Calling all historians

[granfire]

Interesting that you mention "old fashioned". If you will research the history of TKD, you will find that sparring was not originally a part of it,

a small quote from a long standing discussion on why on earth sparring would be 'optional'

Now seriously, being a MARTIAL Art, how can sparring not have been part of it - traditionally. How else do you learn how to fight if not by fighting.

Edit:
This is not sparring vs Forms, its sparring vs not sparring.

 

[Sukerkin]

Learning to fight and learning the techniques of your art are not necessarily the same thing, gran.

In my art, MJER, there is no sparring; for the kata are meant to teach you the 'toolbox' of techniques that you use when the time to fight does come along.

There have been quite a number of lengthy discourses on this topic here over the years. Two basic 'camps' form. Essentially, one says that you can't learn self-defence without sparring and the other says you cannot learn your art without kata.

My own view, formed over being involved in martial arts in one form or another since I was 18, it that sparring, no matter how 'serious' the participants think it is, is play-fighting.

It's fun and it can teach you more easily some things about timing and distance (and taking an unexpected belt in the nose ) than kata can but it should never be mistaken as practice for the real thing. Kata is what teaches you how to properly execute your arts techniques ... you find out whether you can fight or not when the time comes (fighters being, by-in-large, born and not made) .

 

[granfire]

No, this is not the either or question.

In this case it's the really simplistic (I know those are the most dangerous) question of if i is really 'not traditional' to spar.

I mean, if you bill your program as all inclusive, fitness and SD, should sparring not have a somewhat mandatory part in it? After Katas have been learned?

(forms are another matter, I mean, too few people know the meaning and intend of the moves in the forms so they can't perform then well)

After a long history of unarmed warfare, do you just teach katas and hope they don't freeze up and die?

 

[Earl Weiss]

No, this is not the either or question.

In this case it's the really simplistic (I know those are the most dangerous) question of if i is really 'not traditional' to spar.

I mean, if you bill your program as all inclusive, fitness and SD, should sparring not have a somewhat mandatory part in it? After Katas have been learned?

(forms are another matter, I mean, too few people know the meaning and intend of the moves in the forms so they can't perform then well)

After a long history of unarmed warfare, do you just teach katas and hope they don't freeze up and die?

If you are asking whether their needs to be "Sparring" to have an effective SD program than perhaps teh answer can be found by investigating any number of self defense programs that do not use what would be considered sparring. Fro LEOs to womens courses they simply have padded assailants attack and the students need to defend. IMNSHO being attacked by a padded assailant (coupled with other street scenarios) is more likely to induce adrenal stress than sparring.

 

[Sukerkin]

Ah, in that case I really can't answer as I've never been involved in TKD .

For some of the other 'more traditional' arts, in the minds of the 'leading lights' of those schools, sparring and competition in particular, was something that practioners went beyond over time but had some value for those just begining their journey.

 

[granfire]

Ah, in that case I really can't answer as I've never been involved in TKD .

For some of the other 'more traditional' arts, in the minds of the 'leading lights' of those schools, sparring and competition in particular, was something that practioners went beyond over time but had some value for those just begining their journey.

LOL, yes, the leading lights. They put on their gear and all lower ranks die of an instant heart attack!

I am really trying to keep it as broad as possible, but my simple questions are never just that....

Well, the organization has been around for a while now, sparring was always something you did once you passed the 4 month mark in training (at close to 2-3 classes a week) Now they have made it optional, still claiming it to be 'traditional' I am not talking about competition sparring either.

To me sparring is something that a drill can't teach you. In a drill both parties have their patterns set. After a few rounds it becomes more reflex than anything. Sparring is thinking on your feet because you won't get the same attack more than maybe twice in a row.

Also, I always noticed novices, especially women, are very timid at first. I always took great care to bring them along gently as sparring partner (for some reason my tiny self intimidated them) but now I see that more would opt out of sparring, not knowing what they are missing and losing out on a great chance to develop further.

