc... Nor should we want to.
I guess we agree on this one.
>Full contact is using P/K, standing grapples, takedowns, throws,
>wrapping, groundfighting, chokes and other submissions. Injurys do
>occur but I've seen worse and more frequent ones occur at any gym I've
>ever been a member of (pulled muscles, tendons,bruises, etc.)
If you are not trying to injure, you are not really fighting and that is
the end of it. Just make up some nice rules and call it sport judo or whatever.
>I feel you should push the realism to the limit to improve technique
>and skill. The limit is different for each person at whatever degree
>of skill they are at at the time.
Virtually all attacks in fighting judo or karate have a goal of serious
injury. You don't have to push this very far to end up with no one who
will spar with you. If you pull back on your techniqes you change the
tactics and strategy of the art.
>>>Technique without application? If thats what you want thats fine by
>>>me.
>>better than the other way around.
>>Being able to apply what you know at the level you know it is of more
>>value from a martial standpoint then being able to look good and not
>>apply what you know.
Better not bullfight bull unless you know what you are doing. Stick to
carts with horns on them.
>>Another silly statement. How about bayonette charging. If you are at the
>>level where you can run, but not use the bayonette, you want to apply
>>this for real?
>You use that in class or out in the real world? ;-)
They are called umbrellas. Flatten and sharpen the metal rod at the top.
(See discussion of M.A. and non-violence for more on that)
>We are not in disagreement (I hope) that self defense is only a small
>part physical confrontation, correct? Running is self defense and I
>encourage this as a viable technique to people I train with and to
>myself as well. On the other hand, if I have a knife and I'm forced
>to use it I'm goign to draw upon what I've learned in class and use it
>how I practiced it as well. If my training was only extremely
>controlled, predicable attacks by a willing attacker then that is
>probably the way I'm going to fight when it matters.
our class training certainly goes beyond controlled, predictable attacks
>>How about just doing a complete fake drill of running and
>>embedding your weapon in a fixed motionless target? That would make sense
>>for me. In the same way, we do drills where the student blocks known,
>>controlled attacks, rather than experience the "realism" of getting his
>>head knocked off by some unforseen strike that he is not supposed to be
>>able to deal with.
>Then I think you should have a talk with the teachers and experienced
>students working with the more inexperienced students. You can push a
>newbie past where they are without taking their head off. If you
>review what they did right and wrong afterwards and offer
>encouragement and advice they will progress much faster then endless
>static drills. Drills are important but I feel that realism is too.
Who said any think about static drills? Drills can be very dynamic and
unpredictable. They just have to be designed so no one gets hurt. They
can be more or less like sparring but with rules.
>>Having good technique and control _are_
>>extremely important aspects of any style, but I feel the delivery
>>system should be developed too.
>Of course, but before the technique and control are available? I say no.
>Get the fundamentals sound first, and then mixing and matching them will
>be relatively easy.
>Our disagreement is in the amount of time required and when to
>actually put theory into practice. We should always be working of the
>basics and fundamental princilples in our styles, schools and general
>training...thats a given for anyone taking this stuff seriously.
Sure so why not practice it enough so you can halfway do it before trying
to apply it? Seems like just plain common sense to me.
I have stated that in my art we find that it takes a few years. If you
can learn enough in your art in three weeks, go for it. Just don't
question my three years until know what "enough" means for us.
Don Wagner
steph...@aol.com (StephieXXX) wrote:
>dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner) wrote:
>>Nope. We're going to throw them in the simulator first (training in
>>class). The "real application" is probably something that most of us
>>wish to aviod. The jet fighter also flys with a trainer before he
>>solos, the MA stylist is taught by those in class with more
>>experience.
>You would just crash the simulator 1 zillion times. No simulator practice
>is going to teach you the performance limits of the aircraft or help you
>get a "feel" for the motions of the plane. These things require study and
>practice at an elementary level.
Getting off the subject a bit. Simulators are extensively used by the
USAF in many figher/bomber programs. People have developed combat
stress syndromes from simulators. Simulator are akin to class drills.
XXX years for class drills on technique are not suddenly going to
transfer over into more realistic training.
>My martial arts a pretty good (they should be after a couple decades), but
>I still spend huge amounts of time doing kata and working on my own
>balance, movement. and body alignment. Until you learn this the first
>time, your defense capability is going to be zilch. Why not just give the
>beginner a few years to learn this before asking him to do it while dodge
>punches? If he can't do it without the punches, he is not going to do it
>with them. If the students really are worried about fighting, we teach
>them a few cheap tricks that will work until they can use technique.
This may be another point of contention. I count "cheap tricks" in
the fighting catagory along with technique.
We encourage application because we've found it aids in learning
technique, just as we encourage technique because is aids in
application. If a student gets hit in a controlled enviornent by a
more experienced student or instructor _and_ they spend the time to go
over the session in detail afterwards then growth progresses into more
realistic applications. I've never said anything about either/or
training of drills vs. fighting in class. Both are important, both
have their place. Our disagreement is mainly over years vs. months.
>>Maybe you should put some thought into simple, practical self defense
>>so that the years you spend in training will actually make a
>>difference if you do need to resort to the physical before the deep
>>understanding. Shouldn't the physical aspects of "self defense" have
>>"KISS" as a goal.
>Not if you are aiming at a very high level of self defense.
Aiming is fine, no one is saying "don't try to get good". What I'm
saying is that several years of no realistic application and only
controlled drills followed by realistic applications is not going to
suddenly produce a skilled fighter. They will have benefits over a
newbie but they will have to overcome the same problems that the
newbie is going through.
I feel that the physical aspect of self defense should be kept simple
and direct from day one. You feel that it requires a high degree of
skill, several years of drills and with the goal being overcoming
90%(? sorry, I snipped the actual %) of all attackers.
> "Simple" jet
>fighters and "simple" tactics don't win dogfights either.
