TKD school - sparring optional?

[puunui]

I personally believe that few martial arts styles teach self defense. Unless you teach situational awareness, conflict avoidance, solid communications skills and a host of other skills that are much more likely to keep a person safe, you don't teach self defense.

How do you teach street smarts? That's what it really comes down to, when talking about protecting yourself "on the streets".

 

[Rumy73]

A neighbor trains at a local TKD chain "Taekwondo Center", run by GM Sang Lee. So we discuss TKD from time to time.. his kids go there too.

Recently he told me that neither he or his kids spar, and yet they are preparing for their first Dan test. He said sparring is optional.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I just don't see how you can progress in the martial arts without sparring. Sure, you can learn the techniques and the forms - but without practice on a partner that's working against you, I don't see how anyone can develop any practical application experience.

He also said they don't learn much about self defense.

So... is this the way TKD schools are run these days?

Sparring of some type should be part of a student's development. While applying the skill of hitting a moving target and avoiding attacks, it builds confidence and character. We've heard here many arguments about what type of sparring is best. Each point is debatable. My view is that sparring should be well-rounded. Different exercises offer opportunities to learn and also have limitations. The instructor should be make the students aware of them. Whether students wear sparring gear or not is open to debate as well. Simply wearing gear does not mean student lose control. A good teacher should always be watching and reinforcing the concept of control. Now whether sparring per se is an effective way to learn self-defense is also open to debate. Of course, we hear time and time again "my style is better than yours" etc.

I will agree with some of the comments here that sparring has slowly lost its place as the primary component of the martial arts experience. There's probably some relationship with how schools have developed zero-tolerence policies for fighting. Whether this is good or bad, I'm not sure. However, that being said, I feel sorry for some of the folks on here talking about "preparing for the streets by fighting without gear or cup, because on the streets you don't have them." Fine and good. However, the best self defense is to be self aware and to learn to avoid and/or de-escalate conflict. 99.9% fights can be avoided if a person can remove his ego from the situation. Lessening one's ego is part of being a martial artist. If and where I've had to fight in life, I made it quick and escaped at the first practicable moment. One must also remember that if he or she engages in violence, whether the aggressor or not, there might be liability.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

This is the TKD subforum, for christ's sake. Why are you guys arguing here about whether BJJ is good for self defense or not in a thread entitled "TKD school - sparring optional?"

For the same reason that any thread gets derailed: Someone makes a statement and it receives multiple responses.

In this case, Andy stated that the Gracies put their money where their mouth is with regards to self defense. I disagree; they put their money where their mouth is with regards to being able to make great use of their art against opponents who train in a variety of arts. You could insert any other champion's name and art and my response would be the same. It just so happened to be the Gracies and BJJ.

I personally believe that few martial arts styles teach self defense. Unless you teach situational awareness, conflict avoidance, solid communications skills and a host of other skills that are much more likely to keep a person safe, you don't teach self defense. You teach, to some degree or another, how to fight. BIG difference. Stop kidding yourselves.

QFT.

Daniel

 

[andyjeffries]

For the same reason that any thread gets derailed: Someone makes a statement and it receives multiple responses.

Exactly - this isn't a televised debate with a moderator. Sometimes threads go off the original topic. Sometimes there would be a more appropriate board/forum to post them on (but then we wouldn't be discussing it among our familiar friends).

I consider this forum like a local pub. There's a group of regulars whose opinion I enjoy reading/discussing - I may not always agree with them - and sometimes things go off topic, but I'd rather discuss it with the regulars than a bunch of strangers.

In this case, Andy stated that the Gracies put their money where their mouth is with regards to self defense. I disagree; they put their money where their mouth is with regards to being able to make great use of their art against opponents who train in a variety of arts.

And I'm sure we'll agree to disagree. It's all in the spirit of debate with no offence intended on all sides I'm sure...

 

[Twin Fist]

In this case, Andy stated that the Gracies put their money where their mouth is with regards to self defense. I disagree;

Daniel

yep

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

And I'm sure we'll agree to disagree. It's all in the spirit of debate with no offence intended on all sides I'm sure...

Never!! You MUST bow to MY wisdom!

Kneel before Zod!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3ABRN9UKLo&feature=related



Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

I personally believe that few martial arts styles teach self defense. Unless you teach situational awareness, conflict avoidance, solid communications skills and a host of other skills that are much more likely to keep a person safe, you don't teach self defense. You teach, to some degree or another, how to fight. BIG difference. Stop kidding yourselves.