(just one of the reasons I am not active at the moment.)

 

[dancingalone]

Now seriously, being a MARTIAL Art, how can sparring not have been part of it - traditionally. How else do you learn how to fight if not by fighting.

Lots of martial arts do not spar at all. I am curious about the statement that sparring was not originally found in TKD at all though. I thought the TKD founders mostly studied karate at Japanese university clubs... And these clubs were the leaders in adding jiyu kumite (free sparring) into karate.

 

[granfire]

I am curious about the statement that sparring was not originally found in TKD at all though. I thought the TKD founders mostly studied karate at Japanese university clubs... And these clubs were the leaders in adding jiyu kumite (free sparring) into karate.

You and me both.
It's part of the new strategy of the Organization, Add something, kimi-something, or was it kisa....fancy name for what we used to do, calling it stations, then another thing I am not familiar with, taking sparring out of the main class block, adding it on to the back, when the one opting out have left.

It is not really something I am interested in to explore any further, but it makes for interesting discussions between the salesmen and those who have their doubts. Depending on the forum you can imagine how the answers come out.

(like the question why the organization is starting to charge the not yet fully qualified and certified trainees a yearly fee for 'certification' when they are not paid by the schools to assist in class. Interesting arguments to defend the 'Business Model'. Hot chocolate came to mind and sounded very good all over sudden)

 

[Disco]

Sparring is pitting two trained subjects together and letting them physically play with each other.

Self Defense is not playing with an adversary, it's stopping them from doing harm to you or another.

Since Judo was the forerunner in the martial arts sports world, the sparring aspect most likely took form, as a way to offer competition between dojo's. Now it's taken on a life of it's own and many feel that it offers the same attributes as self defense training does. It's apples and oranges and this subject has been reviewed before. Folks that like to spar have their agenda and folks that do self defense have theirs. Suffice to say that never will there be a melding of the minds on the subject.

 

[granfire]

Sparring is pitting two trained subjects together and letting them physically play with each other.

Self Defense is not playing with an adversary, it's stopping them from doing harm to you or another.

Since Judo was the forerunner in the martial arts sports world, the sparring aspect most likely took form, as a way to offer competition between dojo's. Now it's taken on a life of it's own and many feel that it offers the same attributes as self defense training does. It's apples and oranges and this subject has been reviewed before. Folks that like to spar have their agenda and folks that do self defense have theirs. Suffice to say that never will there be a melding of the minds on the subject.

well, yes and no, you are off the mark.

There are the SD drills, but they are drills. You know what to expect and you know what to do.
You spar you don't know what to expect and you have to use your training and wits to keep from getting bonked in the shnaz.

You fence by fencing. You do exercises and drills, but you fence.
Judo you tumble with your partner/opponents on the mat.

Obviously in styles with sharp swords with one strike technique you might not spar. But you do with the bamboo sticks.

I am mostly puzzled.

 

[WC_lun]

My personal opinion is it shouldn't be called teaching self defense if there isn't free flow, hard contact at some point in the training. There is no substitute for it, and it is neccesary to mimic as close as possible to the stress of real hand to hand combat. Does it become a game? Yeah, much of the time. It is a serious game though, with needed skills. If you don't do it, you are practicing theory. With the added stress and adrenaline of a violent encounter, theory usually doesn't make the cut.

 

[bluewaveschool]

Learning to fight and learning the techniques of your art are not necessarily the same thing, gran.


There have been quite a number of lengthy discourses on this topic here over the years. Two basic 'camps' form. Essentially, one says that you can't learn self-defence without sparring and the other says you cannot learn your art without kata.

I'm confused on this. How is it that most people aren't in both camps? We spar for timing, for distances, and yes, for how to take the occasional hard shot. We work on all the kicks/strikes, combos, all that stuff. BUT...

Forms offer so much more than the basic punch/kick/block drills. Once you uncode the movements, you learn some SD that puts a serious hurt on someone. And a lot of those movements can't be replicated in sparring safely. As far as SD goes, I could only teach SD from forms and cover most any attack.