Neither does several years in drills without getting in the air. You
want to keep the planes on the ground, I want to see them up in the
air where they might do some good.
> High performance
>aircraft are difficult to handle because there is a inverse relationship
>between stability and maneuverability. In martial arts, most things should
>be simle, but it seems to take humans a great deal of time to learn to do
>simple things reliably and without adding extra stuff that messes up the
>simple stuff.
It all depends on what you are stressing in class. We stress
application from an early point in training. In our case the student
looks at this as "normal". In time the kinks are worked out and the
technique improves. During this time the student has started to
become a tool using creature and is becoming more of a match for any
physical threat they may encounter.
Personal preferance and general philosophy.
>When I demonstrate a technique that has two simple motions, my student
>invariably perform it in five or six at first, because they lack the
>balance and the trained muscle memory I have. Then I watch my instructor
>do it and he does it as one motion. I believe that nearly perfect
>repeatability is a key aspect of advanced martial arts. When I do a judo
>throw it is identical every time.
VS a willing person or someone who is going to resist you? It takes
several years to learn to do a throw in a fight properly, perfectly,
or effectively. The idea is to get the other person on the ground and
have you in an advantageous postiton. In a perfect world it would be
wonderful to have it look good too.
> With a single uke from a single starting
>position two dozen throws will have my feet within a half an inch of the
>first and the uke will land within an inch. The purpose of makiwara and
>heavy bags is to make develop the same type of repeatabiliy. Only when you
>have perfect confidence in your own movement can you hope to compensate for
>your opponents attemps to confuse you.
I can't totally agree nor disagree with you. Heavy bag training does
not flow smoothly into active fighting skill. Being able to throw
with pinpoint accuracy and perfect form is a great skill. Can the
everyone do this or only a select few? Can they do it all the time
against a resisting opponent?
>>>If you practice before then, you "cheat"
>>>technique in the effort to win and practice lots of bad technique.
>>You make it sound like an inexperienced "winner" is somehow bad. I
>>don't advocate bad technique over skill, just usefulness over show.
>"winning" is fairly irrelevant to mastery of technique.
Then why "master" at technique at all? I think everyone should
constantly be trying to improve what they know. I don't think its
possible to "master" a technique.
> My students using
>good technique would not "win" against me more than 1 in 10,000 trys, but
>might do 1 in 1000 using totally bizarre movements. Does this mean I want
>them to practice bizarre movements? No, I want them to use good technique
>so that they can get down to 1 in 100 eventually. The bizarre techniques
>will never get better that 1 in 1000.
We can throw around numbers all day long. "Cheating" doesn't mean
carrying around a handfull of sand to throw in someones face.
>>>In blocks for example we teach minimal motion. We start with light, slow
>>>attacks and gradually increase the speed and strength. At the end of the
>>>time, the student can deal with most attacks and still use minimal motion.
>>>Only then is he ready to learn about strategy and tactics that assume a
>>>high degree of skill in technical blocking. Sparring before that point
>>>will just teach him stategy and tactics of unskilled blocking. That is
>>>what we want to prevent.
>>And it takes years of training before a person "blocks" in sparring?
>>It still seems too long to me.
>I specified "skilled" blocking in a style that stresses technique.
>Three years does not seem a long time to me if you are pursuing "art".
>Do a "frozen dinner" style martial art if you want something faster.
>What is better gourmet meal or a frozen dinner if you want something in
>seven minutes?
Is the person starving? Can they afford the gourmet meal? Is this a
form of elitist training or something practical that anyone willing to
learn can learn?
I'm training with essentially the same people I started with 16 years
ago plus the people who have joined us since then. I expect to be
doing some form of MA for the rest of my life.
>>>If you want quick fighting skills, get a gun or a knife and start with
>>>that weapon.
>>Frankly I do think that weapons are very important to understand,
>>practice and use...but lets not get into that debate here.
>maybe not, but they certainly render a lot of technique irrelevant.
Often times that is the case. But lets not open that can of worms
either this time around.
>>>>Skill comes with practice. Effectiveness comes with realism.
>>Effectiveness also requires skill.
>>It certainly does not. Drawing upon the wit and wisdom of the UFC,
>>Tank "roolz!" Abbot is effective but does not possess what you or I
>>would can martial arts skill.
>Sorry, but I don't take UFC as an indication of much.
Nor do I but it is two people trying to take each other down with
relatively minimal rules.
>>> Realism without skill is wasted if not dangerous.
>>Dangerous? Maybe if brute force is the only thing being taught.
>Most of my higher karate students could hit you hard enough to break your
>jaw, and in 1 out of a 100, they would probably miss an inch too deep once
>and do it (particularily if you were sparring).
Most of the people with 9months of experience in my group could do the
same thing only they can take a hit in sparring as well. Lets not
play "I can piss farther", it's annoying and degrading to the both of
us, yes?
>>Other then cups we don't use any protection other then uncommon,
>>common sense and the goal of not purposefully sending someone to the
>>emergency room.
>Unfortunate that is exactly the goal of karate. If you are not trying to
>do that what are you trying to do? For example, an opening move in Goju is
>to break the opponents front or standing knee. Exactly how do you execute
>that move safely?
The same way you do probably...you don't go around breaking you
training partners knee or finding some poor schmuck to do it on.
The way to train in the dangerous and uncontrollable aspects of the
art is through drills and watchful control during class. Heavy bag
and makiwara training help but they fall far from the mark when
striking a real person in a real situation.
>>In stickfighting we use light street hockey gloves,
>>fencing masks and cups...somepeople use knee and elbow pads but that
>>more for groundfighting then for protection.
>>We call "lethal self defense" lethal self defense. It's not something
>>that can be practiced with any degree of realism in any class. You
>>can't poke someone in the eyes, follow through with a throat strike,
>>pop a knee or shoulder out, etc... Nor should we want to.
>I guess we agree on this one.
