When I was a kid I said forms were stupid

[Gerry Seymour]

Depending on your art, it cannot be done, correctly, with a partner. You cannot practice joint manipulation full speed with a partner, as pretty soon you will have now partners left. Similarly you cannot perform many throws as truly intended as they will similarly injure you partner. The only time you can practice these things correctly, or at full speed/power is on your own.

Many joint manipulation can be done full-speed and full-range (or nearly so, at least) with a partner. You just need a good partner who can recognize the lock early and drop out of it, rather than resist, so you can complete the movement without damaging them.

With throws, there's a trade-off on both sides. With a partner, it's best to not go full-speed often. Without that partner, you don't have their mass as ballast for your movement, so the movement must be altered somewhat.

 

[Paul_D]

Many joint manipulation can be done full-speed and full-range (or nearly so, at least) with a partner. You just need a good partner who can recognize the lock early and drop out of it, rather than resist, so you can complete the movement without damaging them.

With throws, there's a trade-off on both sides. With a partner, it's best to not go full-speed often. Without that partner, you don't have their mass as ballast for your movement, so the movement must be altered somewhat.

You can't drop out of locks that manipulate joins upwards, and Throws aren't about speed, they are about how your partner is supposed to land, hence you have to do them incorrectly so they land safely.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You can't drop out of locks that manipulate joins upwards, and Throws aren't about speed, they are about how your partner is supposed to land, hence you have to do them incorrectly so they land safely.

When I say "drop out", I use that as a generic for moving past the control plane. In most cases, it's an actual drop (which is how I got into the habit of the term). Locks that manipulate upwards can sometimes be stepped through to change the plane. There are some that you can't step out of if your partner has the control points right, which is why I said "many".

 

[drop bear]

Depending on your art, it cannot be done, correctly, with a partner. You cannot practice joint manipulation full speed with a partner, as pretty soon you will have now partners left. Similarly you cannot perform many throws as truly intended as they will similarly injure you partner. The only time you can practice these things correctly, or at full speed/power is on your own.

But solo kill ninja arm breaks is pretending. At least if you practice the version that is modified you are practicing an honest technique. With honest feedback.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

they are about how your partner is supposed to land, hence you have to do them incorrectly so they land safely.

This is the difference between "sport" and "combat". In sport, you want to protect your partner. In combat, you want to hurt your partner. You may develop bad habit through sport training and has to be removed in combat training.

If you want to hurt your opponent in throwing, all you will need to do is to "throw him 1/2 way". This way, your opponent's body can only rotate 1/2 way and land with head down first.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But solo kill ninja arm breaks is pretending. At least if you practice the version that is modified you are practicing an honest technique. With honest feedback.

Well, anything done without a partner (including shadow boxing) requires some pretending. There's some merit to practicing the full range of motion on destructions that have to be truncated in live practice.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is the difference between "sport" and "combat". In sport, you want to protect your partner. In combat, you want to hurt your partner. You may develop bad habit through sport training and has to be removed in combat training.

If you want to hurt your opponent in throwing, all you will need to do is to "throw him 1/2 way". This way, your opponent's body can only rotate 1/2 way and land with head down first.

That's not true of all throws. For some throws, "1/2 way" means you stop while his weight is upon you, or you stop before you add force to the throw. Sometimes, going for the injury means simply throwing more "down", adding more of your weight and/or muscle, or simply completing the throw with full extension.

 

[DanT]

For the most part, forms are useful for combat only if you break them down. In my opinion, forms can be placed in two categories:

1. Forms that contain techniques that are useable in combat

2. Forms that improve certain skills that will be useful in combat

Take for example the second form in Wing Chun (Chum kiu). The form contains a number of techniques that can be adapted for combat, but for the most part, this form falls into the second category (improving skills that are useful in combat). Practicing Chum kiu helps build hip power and helps maintain balance while moving and stepping.

If we look at let's say a random form from Monkey Style, and it goes like this:

1. Step forward, double punch,
2. Step back, round kick
3. Forward roll, triple side kick
4. Duck, double hook punch
5. And so on

It is important for the practitioner of that style to not only do the whole form, but break the form down into those combinations and practice them and then apply them in sparring. He should for example take the "duck, double hook combination" and practice it on the bag, and with a compliant partner, and then with a non compliant partner in sparring. Otherwise, you'll get really good at dancing, not at fighting.

