poor sparring etiquette is what gets threads locked. It moves from a conversation to a fight. Or in this case a lecture.
No, "poor sparring etiquette" is not what gets threads locked… multiple reported posts is what gets threads locked. And those reports come from a range of sources and reasons… there's nothing about "sparring etiquette" at all… as, well, this ain't sparring. I'm not here to spar with you. Bluntly, I don't consider that you're in a position to "spar" with me… or that you have the requisite skills and knowledge base to attempt it.
Look. that's not an attack on you at all… simply an observation of where we're both coming from. But, importantly, disagreeing isn't a fight… correcting isn't fighting either. A lecture? Maybe… but, to be frank again, sometimes that's required.
interesting that you are giving me instruction from your position of authority. As opposed to having a conversation.
You're being corrected. That's not going to be a conversation. It's going to be a statement made with the aim of improving your understanding, rather than to say "hey, here's an alternative way of thinking"… it's simply not appropriate, when it all comes down to it.
so lets look at kata. I don't know how you do it. But when I did it. My instructor,the person in authority. Gave instructions that we followed. It was not the place to work out an idea.
And that's the very beginning of how you learn kata… again, the very beginning of how you learn it. It's hardly the entirety of kata the same way that learning to say "hello, goodbye, where is the train station?" is the entirety of learning a language. If you didn't progress beyond that in your classes, either due to time in training, or due to the lower level of the training you received, it really doesn't change the fact that kata training is a lot more than you have suggested or written.
like the conversation we are having now.
This, believe it or not, isn't necessarily intended as a conversation. You presented an idea (for the fourth or fifth time now), and it's been demonstrated that it is lacking by most contributors. We haven't asked for counters.
emotionally invested in their debates possibly?
for me i try to play the ball rather than the man. This thread has come from people playing the man. Which is generally considered pretty low class even in a debate.
No, you play the man constantly. You constantly attempt to have a range of little digs aimed at a number of posters, and what they've told you (including myself), in an attempt to mock them by trying to twist their words back. Sadly, you also constantly miss the point of what they've told you.
I'll leave it to you what level of class that is.
Kata is a waste of time IMO. If you enjoy performing it, more power to you. Personally, I'm very happy that I chose a style that doesn't utilize it as a training tool.
Er… okay… kinda besides the point of what's being discussed here, but glad to see you can bring your issues across as well…
And yeah, debates are a form of verbal sparring. Always have been.
Yes, debates can be. There hasn't been any question on that. The question is whether or not conversation (not debate) is "sparring".
the forms are like a notation made about your training. Once it is settled you know what works. You collate you findings into kata.
Hmm… partly, but partly not. A big part of it is exactly what is being collated, really… and how.
the thing is everybody has to find their own way. Otherwise we are all doing the same thing.
Yep, this I agree with.
diversity is what makes a system like martial arts grow.
This, a little less. For one thing, what system is "martial arts"? But, a little more seriously, it really, really depends on the art itself.
bunkai as you describe it would be the conversation though.
Not really… it can very much be a solo endeavour… although it can be, and is, done with a partner. What bunkai is is an exploration within the kata, which can take a number of forms.
even as you describe kata. Doesn't make it a conversation. It makes it a lecture.
Lectures are a format of communication to impart lessons… so, yeah. Mind you, I never said kata was a conversation… I was saying that a conversation isn't sparring… and pointing out that what you think you know kata is, isn't what it actually is. But hey, here's some kata that is more of a "conversation" for you…
(start from about 6:30)
which is not something i really do. Especially with martial arts. I am more of a take it apart and break it guy.
Hmm… you don't really learn from being told based on the knowledge of others? Really? Okay… for the record, of course, it should be pointed out that "take it apart" is a big part of kata training, and, well, pretty much all martial arts… thing is, once you do that, 99% of the time you'll find that the way it's been taught is the best method for it… which is the point of having it as kata in the first place.
Some very good points here. I really like what tony said above.
I also want to recognize drop bears point about lecturing. Its a very good one, IMO. Lecturing can be as destructive to a friendly discussion as an unwelcome debate.
I personally don't enjoy discussing things with people who are lecturing me in return.
It depends entirely on what the reasons for communication are. It's been commented that I lecture a bit here and there… and, honestly, a lecture isn't entirely the way it's intended… but, to be blunt, I am not here to ask questions.
On a thread when someone responds to your OP with, "Oh, dear lord..." I would guess that you are dealing with the verbal equivalent of the second scenario above. Really not worth pursuing. You won't "win", and the thread will go down the toilet.
Then let's clear up why such a phrase might be used… it's an expression of exasperation, used when the same topic that has been presented, countered, discussed, and moved on from… and is then brought up again. So, no, it's not necessarily the "second scenario" you presented…
yeah but what are you going to do?
Honestly? Listen.
this is kind of my point. That those who fire out those comments should not be so surprised at the response.
I'm surprised by nothing in your responses, for the record.
because conversation is sparring.
No. It isn't. For the ninth time, it really, really isn't.
And you've used that before as well… and had explained to you (at length) that saying that sparring is a conversation is far from saying that conversation is sparring… not that you listened the first time… or the second, it seems… of course, I'd also point out that the blog post itself is not actually about the idea of sparring being a conversation either, despite it's purported message and title… it's about having awareness and sensitivity to your training partner… which is a different idea entirely.