We probably agree on a lot more too. This issue is sore point! ;-)
>>I feel you should push the realism to the limit to improve technique
>>and skill. The limit is different for each person at whatever degree
>>of skill they are at at the time.
>Virtually all attacks in fighting judo or karate have a goal of serious
>injury. You don't have to push this very far to end up with no one who
>will spar with you. If you pull back on your techniqes you change the
>tactics and strategy of the art.
If you don't add realism you will never find out the failings of the
technique until it is too late.
>They are called umbrellas. Flatten and sharpen the metal rod at the top.
>(See discussion of M.A. and non-violence for more on that)
We've played that game too. ;-) Most are too fragile to amount to
much.
>>We are not in disagreement (I hope) that self defense is only a small
>>part physical confrontation, correct? Running is self defense and I
>>encourage this as a viable technique to people I train with and to
>>myself as well. On the other hand, if I have a knife and I'm forced
>>to use it I'm going to draw upon what I've learned in class and use it
>>how I practiced it as well. If my training was only extremely
>>controlled, predicable attacks by a willing attacker then that is
>>probably the way I'm going to fight when it matters.
>our class training certainly goes beyond controlled, predictable attacks
It hopefully does. It's the time issue that is making this messy for
us.
>Who said any think about static drills? Drills can be very dynamic and
>unpredictable. They just have to be designed so no one gets hurt. They
>can be more or less like sparring but with rules.
Define an unpredictable drill. If both people know what is going to
happen and the idea is to perfect technique, it's a drill isn't it?
even if a few choices are available to the people it's still a drill.
>>Our disagreement is in the amount of time required and when to
>>actually put theory into practice. We should always be working of the
>>basics and fundamental princilples in our styles, schools and general
>>training...thats a given for anyone taking this stuff seriously.
>Sure so why not practice it enough so you can halfway do it before trying
>to apply it? Seems like just plain common sense to me.
Then why do it halfway when 100% can be reached? Expanding upon the
theme of course... ;-)
>I have stated that in my art we find that it takes a few years. If you
>can learn enough in your art in three weeks, go for it. Just don't
>question my three years until know what "enough" means for us.
The questioning is the fun part of discussion. We both looked at
wahat the other person had written and worked from there. In some
cases we found common ground, in others disagreement.
I feel it comes down to a time issue and personal priorities.
--Don--
I censored everyone on RMAM
and I got this neat sig file.
Kevin Hill
Don Wagner <dawa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
: steph...@aol.com (StephieXXX) wrote:
: >My apologies for getting short here, but your last point is without basis
: >or common sense. Let us apply your training theories to training jet
: >fighter pilots. You are going to send the up in a jet fighter so they can
: >get started on their realism. It might be prudent to teach them a few
: >things first, and perhaps let them fly a stabiler aircraft first.
Sorry to intrude, but i think that while you need a minimum of
introduction to the basics, and an explanation of approach and
things to work on, sparring in a necessary part of learning.
Your analogy is not at all the same. I can agree with "don't
toss new students directly into full contact NHB fighting"
but there are plenty of stages of sparring to choose from.
You can babble on and on about theory all you want, but at
some point, the best approach is to try it. I believe this is
best done (albeit with a gradual approach) right away, as
opposed to years later.
: In mine you keep learning, growing and practicing. At any one point
: in time you use what you know at the level you can actually do it.
This is true of mine as well.
: > Most of the
: >techniques simply will not work against an average attacker until after
: >several years of practice.
: Maybe you should put some thought into simple, practical self defense
: so that the years you spend in training will actually make a
: difference if you do need to resort to the physical before the deep
: understanding. Shouldn't the physical aspects of "self defense" have
: "KISS" as a goal.
It is helpful to realize which techniques don't work before you
refine them and why, as this is applicable knowledge later in
your training as well. Locks and strikes that aren't easy when
you are new should by applied with judgement later as well.
Also, it is far easier to refine something when you know why
it doesn't work.
: > If you practice before then, you "cheat"
: >technique in the effort to win and practice lots of bad technique.
: You make it sound like an inexperienced "winner" is somehow bad. I
: don't advocate bad technique over skill, just usefulness over show.
Both technique/skill and strength/brute force are useful strategies,
as long as it is explained what is missing. Sparring is an extremely
useful aide in determining what is missing in technique, because
you feel yourself resorting to force.
: And it takes years of training before a person "blocks" in sparring?
: It still seems too long to me.
Me too. Blocks in Kung fu are as complicated as i've seen
(also modern arnis) yet they don't take 'Years' to learn by a
long shot. It takes a while to use them comfortably and
properly, but i've never seen sparring hold someone back
in learning proper technique, as long as you spar in conjunction
with class learning.
: >>>Skill comes with practice. Effectiveness comes with realism.
: >Effectiveness also requires skill.
: It certainly does not. Drawing upon the wit and wisdom of the UFC,
: Tank "roolz!" Abbot is effective but does not possess what you or I
: would can martial arts skill.
Effectiveness is helped by skill. which comes with practice.
: > Realism without skill is wasted if not
: >dangerous.
Realism is a good way to learn the benifit and application of skill,
as well as a great indication of which skills are lacking.
: Other then cups we don't use any protection other then uncommon,
: common sense and the goal of not purposefully sending someone to the
: emergency room. In stickfighting we use light street hockey gloves,
: fencing masks and cups...somepeople use knee and elbow pads but that
: more for groundfighting then for protection.
This is our approach as well. no points, no stops, fight continues on
the ground, both players admit when there has been a 'lethal' strike
or opening and restart.
No school that i have heard of practices 'lethal self defense', this is
something that occures outside of class if you aren't lucky or
careful.
:o)
Kevin
Mary Malmros
In article <5uhp3p$f...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>,
Don Wagner <dawa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>steph...@aol.com (StephieXXX) wrote:
>
>>dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner)
>>>school where sparring, fighting and practical, realistic self defense
>>>(ie. chaos) isn't stressed. If this is what you want, go for it.