 

[drop bear]

Well, anything done without a partner (including shadow boxing) requires some pretending. There's some merit to practicing the full range of motion on destructions that have to be truncated in live practice.

Anything never done with a partner is pretending.

"This throw that I have never actually done will break your arm. I know because I learned it off a guy who has never done it and he told me"

Just a shadow boxer. Has that conotation.

Have you ever wondered why you never see that leg sissor from the other thread used in any sort of live situation?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Anything never done with a partner is pretending.

"This throw that I have never actually done will break your arm. I know because I learned it off a guy who has never done it and he told me"

Just a shadow boxer. Has that conotation.

Have you ever wondered why you never see that leg sissor from the other thread used in any sort of live situation?

Those same techniques are done with a partner, just not at the same speed and to the same finish. It's pretty easy to tell what locks will do damage. If you take them to a certain point and your partner REALLY doesn't want you to take it a bit further, it will do some damage. Will it destroy the joint? If nobody has ever actually tried it to completion, we won't know that. If someone actually has, then we know it is capable of destroying the joint if we go far enough.

As for that scissor being used in a live situation, there are usually better options, and certainly in a situation with a well-trained opponent (as opposed to a common attacker). I lump techniques like that into the "gap filler" category. They fit in between the most useful techniques, fitting into specific situations. I've actually used it in the dojo in a medium-violence attack from behind (after I hit the ground), but it's a rarity even there (outside practicing the actual technique).

 

[Juany118]

Those same techniques are done with a partner, just not at the same speed and to the same finish. It's pretty easy to tell what locks will do damage. If you take them to a certain point and your partner REALLY doesn't want you to take it a bit further, it will do some damage. Will it destroy the joint? If nobody has ever actually tried it to completion, we won't know that. If someone actually has, then we know it is capable of destroying the joint if we go far enough.

As for that scissor being used in a live situation, there are usually better options, and certainly in a situation with a well-trained opponent (as opposed to a common attacker). I lump techniques like that into the "gap filler" category. They fit in between the most useful techniques, fitting into specific situations. I've actually used it in the dojo in a medium-violence attack from behind (after I hit the ground), but it's a rarity even there (outside practicing the actual technique).

This actually reminds me of a seminar we ran on Saturday. The seminar was focused on ground fighting with edged weapons ("traditional" knives and karambits) and "combat" grappling/take downs. I put combat in quotes because it was based on the idea that unlike say LE or Security in self defense you want to break joints and tear muscles so you can escape. It was an amalgam of Chin Na, Kali and Silat techniques.

I actually got a tad frustrated at one point. I was partnered with a person when it came time to perform a technique that controlling the arm, hyperextensions the shoulder while using head control to take the person down. My partner insisted on keeping their feet planted until I had hyper extended their shoulder to the point they were literally shouting..."ow ow ow my shoulder, my shoulder, my shoulder."

Eventually, politely but firmly (to hide my frustration) I said,

"in a real fight I wouldn't have stopped when you cried out. I had control, you didn't and so you would have had only two choices. 1. Go with the flow and to the ground where yes I will have even greater control. 2. Have me dislocate your shoulder, and still end up on the ground and now I DEFINITELY have greater control. We arent simply learning today how to perform the takedown. We are also learning how to properly go with the flow so that if someone does it to you, you still have a chance of defending yourself."

Now with that particular technique if I apply the correct leverage I can, if I wish to be brutal, virtually dislocate the shoulder at will. The simple fact it was almost happening because of a rigid uke makes that almost a certainty. I get that the Sifu put me with them because he knew I had the control not to hurt them (they had apparently been doing that all day in one shape or another) but it was still frustrating as hell because when I train I like to train hard.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This actually reminds me of a seminar we ran on Saturday. The seminar was focused on ground fighting with edged weapons ("traditional" knives and karambits) and "combat" grappling/take downs. I put combat in quotes because it was based on the idea that unlike say LE or Security in self defense you want to break joints and tear muscles so you can escape. It was an amalgam of Chin Na, Kali and Silat techniques.