I think this is merely an argument of what self-defense is. Things like awareness of your environment or conflict mediation/de-escalation can indeed be useful skills to learn as part of a holistic SD curriculum. But, in its simplest form, SD is about defending yourself against a physical attack, which I would venture to say that the majority of TKD schools probably attempt to address at a fundamental level. This is day 1 stuff. Move, block, counter. I think that counts as SD.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I think this is merely an argument of what self-defense is. Things like awareness of your environment or conflict mediation/de-escalation can indeed be useful skills to learn as part of a holistic SD curriculum. But, in its simplest form, SD is about defending yourself against a physical attack, which I would venture to say that the majority of TKD schools probably attempt to address at a fundamental level. This is day 1 stuff. Move, block, counter. I think that counts as SD.

Yes, I would agree with that in essence. Self defense encompasses a great many things, though and being prepared for a ring fight, regardless of the rules in place, is not the same thing as being prepared to defend or protect one's self outside of that setting.

There are many skills that go into real world self defense that are not physical skills. Verbal skills are arguably more important than the physical skills, as they can often get you out of more situations than the physical skills can.

Regarding the funementals of defending against an attacker, I also consider knowing when and when not to fight a fundemental.

I had said in a thread in the general section that the art that you practice is less important than the mindset of how you practice and that developing one's basics to the point that they are second nature is more important than which art's basics they happent to be.

Getting it back on topic: optional sparring. Sparring puts you in a free form situation where you must execute your techniques against a resisting opponent. If you have no opportunity to do this, regardless of what your art calls it or what the rule set is, then I contend that your development as a student will be severely stunted.

Daniel

 

[Twin Fist]

learning martial arts without sparring is like learning to make love by watching porn.

all theorhetical

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I will agree with some of the comments here that sparring has slowly lost its place as the primary component of the martial arts experience. There's probably some relationship with how schools have developed zero-tolerence policies for fighting. Whether this is good or bad, I'm not sure.

I suspect that it has more to do with commercialism. A lot of people are willing to go do cardio kickboxing but would not set foot in a contact kickboxing class. By diminishing or removing sparring either entirly or by making it an option, you broaden your customer base.

With regards to kiddie classes, no sparring = everybody wins/nobody loses. So if sparring is optional, kids who aren't comfortable sparring, or who for whatever reason, aren't good at it, can get an equal pat on the back by opting out.

Daniel

 

[Steve]

I think this is merely an argument of what self-defense is. Things like awareness of your environment or conflict mediation/de-escalation can indeed be useful skills to learn as part of a holistic SD curriculum. But, in its simplest form, SD is about defending yourself against a physical attack, which I would venture to say that the majority of TKD schools probably attempt to address at a fundamental level. This is day 1 stuff. Move, block, counter. I think that counts as SD.

In this day and age? For most people? If you're teaching those skills that will statistically help you to avoid conflict and stay safe, your time would be better spent learning the soft skills than any martial arts. Unless you are routinely putting yourself at risk, whether by living in a war zone, or as a LEO, guard, security officer or masked vigilante, Self Defense is a misnomer regardless of what style of martial art you study. I would argue that if you're a LEO or otherwise involved in these trades, it's no longer self defense. It becomes essential job knowledge.

So, the question isn't whether BJJ is effective self defense. Or whether your TKD is better than TwinFist's TKD is better than Daniel Sullivan's TKD. They're different. On a spectrum where "fun" is on one end and "battle ready" is on the other, bringing self defense into the discussion is false advertisement. That's not what's being taught. The rest is splitting hairs.

The question I see in this thread isn't about whether it's effective self defense. It's whether you're actually learning what you think you're learning. And in this, I agree with TwinFist. If you're not sparring, you have no idea. This in no way devalues any other learning technique. Simply, in the absence of practical experience (ie, putting yourself at risk so that you can defend yourself physically), you have to simulate the behaviors you're trying to learn. Unscripted combat in a controlled environment is one way. Competition is another. Starting fights in a bar isn't something I'd recommend, but it would be an effective way of gaining experience.

I've used the analogy before of learning golf. If you aren't sparring, you're not learning to fight.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

So, the question isn't whether BJJ is effective self defense. Or whether your TKD is better than TwinFist's TKD is better than Daniel Sullivan's TKD. They're different. On a spectrum where "fun" is on one end and "battle ready" is on the other, bringing self defense into the discussion is false advertisement. That's not what's being taught. The rest is splitting hairs.

I completely agree, both with the above. and with the rest of your post. Though the question of BJJ being effective SD was actually not the point of contention, but whether or not an open challenge to two man unarmed dueling with non-restrictive rules equates to self defense.