>
>>It sounds to me like a school where technique is stressed.
>
>to attempt to put theory to semi-practice. Stress technique as much
>as you'd like but also stress realism and application.
What about styles -- particularly weapons styles -- that _never_ have
sparring? Do they have no realism, or no application?
--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
I helped kill Bob and I got the t-shirt.
StephieXXX
dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner)wrote
steph...@aol.com (StephieXXX) wrote:
>>dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner) wrote:
>>>Nope. We're going to throw them in the simulator first (training in
>>>class). The "real application" is probably something that most of us
>>>wish to aviod. The jet fighter also flys with a trainer before he
>>>solos, the MA stylist is taught by those in class with more
>>>experience.
>>You would just crash the simulator 1 zillion times. No simulator practice
>>is going to teach you the performance limits of the aircraft or help you
>>get a "feel" for the motions of the plane. These things require study and
>>practice at an elementary level.
>Getting off the subject a bit. Simulators are extensively used by the
>USAF in many figher/bomber programs. People have developed combat
>stress syndromes from simulators. Simulator are akin to class drills.
Sure but they send pilots to the jet simulators, not raw recuits. It is
your analogy, not mine. The point is that in flying there are very
definitely levels of mastery, and "fighting" is at the highest level. In
planes or simulators, pilots go through dozens of elementary levels of
flying before they can even hope to do the maneuvers required by a dog fight.
In WWI they did it your way and 80% did not come back from their first
fight. The mean life expectancy of a new pilot in combat was 31 seconds.
Some of the German flight leaders, Immelmann was the first, had the bizarre
idea that they might do better if they learned to fly before they engaged
in combat. The Germans dominated the air until the Allied pilots figured
out the same thing. The mean life expectancy got up to a minute by the end
of the war.
>XXX years for class drills on technique are not suddenly going to
>transfer over into more realistic training.
They seem to do pretty well for us. We hardly ever pratice contest style,
yet as a club we do very well in contests. Often we take the first few
places. You might be surprised at how far good technique can take you.
>>My martial arts a pretty good (they should be after a couple decades), but
>>I still spend huge amounts of time doing kata and working on my own
>>balance, movement. and body alignment. Until you learn this the first
>>time, your defense capability is going to be zilch. Why not just give the
>>beginner a few years to learn this before asking him to do it while dodge
>>punches? If he can't do it without the punches, he is not going to do it
>>with them. If the students really are worried about fighting, we teach
>>them a few cheap tricks that will work until they can use technique.
>This may be another point of contention. I count "cheap tricks" in
>the fighting catagory along with technique.
Cheap tricks just dont work against experienced, technical fighters
>We encourage application because we've found it aids in learning
>technique, just as we encourage technique because is aids in
>application. If a student gets hit in a controlled enviornent by a
>more experienced student or instructor _and_ they spend the time to go
>over the session in detail afterwards then growth progresses into more
>realistic applications. I've never said anything about either/or
>training of drills vs. fighting in class. Both are important, both
>have their place. Our disagreement is mainly over years vs. months.
Our drills work on applications too, and involve contact. It is just that
the uke punches slowly for a white belt and as fast as he can for a brown belt.
The only disagreement is that you seem to think you know how long it
should take for my students doing my art to be good enough to spar. Sound
like a funny place to disagree to me.
>>Maybe you should put some thought into simple, practical self defense
>>so that the years you spend in training will actually make a
>>difference if you do need to resort to the physical before the deep
>>understanding. Shouldn't the physical aspects of "self defense" have
>>"KISS" as a goal.
>>Not if you are aiming at a very high level of self defense.
>Aiming is fine, no one is saying "don't try to get good". What I'm
>saying is that several years of no realistic application and only
>controlled drills followed by realistic applications is not going to
>suddenly produce a skilled fighter. They will have benefits over a
>newbie but they will have to overcome the same problems that the
>newbie is going through.
They do pretty well, pretty fast. The come in with the ability to do very
fast, very powerful, 3,4,5, even 6 strike combos with good balance. They
mostly just have to learn NOT to react to stupid attacks.
>I feel that the physical aspect of self defense should be kept simple
>and direct from day one. You feel that it requires a high degree of
>skill, several years of drills and with the goal being overcoming
>90%(? sorry, I snipped the actual %) of all attackers.
>> "Simple" jet fighters and "simple" tactics don't win dogfights either.
>Neither does several years in drills without getting in the air.
We fly a lot with our drills, we just don't do full combat. Lots of
aerobatices and dogfights with blanks
>You want to keep the planes on the ground, I want to see them up in the
>air where they might do some good.
We just don't have that many enemies that a couple extra years of training
is going to make any difference.
>>High performance
>>aircraft are difficult to handle because there is a inverse relationship
>>between stability and maneuverability. In martial arts, most things should
>>be simple, but it seems to take humans a great deal of time to learn to do
>>simple things reliably and without adding extra stuff that messes up the
>>simple stuff.
>It all depends on what you are stressing in class. We stress
>application from an early point in training. In our case the student
>looks at this as "normal". In time the kinks are worked out and the
>technique improves. During this time the student has started to
>become a tool using creature and is becoming more of a match for any
>physical threat they may encounter.
Our drills are mostly applications from kata. You take a three or four
move sequence and show a dozen ways to apply it to fighting, comparing and
contrasting each one. Student might practice each variation 50 or 100
times in class with a cooperating partner. Beginner work at low speed and
power. Advanced students use full speed and full power but only light contact.
>Personal preferance and general philosophy.
Yes but it does set a limit on the technical level you can attain.
>>When I demonstrate a technique that has two simple motions, my student
>>invariably perform it in five or six at first, because they lack the
>>balance and the trained muscle memory I have. Then I watch my instructor
>>do it and he does it as one motion. I believe that nearly perfect
>>repeatability is a key aspect of advanced martial arts. When I do a judo
>>throw it is identical every time.