I actually got a tad frustrated at one point. I was partnered with a person when it came time to perform a technique that controlling the arm, hyperextensions the shoulder while using head control to take the person down. My partner insisted on keeping their feet planted until I had hyper extended their shoulder to the point they were literally shouting..."ow ow ow my shoulder, my shoulder, my shoulder."

Eventually, politely but firmly (to hide my frustration) I said,

"in a real fight I wouldn't have stopped when you cried out. I had control, you didn't and so you would have had only two choices. 1. Go with the flow and to the ground where yes I will have even greater control. 2. Have me dislocate your shoulder, and still end up on the ground and now I DEFINITELY have greater control. We arent simply learning today how to perform the takedown. We are also learning how to properly go with the flow so that if someone does it to you, you still have a chance of defending yourself."

Now with that particular technique if I apply the correct leverage I can, if I wish to be brutal, virtually dislocate the shoulder at will. The simple fact it was almost happening because of a rigid uke makes that almost a certainty. I get that the Sifu put me with them because he knew I had the control not to hurt them (they had apparently been doing that all day in one shape or another) but it was still frustrating as hell because when I train I like to train hard.

This is something that some students take a while to learn. Sometimes we need to be compliant (as uke) to protect ourselves. I sometimes get new students who think they should provide rigid resistance (not actually realistic resistance, just a general tensing of muscles) at all times. I have to explain to them the principles of ukemi:

• Protect yourself. For most throws, the more relaxed you are, the easier the fall is. For most locks, the more you resist, the more likely you are to get injured.
• Simulate the situation being practiced. It does nobody any good if you push when the attack being simulated is grabbing by the lapel and pulling in for a punch. If we are practicing responses to a specific situation, do that.
• When providing resistance, provide realistic resistance. Someone pulling you in will rarely lock their arm rigidly at 90 degrees. Someone punching will rarely lean in an use a stiffened arm to try to push a block slowly down with strength. Someone shoving will rarely hold their weight back over center.
• Don't invent resistance. When we are practicing a technique that we would only do once we've destroyed structure, we don't do that technique if any resistance is present (we use a different technique), so don't invent resistance to "test" the technique. If you do that, the appropriate response for your partner is to change techniques, probably by using a strike to "soften" you.

These are fairly common problems in training when someone doesn't actually commit to the practice (simulated) attack.

 

[Juany118]

This is something that some students take a while to learn. Sometimes we need to be compliant (as uke) to protect ourselves. I sometimes get new students who think they should provide rigid resistance (not actually realistic resistance, just a general tensing of muscles) at all times. I have to explain to them the principles of ukemi:

• Protect yourself. For most throws, the more relaxed you are, the easier the fall is. For most locks, the more you resist, the more likely you are to get injured.
• Simulate the situation being practiced. It does nobody any good if you push when the attack being simulated is grabbing by the lapel and pulling in for a punch. If we are practicing responses to a specific situation, do that.
• When providing resistance, provide realistic resistance. Someone pulling you in will rarely lock their arm rigidly at 90 degrees. Someone punching will rarely lean in an use a stiffened arm to try to push a block slowly down with strength. Someone shoving will rarely hold their weight back over center.
• Don't invent resistance. When we are practicing a technique that we would only do once we've destroyed structure, we don't do that technique if any resistance is present (we use a different technique), so don't invent resistance to "test" the technique. If you do that, the appropriate response for your partner is to change techniques, probably by using a strike to "soften" you.

These are fairly common problems in training when someone doesn't actually commit to the practice (simulated) attack.

I think the problem is a confluence of multiple dynamics. First the school is "safe". Second some students feel they must "resist" to make it real but don't understand that in a real fight you must resist indeed but in a way that still allows you to remain "combat effective." Third, understanding your last point. I am not going to try a technique like the one we were training unless my attacks had "discombobulated" the opponent. I am not going to discombobulate a training partner.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think the problem is a confluence of multiple dynamics. First the school is "safe". Second some students feel they must "resist" to make it real but don't understand that in a real fight you must resist indeed but in a way that still allows you to remain "combat effective." Third, understanding your last point. I am not going to try a technique like the one we were training unless my attacks had "discombobulated" the opponent. I am not going to discombobulate a training partner.

I tend to use the term "realistic resistance" a lot, to remind them that resistance supplied when simulating an attack should have a purpose for the attacker, and should be realistic to the situation.