I condend that it does not, be it BJJ, JJJ, TKD, HKD, AKD, TSD, JKD, and any other __D or __J or __S, or __whatever you can think of.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

Steve, you quoted me before making your post below which may give some the impression that I am an advocate of not sparring. For the record, I am a proponent of sparring as a means of drilling physical skills which are essential in sport AND self-defense. I merely was stating my opinion that it's rather too far of a step to believe that if you don't teach conflict avoidance, etc, that you do not teach SD.

Be that as it may, I will respond to some of the comments you offered.

In this day and age? For most people? If you're teaching those skills that will statistically help you to avoid conflict and stay safe, your time would be better spent learning the soft skills than any martial arts. Unless you are routinely putting yourself at risk, whether by living in a war zone, or as a LEO, guard, security officer or masked vigilante, Self Defense is a misnomer regardless of what style of martial art you study. I would argue that if you're a LEO or otherwise involved in these trades, it's no longer self defense. It becomes essential job knowledge.

Why is it a misnomer? If I am learning to PHYSICALLY dodge or block an attack while launching a countering attack of my own, why is that not SD? I would be learning to defend myself, albeit at the last stages of an encounter when hostilities have actually commenced. To me that is still self-defense although you may certainly argue with some merit that it is 'better' to have avoided the physical conflict in the first place.

So, the question isn't whether BJJ is effective self defense. Or whether your TKD is better than TwinFist's TKD is better than Daniel Sullivan's TKD. They're different. On a spectrum where "fun" is on one end and "battle ready" is on the other, bringing self defense into the discussion is false advertisement. That's not what's being taught. The rest is splitting hairs.

I care not about the BJJ issue nor did I even address it in my prior post. Again, you are asserting that people teaching TKD(?) possibly even myself are not teaching SD. How so? Explain.

The question I see in this thread isn't about whether it's effective self defense. It's whether you're actually learning what you think you're learning. And in this, I agree with TwinFist. If you're not sparring, you have no idea. This in no way devalues any other learning technique. Simply, in the absence of practical experience (ie, putting yourself at risk so that you can defend yourself physically), you have to simulate the behaviors you're trying to learn. Unscripted combat in a controlled environment is one way. Competition is another. Starting fights in a bar isn't something I'd recommend, but it would be an effective way of gaining experience.

I've used the analogy before of learning golf. If you aren't sparring, you're not learning to fight.

Yes, Sir, I believe sparring is necessary. Are we arguing about this???

 

[chrispillertkd]

I think this is merely an argument of what self-defense is. Things like awareness of your environment or conflict mediation/de-escalation can indeed be useful skills to learn as part of a holistic SD curriculum.

This is quite right and I would just say that, in my own experience being aware of one's surrounding was stressed from my first day of class. I can still remember my instructor telling us all that we as martial artists had to be aware of our surroundings at all times as far back as when I was a white belt.

As fo conflict de-escaltion, that is a good skill to have just in everyday life. I hazard to say that focusing Taekwon-Do's tenet of Courtesy would go a long way to defuse most potential conflicts before they got to the point of needing to physically defend oneself. Not all, of course, because sometimes there are just people who want to fight regardless of what you do, but it certainly can help.

But, in its simplest form, SD is about defending yourself against a physical attack, which I would venture to say that the majority of TKD schools probably attempt to address at a fundamental level. This is day 1 stuff. Move, block, counter. I think that counts as SD.

Couldn't agree more.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

For the record, I am a proponent of sparring as a means of drilling physical skills which are essential in sport AND self-defense. I merely was stating my opinion that it's rather too far of a step to believe that if you don't teach conflict avoidance, etc, that you do not teach SD.

Out of curiosity, because you focus a lot on bunkai when practicing patterns do you see any overlap between working on applications on a partner and free sparring? I personally think doing partner drills where the techniques from patterns are applied is quite helpful, of course, even if it's largely done in a step-sparring context but I am wondering if there's ever a bridge between bunkai and free sparring. Do any of the application drills practiced on a partner ever turn up when you and your students are sparring?

Pax,

Chris

 

[dancingalone]

Out of curiosity, because you focus a lot on bunkai when practicing patterns do you see any overlap between working on applications on a partner and free sparring? I personally think doing partner drills where the techniques from patterns are applied is quite helpful, of course, even if it's largely done in a step-sparring context but I am wondering if there's ever a bridge between bunkai and free sparring. Do any of the application drills practiced on a partner ever turn up when you and your students are sparring?