>VS a willing person or someone who is going to resist you?
both. Part of my philosophy of martial arts is to interact as little as
possible with the opponent. He should never knock me out of position, or
off balance me.
Similarly I arrange my attacks so that he has little chance to do
something surprising. It is a very conservative style, but I think that is
what is required.
>It takes several years to learn to do a throw in a fight properly, perfectly,
>or effectively.
very true. Probably six unless you train very frequently.
>The idea is to get the other person on the ground and
>have you in an advantageous postiton. In a perfect world it would be
>wonderful to have it look good too.
Actually it isn't if your attack is not near perfect, I (or any reasonable
martial artist) will counter it and kill you before you hit the ground.
Bad technique will just gets you killed in a fight against a skilled fighter.
>>With a single uke from a single starting
>>position two dozen throws will have my feet within a half an inch of the
>>first and the uke will land within an inch. The purpose of makiwara and
>>heavy bags is to make develop the same type of repeatabiliy. Only when you
>>have perfect confidence in your own movement can you hope to compensate for
>>your opponents attemps to confuse you.
>I can't totally agree nor disagree with you. Heavy bag training does
>not flow smoothly into active fighting skill. Being able to throw
>with pinpoint accuracy and perfect form is a great skill. Can the
>everyone do this or only a select few? Can they do it all the time
>against a resisting opponent?
I guess that is the point, our upper brown belts (4-7 years) can do it
quite well. Nidans should be close to perfect. They should be able to hit
a half inch circle on a tossed board and break the board without sending
the pieces flying.
The idea is not to do it against a resisting opponent. We use some fake
or grab to off-balance the opponent so he cannot defend, and then hit him.
>>>If you practice before then, you "cheat"
>>>technique in the effort to win and practice lots of bad technique.
>>You make it sound like an inexperienced "winner" is somehow bad. I
>>don't advocate bad technique over skill, just usefulness over show.
>>"winning" is fairly irrelevant to mastery of technique.
>Then why "master" at technique at all? I think everyone should
>constantly be trying to improve what they know. I don't think its
>possible to "master" a technique.
I am not trying to be smart or offend, but they way you practice I don't
think it is either. We practice techniques tens of thousands of times, and
they do get better.
Most people do not have the patience to become technically proficient. We
teach the few that do.
>I'm training with essentially the same people I started with 16 years
>Sorry, but I don't take UFC as an indication of much.
>Nor do I but it is two people trying to take each other down with
>relatively minimal rules.
In japanese arts the idea is not to take them down but to kill them. The
idea in fact is NOT to take them down.
>>> Realism without skill is wasted if not dangerous.
>>Dangerous? Maybe if brute force is the only thing being taught.
>Most of my higher karate students could hit you hard enough to break your
>jaw, and in 1 out of a 100, they would probably miss an inch too deep once
>and do it (particularily if you were sparring).
>Most of the people with 9months of experience in my group could do the
>same thing only they can take a hit in sparring as well. Lets not
>play "I can piss farther", it's annoying and degrading to the both of
>us, yes?
It would stand to reason that if my students spend four or five years and
yours spend nine weeks, and my students concentrate on the technique of
breaking and yours spend time sparring, that it might be likely that my
students can hit considerably harder than yours. It is not possible to
"take one of our hits" without injury. You may avoid getting hit, but if
you do get hit, you will know about it. What is the point of doing strikes
that people can take?
>>>Other then cups we don't use any protection other then uncommon,
>>>common sense and the goal of not purposefully sending someone to the
>>>emergency room.
>>Unfortunately that is exactly the goal of karate. If you are not trying to
>>do that what are you trying to do? For example, an opening move in Goju is
>>to break the opponents front or standing knee. Exactly how do you execute
>>that move safely?
>The same way you do probably...you don't go around breaking you
>training partners knee or finding some poor schmuck to do it on.
we just don't pratice that type of move on people except in very carefully
controlled drills.
>The way to train in the dangerous and uncontrollable aspects of the
>art is through drills and watchful control during class. Heavy bag
>and makiwara training help but they fall far from the mark when
>striking a real person in a real situation.
That they do, so how do you practice striking a real person with full power?
>We probably agree on a lot more too. This issue is sore point! ;-)
>>I feel you should push the realism to the limit to improve technique
>>and skill. The limit is different for each person at whatever degree
>>of skill they are at at the time.
>>Virtually all attacks in fighting judo or karate have a goal of serious
>>injury. You don't have to push this very far to end up with no one who
>>will spar with you. If you pull back on your techniqes you change the
>>tactics and strategy of the art.
>If you don't add realism you will never find out the failings of the
>technique until it is too late.
Your idea of realism is just not mine. Practicing without true strikes
and true hits is not real either. If our strategy is to attack a forward
leg, It is not very real for us we can't do it.
>They are called umbrellas. Flatten and sharpen the metal rod at the top.
>(See discussion of M.A. and non-violence for more on that)
We've played that game too. ;-) Most are too fragile to amount to
much.
>>We are not in disagreement (I hope) that self defense is only a small
>>part physical confrontation, correct? Running is self defense and I
>>encourage this as a viable technique to people I train with and to
>>myself as well. On the other hand, if I have a knife and I'm forced
>>to use it I'm going to draw upon what I've learned in class and use it
>>how I practiced it as well. If my training was only extremely
>>controlled, predicable attacks by a willing attacker then that is
>>probably the way I'm going to fight when it matters.
>our class training certainly goes beyond controlled, predictable attacks
It hopefully does. It's the time issue that is making this messy for
us.
>Who said any thing about static drills? Drills can be very dynamic and
>unpredictable. They just have to be designed so no one gets hurt. They
>can be more or less like sparring but with rules.
>Define an unpredictable drill. If both people know what is going to
>happen and the idea is to perfect technique, it's a drill isn't it?
>even if a few choices are available to the people it's still a drill.
