Something can be destructive without being deadly. For example, any lock that breaks/separates/tears.
Sorry, I guess I just can't take you seriously. I'm not gonna try.I was pointing out, and I believe I clarified this at the end of my post, that this is a nuanced issue. It isn't all black-and-white. I was describing some of the nuances. There are reasons why some people see less value in sparring than other people do.
---You described one nuance and implied that it was a good reason not to spar. It didn't seem like a good one to me, so I point that out and was seeking some clarification.
If you come back with a dismissive attitude and tell me my reasons are just a "cop out", then you are not worthy of my time and further discussion.
---Well, sorry that you are so sensitive to someone questioning your somewhat ambiguous post. And very ironic that you are accusing me of having a "dismissive attitude" when you are the one that has declared that I "wasn't to be taken seriously" and just stated that I am "not worthy of your time and further discussion." I just questioned one point that you made, and you have come back and dismissed me and anything I have to say entirely!!! And you want to talk about a "dismissive attitude"????
If you can't understand that other people have reasons for seeing it differently,
----Well, I provide more examples of good reasons not to spar than you did. And I noted that I agreed with what you posted except for that one idea.
and you can't disagree with a modicum of respect for a different point of view, then we cannot have a discussion, or even share ideas in passing even if a deeper discussion does not build.
---So you are so sensitive that you think someone telling you that "dialing back techniques" as a reason not to spar is a cop out (meaning an invalid reason)....that you think you have been disrespected and have gotten all "bent out of shape" over it?Dude, you should know better than that after being around in the forums for as long as you have! Lighten up!
Ya but when people use the (cop out) reasoning for not pressure testing;'too deadly for sparring' they do not always mean they know the dim-mach death touch. That's why the next line uttered is usually 'my style is for killing or maiming, not for sport'.
The thing is, once you strap on the gloves you realize that people aren't so easily killed by techniques you've never even really tested.
A technique can easily be too destructive for sparring. I could probably put together a complete system of such things, but it would be pretty limited - lacking all the usual bits that can be used in live sparring, both grappling and striking. So, when someone believes their style is too destructive for sparring, they are not trying very hard. They could almost certainly spar with what's not so destructive.
Are you saying that something too destructive for sparring is also too destructive for defensive use, or did I misread your post?
I doubt you could. Even krav guys spar and every other move is a kick to the nuts or an eyepoke.
I never said deadly. I said destructive.
Okay, again, there's a difference between "deadly" and "destructive". Destructive techniques are those that cause breaks, etc. (destroy a joint). Deadly techniques would be those that cause death.
Yes, you can choose not to use them. That's rather the point. But that doesn't mean they can't be rolled out for SD, where a destruction (break) may be appropriate.
I have only a light (and long-ago) exposure to Judo, but I recall my instructor talking about how to make throws "harder" than you would use for competition. It was sometimes an adjustment to add energy, and sometimes an adjustment to make them fall more awkwardly (like the Kampfringin). The same applies within NGA. Most of how we train in class is softer, but we stop to examine how the throw can be adjusted to make it harder. We also look at submissions and how to take the slack out of them faster, in case you need a destruction without the time for them to tap.
What's the disagreement, @Steve ?
Not meaningless, at all. I teach almost nothing that is designed to kill (a few things I was taught, which I will cover eventually, but aren't part of my normal curriculum). Many of the things I teach can be used for destruction (like the small-bone bind I mentioned earlier). It's not even remotely untrainable. I've seen it executed at speed in response to an attack with intent. That only works, however, if the partner ("attacker") is willing to acknowledge the danger and drop out of the technique and tap, rather than fighting against it. There's a less destructive move that works a bit further up the wrist, and this can be used on a resisting opponent, but must be abandoned if it slips lower. We often use that one for training with speed, as the movement is nearly identical. And when we train the exact movement of the destruction in drills, we just slow it down to expand the time the pain exists, so there's time to tap out. Putting those two parts together allows us to train the full range of the technique (slow) and the motions at speed (the alternative further up the wrist).