If you don't do both, then you are cheating yourself.

 

[Sukerkin]

I think that a great many people do have a foot in both camps, Blue, I was really commenting on the fact that discourses on the value or otherwise of sparring tend to polarise opinions towards one or the other of the basic 'positions on the topic (as do most discussions on the Web ).

In my Lau Gar days, I loved the free sparring more than anything - at least for the first few years at any rate. I also found it to be quite useful as a 'teaching tool' (as I noted earlier) for more easily getting newer students to get a grasp of the fundamentals of distance, timing and reading an opponent.

In my current art of course, like Gran said above, we can't really spar for we'd soon run out of classmates . There are partner forms with bokken but these are scripted 'drills' as, even with just a 'stick' we could quite easily kill one another (in the unlikely event of both atacker and defender having a lapse of control at the same time).

That is why visualisation is such an import tool in arts like iaido; for if you cannot see your opponent in your minds eye then what you teach your reflexes to do is a 'dance' rather than a 'sword-fight'.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Granfire,

There may be some confusion over the definitions and choice of words here. In your first post, you said:

Now seriously, being a MARTIAL Art, how can sparring not have been part of it - traditionally. How else do you learn how to fight if not by fighting.

then, following Sukerin's post you said:

I mean, if you bill your program as all inclusive, fitness and SD, should sparring not have a somewhat mandatory part in it?

Now, the question is in the definitions. For example, if you define fighting within competitive constructs (as in TKD tournament fighting), then absolutely it's required. However, there is nothing in the requirements of fitness, or self defence that demands sparring. Contact, yes. Adrenaline, definately. But sparring is not absolutely required.

However, if the question is more whether or not sparring is required in TKD, I would say absolutely. My TKD school (oh, way back in the day now.... my, I feel old) was the only one in the area, so there was no competitive aspect whatsoever, however there was a lot of sparring, as it is one of the fundamental training aids for TKD. Without it, I'd say you're not really doing TKD, actually.

There are the SD drills, but they are drills. You know what to expect and you know what to do.
You spar you don't know what to expect and you have to use your training and wits to keep from getting bonked in the shnaz.

My personal opinion is it shouldn't be called teaching self defense if there isn't free flow, hard contact at some point in the training. There is no substitute for it, and it is neccesary to mimic as close as possible to the stress of real hand to hand combat. Does it become a game? Yeah, much of the time. It is a serious game though, with needed skills. If you don't do it, you are practicing theory. With the added stress and adrenaline of a violent encounter, theory usually doesn't make the cut.

You can drill with chaos, adrenaline, and more, without sparring, and maintain more realism as it pertains to self defence. And kata is really not "theory", when you get down to it. A theory is an unproven belief, and the way the kata are formed is the lessons taken from experience are then distilled into the form refered to as kata. And some systems teach exclusively with this method, but still manage to generate a great deal of adrenaline, real-fight-feel, speed, distancing, angling, hard contact, and more. As Gran said, it's not an either/or situation, it's really closer to his idea of fencing needing to involve fencing (as TKD needs to involve the training methods of TKD, which includes sparring), however fencing does not need grappling skills, although it is fun, and can be useful if self defence is the aim (same as striking skills, and more), but it's not required to be fencing. Sparring is required for it to be TKD, but not to learn to "fight", or for SD (in the most common form).

 

[Earl Weiss]

My personal opinion is it shouldn't be called teaching self defense if there isn't free flow, hard contact at some point in the training. There is no substitute for it, and it is neccesary to mimic as close as possible to the stress of real hand to hand combat.>>>>>>>>.

You can do this without what is typicaly thought of as sparring. Padded assailant training is a common method.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I am curious about the statement that sparring was not originally found in TKD at all though. >>>
.

I can only offer an anecdotal story once related to me by a top student of Han Cha Kyo who was part of the orgl demo team before Pres. Rhee and part of the 29th Infantry division where TKD was developed (Save the flames about what is tkd.)