Attacker has one of seven options for attack, defender has six responsed
for each. That gets pretty unpredictable..
>>Our disagreement is in the amount of time required and when to
>>actually put theory into practice. We should always be working of the
>>basics and fundamental princilples in our styles, schools and general
>>training...thats a given for anyone taking this stuff seriously.
>>Sure so why not practice it enough so you can halfway do it before trying
>>to apply it? Seems like just plain common sense to me.
>Then why do it halfway when 100% can be reached? Expanding upon the
>theme of course... ;-)
At some level under 100% people don't get hurt and have enough skill to
begin to appreciated the the strategy.
>>I have stated that in my art we find that it takes a few years. If you
>>can learn enough in your art in three weeks, go for it. Just don't
>>question my three years until know what "enough" means for us.
>The questioning is the fun part of discussion. We both looked at
>wahat the other person had written and worked from there. In some
>cases we found common ground, in others disagreement.
>I feel it comes down to a time issue and personal priorities.
And my view that high technique is necessary and your view that it is not.
StephieXXX
"Kevin Hill" <kh...@fpmx.com> wrote
Don Wagner <dawa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
: steph...@aol.com (StephieXXX) wrote:
: >My apologies for getting short here, but your last point is without basis
: >or common sense. Let us apply your training theories to training jet
: >fighter pilots. You are going to send the up in a jet fighter so they can
: >get started on their realism. It might be prudent to teach them a few
: >things first, and perhaps let them fly a stabiler aircraft first.
>Sorry to intrude, but i think that while you need a minimum of
>introduction to the basics, and an explanation of approach and
>things to work on, sparring in a necessary part of learning.
>Your analogy is not at all the same. I can agree with "don't
>toss new students directly into full contact NHB fighting"
>but there are plenty of stages of sparring to choose from.
>You can babble on and on about theory all you want, but at
>some point, the best approach is to try it. I believe this is
>best done (albeit with a gradual approach) right away, as
>opposed to years later.
Of course you feel this way because you also do a relatively not technical
martial art where skill is more dependent on experience than on technique.
That is fine, but your style of training does not work well with a
technical art. Why are you telling me how to teach this when I have years
of experience, and you have never taught one student my art?
: In mine you keep learning, growing and practicing. At any one point
: in time you use what you know at the level you can actually do it.
This is true of mine as well.
: > Most of the
: >techniques simply will not work against an average attacker until after
: >several years of practice.
: Maybe you should put some thought into simple, practical self defense
: so that the years you spend in training will actually make a
: difference if you do need to resort to the physical before the deep
: understanding. Shouldn't the physical aspects of "self defense" have
: "KISS" as a goal.
>It is helpful to realize which techniques don't work before you
>refine them and why, as this is applicable knowledge later in
>your training as well. Locks and strikes that aren't easy when
>you are new should by applied with judgement later as well.
>Also, it is far easier to refine something when you know why
>it doesn't work.
The student fortunately does not have to find this out for himself. He
has instructors that can evaluate his technique and show him what is
lacking. If he is practicing a strike and an instructor can absorb his
best shot without even blocking, it is pretty clear that it won't be a
whole lot better with the instructor blocking and counter attacking. This
is the sort of thing that can take years of drills to develop.
He doesn't have to do any sparring before he has good strikes and blocks.
: > If you practice before then, you "cheat"
: >technique in the effort to win and practice lots of bad technique.
: You make it sound like an inexperienced "winner" is somehow bad. I
: don't advocate bad technique over skill, just usefulness over show.
>Both technique/skill and strength/brute force are useful strategies,
>as long as it is explained what is missing. Sparring is an extremely
>useful aide in determining what is missing in technique, because
>you feel yourself resorting to force.
It is easier to determine what is missing in as simple drill.
: And it takes years of training before a person "blocks" in sparring?
: It still seems too long to me.
Me too. Blocks in Kung fu are as complicated as i've seen
(also modern arnis) yet they don't take 'Years' to learn by a
long shot. It takes a while to use them comfortably and
properly, but i've never seen sparring hold someone back
in learning proper technique, as long as you spar in conjunction
with class learning.
: >>>Skill comes with practice. Effectiveness comes with realism.
: >Effectiveness also requires skill.
: It certainly does not. Drawing upon the wit and wisdom of the UFC,
: Tank "roolz!" Abbot is effective but does not possess what you or I
: would can martial arts skill.
Effectiveness is helped by skill. which comes with practice.
: > Realism without skill is wasted if not
: >dangerous.
Realism is a good way to learn the benifit and application of skill,
as well as a great indication of which skills are lacking.
: Other then cups we don't use any protection other then uncommon,
: common sense and the goal of not purposefully sending someone to the
Erica Friedman
Mary Malmros wrote:
> >
> >I don't see it as an "either/or" issue but 3 years is too long to wait
> >to attempt to put theory to semi-practice. Stress technique as much
> >as you'd like but also stress realism and application.
>
> What about styles -- particularly weapons styles -- that _never_ have
> sparring? Do they have no realism, or no application?
>
> --
If they do have application or realism, it would be a rare person who
was able to translate it to any two-person situation.
Even in the most advanced students in Taiji, when you put another person
on the end of the technique, or to initiate a technique, the energy is
totally different from a individual form. That's why Push Hands is so
important.
In Taijiquan, at least, both the sword and the staff have a two-person
set that allow you to feel that oh-so-important other person on the end
of your weapon. After studying these techniques the segue to two person
free sparring is, well, less awkward.
Cheers,
Erica
"By God, Mister Chairman, at this moment
I stand astonished at my own moderation!"
-Reply during Parliamentary Inquiry
Don Wagner
steph...@aol.com (StephieXXX) wrote:
>>Don wrote...
>In WWI they did it your way and 80% did not come back from their first
>fight. The mean life expectancy of a new pilot in combat was 31 seconds.
Getting well off track here...