Well, yes, we have different layers of step-sparing and free-form sparring with efforts to link bunkai to sparring activities. The progression follows like so:

Static step-sparring > freelance attacks with static counters > freelance attacks and freelance counters > combination attacks and defender finish

Thus, static step-sparring is what all of us are familiar with. Either a predefined one step or three step attack sequence with a planned defense. Since both partners know their roles, the goal in this drill is to develop technical perfection in power, speed, efficiency, and fluidity.

We can introduce a level of complexity and uncertainty by changing the attack to a freelance one where the attacker may choose any single attack he pleases to any target zone (low, medium, high), even if it is a grab. This forces the defender, who is constrained by his scripted response, nonetheless to adapt it to make it work in application. I find even staying at this level creates functionally high level students since they understand better when specific spoon-fed techniques will and will not work.

The next stage has both the attack and counter freelance in nature. This alteration of the basic drill is a obvious progression and it allows the defender to make their preferred movements second nature to them.

Finally, we raise the bar a final time by allowing the attacker to strike in combination, forcing the defender to pick his spot to insert himself to start his own counter attack. We also add the burden that Defender must end his counter with the attacker on the ground and controlled in some way, possibly with a pin or lock.

Free form sparring are drilled like so:

Prearranged striking drills > prearranged defense > free sparring - striking only

Prearranged striking with entries > prearranged defense with close range countering > free sparring, takedowns permitted

I think these are largely self-explanatory, but if you'd like to discuss any of them, post away! In the prearranged drills, I am trying to teach foundational skills, some coming straight from kata lessions. The further progressions are meant to make the student absorb these basic skills and then be able to freestyle them at will in reaction to the correct stimuli.

We also have a final type of 3/4 pace collaborative sparring where we try to engage each other and employ the so-called bunkai contained with kata. Some of the movements are un-usable against other because of their potentially lethal outcomes, so we'll have a defined 'click point' in the drill to where one person will accept that the other person has gained proper position to apply his move and will then resist only partially, letting his partner make his 'finish'. It's not a perfect training situation but at least we can practice against real people this way.

I also pad up in a Redman suit occasionally and let my students blast away, anything goes. Even with the suit on, I'm very careful about my own safety and I will call 'break' quickly.

 

[puunui]

I also pad up in a Redman suit occasionally and let my students blast away, anything goes. Even with the suit on, I'm very careful about my own safety and I will call 'break' quickly.

How much does a Redman suit cost? And how much protection does it afford the wearer? Can it absorb a full force blow from a male that weighs say, 175 pounds?

 

[dancingalone]

How much does a Redman suit cost? And how much protection does it afford the wearer? Can it absorb a full force blow from a male that weighs say, 175 pounds?

I don't know the current retail price for one. I bought a demonstration suit from one of their reps years ago for $1500 or so and he said then I was getting a hefty discount. I am sure prices have come down since and they probably have improvements over the model I have. I've had it for about 5 years now and it's still going strong. I'm happy with the deal.

And yes, I've taken full force shots from students my size and more (190 lbs +) in the torso/sides without injury. You can still feel some pain if you get caught in the groin, but that's mainly due to the suit being compressed against your [tender] flesh and it does take a goodly amount of pop to be able to penetrate even so.

My main complaint about the suit is the inevitable loss of mobility the wearer has which affects the type of drills we're able to run with it. Nonetheless it is invaluable for letting your students cut loose every now and then, so they at least have experienced what it might be like to unleash disabling force against a live, aggressive attacker.

 

[puunui]

My main complaint about the suit is the inevitable loss of mobility the wearer has which affects the type of drills we're able to run with it. Nonetheless it is invaluable for letting your students cut loose every now and then, so they at least have experienced what it might be like to unleash disabling force against a live, aggressive attacker.

Are you able to do "jiujitsu" or Judo throws if both are wearing redman suits? I am thinking that a redman suit approximates what an armored samurai would be in terms of mobility and bulk and was wondering how empty handed or jujitsu stuff would work under those circumstances, since that is what jiujitsu was originally designed for.

 

[dancingalone]

Are you able to do "jiujitsu" or Judo throws if both are wearing redman suits? I am thinking that a redman suit approximates what an armored samurai would be in terms of mobility and bulk and was wondering how empty handed or jujitsu stuff would work under those circumstances, since that is what jiujitsu was originally designed for.

It's like gaining 15-20 lbs yet in an odd way so you are fatter (er, more padded) everywhere at once. I'll admit I do not feel centered and agile enough to attempt most of my aiki techniques against an unencumbered opponent who is at a level approximating or even reasonably below mine. I have pulled off the bigger movements which lend themselves to gross strength like a arm/shoulder throw.

It's an interesting thought about having two people suit up to try aiki techniques against each other, but as I only own one suit...Humph. Now you make me want to buy another.