Anyway a student asked about sparring in those days and the response was something to the effect of not risking injury since at any moment they would be going into comabt and having to do things "for real."

 

[dancingalone]

Thanks, Mr. Weiss.

Perhaps someone who knows can let me know about the practices with regard to sparring in the civilian kwans. I dimly recall reading an article or story about sparring being done in the Chung Do Kwan, and of course we know the Ji Do Kwan was rather famous for their sparring expertise.

 

[granfire]

Hey Granfire,

There may be some confusion over the definitions and choice of words here. In your first post, you said:


then, following Sukerin's post you said:

You got me there, but it is also a part of the problem.
It used to be straight forward TKD:
learn how to walk
learn your forms
learn to spar

now we are dealing with an ever changing program:
learn sticks
maybe swords (went away)
learn grappling

now it's forms (another doozie there, but that's another story) and maybe if you feel like it, we spar. I do believe there are a set of contact drills, so you can train TKD in a 'safe environment'
So much for fighting your way out of the mean streets of Philly...
I might want to add that the organization never went for more than light/medium contact.

Now, the question is in the definitions. For example, if you define fighting within competitive constructs (as in TKD tournament fighting), then absolutely it's required. However, there is nothing in the requirements of fitness, or self defence that demands sparring. Contact, yes. Adrenaline, definately. But sparring is not absolutely required.

However, if the question is more whether or not sparring is required in TKD, I would say absolutely. My TKD school (oh, way back in the day now.... my, I feel old) was the only one in the area, so there was no competitive aspect whatsoever, however there was a lot of sparring, as it is one of the fundamental training aids for TKD. Without it, I'd say you're not really doing TKD, actually.

I was really talking about sparring in class. There are only a few tournaments every year on the calendar, I think 3 ATM, the rules are not that much different from class sparring.

You can drill with chaos, adrenaline, and more, without sparring, and maintain more realism as it pertains to self defence. And kata is really not "theory", when you get down to it. A theory is an unproven belief, and the way the kata are formed is the lessons taken from experience are then distilled into the form refered to as kata. And some systems teach exclusively with this method, but still manage to generate a great deal of adrenaline, real-fight-feel, speed, distancing, angling, hard contact, and more. As Gran said, it's not an either/or situation, it's really closer to his idea of fencing needing to involve fencing (as TKD needs to involve the training methods of TKD, which includes sparring), however fencing does not need grappling skills, although it is fun, and can be useful if self defence is the aim (same as striking skills, and more), but it's not required to be fencing. Sparring is required for it to be TKD, but not to learn to "fight", or for SD (in the most common form).

Yes, forms are a collection of moves that - used on another person with full force as you should perform it in the form - would maim or kill your partner. But you have to make the connection and translate that to your students.

You can make a program out of never touching another student. I think Tai Chi has shown that, you can incorporate the moves into a high intensity workout, Billy Banks made a lot of money with that, but what do you have when you don't spar.

I mean, eventually they will be handing the Black Belt to those folks who opted out...what message does that give to them.

 

[granfire]

I can only offer an anecdotal story once related to me by a top student of Han Cha Kyo who was part of the orgl demo team before Pres. Rhee and part of the 29th Infantry division where TKD was developed (Save the flames about what is tkd.)

Anyway a student asked about sparring in those days and the response was something to the effect of not risking injury since at any moment they would be going into comabt and having to do things "for real."

Maybe somebody has some records of the pre-occupation era?

 

[Tanaka]

Not to start sparring vs forms or anything. But calling sparring "playing" is kind of offensive to those who train very seriously. The sparring I do is not a game at all, it is preparing me for real life scenario. Sparring to me is the best way to find out if you can perform a technique without someone giving you everything you need in order to do the technique. I would never call our kata "dancing," nor would I call our sparring sessions "just playing." There's some techniques I know I could of never been able to do in a real life scenario without actually performing them against a live opponent.