It might also have had something to do with the fact the the aircraft
weren't what you'd call "combat safe". The German planes, even the
early ones, could be flown from point A to point B without them
falling apart in a strong gust of wind.
That analogy would be a better style provides better skills. Lets
save that one too.
>>This may be another point of contention. I count "cheap tricks" in
>>the fighting catagory along with technique.
>Cheap tricks just dont work against experienced, technical fighters
Wasn't the basis of this dealing with realistic fights and even self
defense? You stated that you wanted to be able to deal with 90%+ of
all self defense situations. How many people are you going to be
fighting that are "experienced technical fighters"? It's a lofty goal
but not a bad one.
>>We encourage application because we've found it aids in learning
>>technique, just as we encourage technique because is aids in
>>application. If a student gets hit in a controlled enviornent by a
>>more experienced student or instructor _and_ they spend the time to go
>>over the session in detail afterwards then growth progresses into more
>>realistic applications. I've never said anything about either/or
>>training of drills vs. fighting in class. Both are important, both
>>have their place. Our disagreement is mainly over years vs. months.
>Our drills work on applications too, and involve contact. It is just that
>the uke punches slowly for a white belt and as fast as he can for a brown belt.
>The only disagreement is that you seem to think you know how long it
>should take for my students doing my art to be good enough to spar. Sound
>like a funny place to disagree to me.
Please, show me one post where I said squat about your art, teaching
style or students being somehow "bad" or "wrong". I disagree with the
time you feel it takes. Thats my opinion and I don't expect it to
mean a flying pigs curly tail to you one way or the other. If you
feel I'm insulting your school, honor or whatever, please accept my
appology.
>>You want to keep the planes on the ground, I want to see them up in the
>>air where they might do some good.
>We just don't have that many enemies that a couple extra years of training
>is going to make any difference.
Didn't you say you had 200 encounters over XX number of years?
>>It all depends on what you are stressing in class. We stress
>>application from an early point in training. In our case the student
>>looks at this as "normal". In time the kinks are worked out and the
>>technique improves. During this time the student has started to
>>become a tool using creature and is becoming more of a match for any
>>physical threat they may encounter.
>Our drills are mostly applications from kata. You take a three or four
>move sequence and show a dozen ways to apply it to fighting, comparing and
>contrasting each one. Student might practice each variation 50 or 100
>times in class with a cooperating partner. Beginner work at low speed and
>power. Advanced students use full speed and full power but only light contact.
Our kata/forms are used the same way. See, we have common ground! ;-)
>>Personal preferance and general philosophy.
>Yes but it does set a limit on the technical level you can attain.
Not if you keep training the technical side as well. Most of us look
at training as a lifelong process.
[big snip]
>>I feel it comes down to a time issue and personal priorities.
>And my view that high technique is necessary and your view that it is not.
Very true. High technique is a goal and something to strive for.
It'll come with practice and time.
Don Wagner
mal...@shore.net (Mary Malmros) wrote:
>What about styles -- particularly weapons styles -- that _never_ have
>sparring? Do they have no realism, or no application?
Weapon styles do use training equipement to simulate the weapon in
question, but I understand your point.
The idea is to have live students that are learning rather then dead
ones that proved a point. Bladed and projectile weapons have a
greater degree of risk and lethal consequence attached to them then
lets say impact weapons. I don't have to shoot someone to know what
that peice of lead will do. I do have to train to hit the sort of
target I'm aiming for.
Unarmed styles can use more "realism" due to their nature as being
more controllable, less lethal then weapon styles. Some weapon styles
are realistic though.
Mary Malmros
In article <341550...@ix.netcom.com>,
Erica Friedman <e.l.f.@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Mary Malmros wrote:
>> >
>> >I don't see it as an "either/or" issue but 3 years is too long to wait
>> >to attempt to put theory to semi-practice. Stress technique as much
>> >as you'd like but also stress realism and application.
>>
>> sparring? Do they have no realism, or no application?
>>
>
>If they do have application or realism, it would be a rare person who
>was able to translate it to any two-person situation.
>
>Even in the most advanced students in Taiji, when you put another person
>on the end of the technique, or to initiate a technique, the energy is
>totally different from a individual form. That's why Push Hands is so
>important.
>
>In Taijiquan, at least, both the sword and the staff have a two-person
>set that allow you to feel that oh-so-important other person on the end
>of your weapon. After studying these techniques the segue to two person
>free sparring is, well, less awkward.
I think you misunderstand. There _is_ another person, in the styles I'm
talking about. There _isn't_ sparring. The cost in serious injuries
would prohibit that.
Mary Malmros
In article <5v3jrd$j...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
Don Wagner <dawa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>mal...@shore.net (Mary Malmros) wrote:
>
>>What about styles -- particularly weapons styles -- that _never_ have
>>sparring? Do they have no realism, or no application?
>
>question, but I understand your point.
They do use "training equipment", but AFAIK, in many (most?) cases
that "training equipment" would still do sufficient damage to render
sparring impractical. A bokken will severely injure or kill, for
example. So, back to my original question: is there no realism in
such styles?
StephieXXX
(Mary Malmros) wrote
>Don Wagner <dawa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>steph...@aol.com (StephieXXX) wrote:
>>
>>>dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner)
>>>>3 years to gain enough self control to *spar*?!?! This sounds like a
>>>>school where sparring, fighting and practical, realistic self defense
>>>>(ie. chaos) isn't stressed. If this is what you want, go for it.
>
>>>It sounds to me like a school where technique is stressed.
>
>>I don't see it as an "either/or" issue but 3 years is too long to wait
>>to attempt to put theory to semi-practice. Stress technique as much
>>as you'd like but also stress realism and application.
>What about styles -- particularly weapons styles -- that _never_ have
>sparring? Do they have no realism, or no application?
What a wonderfully simplifying statement. It makes the question much
clearer.
We train with weapons the exact same way we train with empty handed arts.
Drills with full speed and power, kata for correct form, and fencing with
armor and fake weapons (kendo) for agility, speed, and endurance.
At the same time we understand the kendo technique and strategy has little
to do with sword or bokken technique and strategy.
It is the same with karate. We spar with rules for fun and conditioning
but recognize that it has little direct application to combat.
It is impossible to practice lethal arts directly without expendable dummies.
Erica Friedman
Mary Malmros wrote:
>
> In article <341550...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Erica Friedman <e.l.f.@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >Mary Malmros wrote:
> >> >
> >> >to attempt to put theory to semi-practice. Stress technique as much
> >> >as you'd like but also stress realism and application.
> >>
> >> What about styles -- particularly weapons styles -- that _never_ have
> >> sparring? Do they have no realism, or no application?
> >>
> >
> >If they do have application or realism, it would be a rare person who
> >was able to translate it to any two-person situation.
> >
> >Even in the most advanced students in Taiji, when you put another person
> >on the end of the technique, or to initiate a technique, the energy is
> >totally different from a individual form. That's why Push Hands is so
> >important.
> >
> >In Taijiquan, at least, both the sword and the staff have a two-person
> >set that allow you to feel that oh-so-important other person on the end
> >of your weapon. After studying these techniques the segue to two person
> >free sparring is, well, less awkward.
>
> I think you misunderstand. There _is_ another person, in the styles I'm
> talking about. There _isn't_ sparring. The cost in serious injuries
> would prohibit that.
>
>
Yes, I misunderstood. In that case I'll tell you about Taiji sword
sparring. We have swords that are PVC pipe wrapped in foam and covered
by a nylon sheath. This gives them strength and flexibility and most
importantly, the ability to slide. With eye protection this gives peopel
a place to practice actual techniques on each other without the risk of
injuries that a metal sword has.
I have seen free sparring with wooden swords and between a few Masters,
metal ones, but I've never seen sparring using live, sharp swords. Sigh.
Damon Stone
StephieXXX wrote:
>
> steph...@aol.com (StephieXXX) wrote:
> >Don Wagner:
>
> >Technique without application? If thats what you want thats fine by
> >me.
> better than the other way around.
I disagree. Technique without application and application without
technique are both excellent ways of insuring that you will have no idea
how to actually achieve your objective. They can both get you killed. As
for the norm in Japan, in what styles? I know its not kyukoshinkai, and
from what training partners have related to me I don't that its
shotokan. If they mean to say full contact as in without holding back
trying 110% to destroy your opponent then I doubt three years is enough
to avoid homicide because the other player was not up to snuff. If you
mean striking at nearly full force to the body while insuring that you
may do so safely I would say within the first year easy. Control should
be taught as the techniques are learned if you seperate them then
perhaps the time frame suggested is appropriate.
YT Damon
Don Wagner
mal...@shore.net (Mary Malmros) wrote:
>In article <5v3jrd$j...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
>Don Wagner <dawa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>mal...@shore.net (Mary Malmros) wrote:
>>
>>>What about styles -- particularly weapons styles -- that _never_ have
>>>sparring? Do they have no realism, or no application?
>>
>>Weapon styles do use training equipement to simulate the weapon in
>>question, but I understand your point.
>They do use "training equipment", but AFAIK, in many (most?) cases
>that "training equipment" would still do sufficient damage to render
>sparring impractical. A bokken will severely injure or kill, for
>example. So, back to my original question: is there no realism in
>such styles?
I'd say that the degree of realism is limited to the commitment of the
participants. I'm not willing to bet my life and limb that one of my
training partners isn't having a bad day with live steel.
StephieXXX
Damon Stone <dorm...@wonderland.com> (YT Damon)wrote
StephieXXX wrote:
>>
>> steph...@aol.com (StephieXXX) wrote:
>> >Don Wagner:
>>
>> >Technique without application? If thats what you want thats fine by
>> >me.
>> better than the other way around.
>I disagree. Technique without application and application without
>technique are both excellent ways of insuring that you will have no idea
>how to actually achieve your objective.
If your objective is to do pretty kata, you don't need much application.
I would agree that if your objective is to do good kata, you do need to
understand application.
>They can both get you killed.
It is pretty obvious how practicing strikes in application without using
good technique can injure yourself or others.
But how are you going to get killed practicing kata without ever applying it?
>As for the norm in Japan, in what styles? I know its not kyukoshinkai, and
>from what training partners have related to me I don't that its
>shotokan. If they mean to say full contact as in without holding back
>trying 110% to destroy your opponent then I doubt three years is enough
>to avoid homicide because the other player was not up to snuff. If you
>mean striking at nearly full force to the body while insuring that you
>may do so safely I would say within the first year easy.
The issue is why bother? I see little point in practicing sparring with
poor technique. It hardly even resembles fighting with good technique.
If you want instant self-defense study a down and dirty fighting system
for a few weeks and spar all you want. To me a martial art implies that
their is some "art" involved rather than just the "fence-painting"
techniques of a simple fighting system.
>Control should
>be taught as the techniques are learned if you seperate them then
>perhaps the time frame suggested is appropriate.
Control takes a substantial time to develop. It requires achieving a new
level of body conditioning and body awareness. It is not cerebral
learning, it is body learning which usually takes some time. Most
techniques can be learned in a few minutes or hours. Technique, however,
must be developed over time, usually several years.
Sometimes I feel like just about everyone in this newgroup thinks there is
no more to martial arts than learning what goes where in a few techniques?
Sure, anyone can learn a technique of a block and punch in their first
class. It takes a while longer to learn how to make the block disrupt the
attackers balance to the point that he can be thrown, and how to make the
punch hard enough to break a brick and accurate enough to break a specific
bone. That is were the art comes in. And then comes the stategy.
rjs...@onr.com
Actually, you need to hit the pins properly or you'll be shooting at
a spare no matter how full your contact is.
Rick