I mean, Two people wildly throwing their weight at each other. Fighting Fighting. Not Sport Fighting.
Do you think sparring is essential to learning how to defend yourself?
- Thread starter Kenlee25
- Start date
Every single circumstance that I have either witnessed or been involved in where two people were doing this was a result of failure to utilize or effectively utilize verbal skills. Some circumstances that I have witnessed have involved one or both parties consuming alcohol, either prior to or in the process of whatever it was that led to the fight.
jasonbrinn
Purple Belt
It is my opinion that since sparring is not 100% fighting then what is trained in sparring is not 100% of the actual techniques, concepts ,etc. taught to use in "fighting." So, sparring (in my opinion) is really something different and actually requires the ones who spar to "change" or mitigate what they are taught in an effort to train what they are taught. Also, during the sparring sessions the data received, lessons learned, timing, etc. are directly related to adapted techniques and methods required to make sparring safe NOT the actual system being taught for self defense so they actually add filler and bad data to the purity of the methods taught for actual self defense.
On the flip side, again in my opinion, if you actually spend all your time training the actual methods - then fight - then review the data from the fights and make training adjustments from such experiences - then fight - and on along this path you get somewhere better faster. Understand I mean this type of training to also be complimented by fitness training that addresses the actual kinds of physical and mental stressors that occur during a real event for the best results.
I have seen (and unfortunately experienced) most levels of sparring. I would like to say that IF, which is 99% not, I was going to entertain any kind of training again that encouraged anything remotely like sparring it would be of the "Dog Brothers" flavor (which I have actually done in the past).
Again - IMO sparring is not "essential" for self defense training.
On the flip side, again in my opinion, if you actually spend all your time training the actual methods - then fight - then review the data from the fights and make training adjustments from such experiences - then fight - and on along this path you get somewhere better faster. Understand I mean this type of training to also be complimented by fitness training that addresses the actual kinds of physical and mental stressors that occur during a real event for the best results.
I have seen (and unfortunately experienced) most levels of sparring. I would like to say that IF, which is 99% not, I was going to entertain any kind of training again that encouraged anything remotely like sparring it would be of the "Dog Brothers" flavor (which I have actually done in the past).
Again - IMO sparring is not "essential" for self defense training.
Well, yes I do think we should attempt to define sparring, the OP used:
And while simunitions and the like clearly take away the importance of redirecting an opponents attack (duh
), they are absolutely useful for movement under pressure, maintaining good situational awareness, cover, and hitting targets under pressure. That sort of sounds familiar to me....FoF training is also done with all of those standards in mind, you need to for the safety of the participants. As for "trading blows," I don't ever want to "trade blows," I want to hit him and he never hit me, I don't ever want to trade. Unfortunately it usually doesn't work out that way though.
For what I consider "sparring" it is exactly what the OP stated "freely trading, parrying, and blocking blows," but I usually try to mix things up a bit. All my beginners start with equal weapons (unarmed, knife vs. knife, stick vs. stick, machete vs. machete, etc) and then after their first year I mix things up. Usually starting with knife vs. club and unarmed vs. knife. I will also start people in compromising positions against the weapon (not 6 feet away). I absolutely consider this sparring, where most of the tools can come into play at hard contact. One of the things I repeatedly say in my class is "all training is artificial."
I consider sparring to be one of the cornerstones, the other three being basics, techniques, and drills.
Do you feel that the simulated training that LEOs and Military do, is good or bad? And why?
jasonbrinn
Purple Belt
I hate to be dodgy about this but, it depends. I favor drills over simulations ALWAYS. The closer the drill can be to the actual thing the better obviously, and the more "elements" of what is experienced in the real thing the better.
LEOs and Military usually have "controlled simulations" where the focus is getting the methods and techniques right in an environment where misses are not immediately anchored to pain. Let's say you are learning to clear a room; 1. you are taught how and why classroom style, 2. you run through the elements specifically, 3. you do a few dry runs talked through them in a simulation, 4. there is a simulation with practice rounds, 5. there is a simulation with live rounds (potentially).
Now if we took that same scenario and applied what sparring is like it would be; 1. you are taught how and why classroom style, 2. you run through the elements specifically, 3. you do a simulation with aggressors placed randomly through the environment firing back. (I think this setup is NOT done not should it be).
Bluntly, drills are better than simulations, REALITY is better than both.
LEOs and Military usually have "controlled simulations" where the focus is getting the methods and techniques right in an environment where misses are not immediately anchored to pain. Let's say you are learning to clear a room; 1. you are taught how and why classroom style, 2. you run through the elements specifically, 3. you do a few dry runs talked through them in a simulation, 4. there is a simulation with practice rounds, 5. there is a simulation with live rounds (potentially).
Now if we took that same scenario and applied what sparring is like it would be; 1. you are taught how and why classroom style, 2. you run through the elements specifically, 3. you do a simulation with aggressors placed randomly through the environment firing back. (I think this setup is NOT done not should it be).
Bluntly, drills are better than simulations, REALITY is better than both.
Basic learning theories show that people learn in stages.
First you learn individual elements of a concept. For example, when learning to block you learn foot placement and foundation and the basic arm and hand movements. Your brain has to process each of these new things as single units until it's properly recorded. Then you start to learn to do these things together at the same time, building more complex motor skills. Then you start to learn to apply these new groups of skills through blocked practice with cooperative opponent, at this point it's still mostly rote memory movements but you're starting to see how it's used and make small adjustments, finally in free resistive sparring you're able to move into the level of learning called correlation where you learn that if your opponent moves like "this", then implement "that" block, and you start to see weaknesses in your own technique because they are not as effective as they should be so you start to adapt.
Without correlation (which I believe in martial arts is primarily going to occur during resistive training), it's basically just head knowledge, theory, and rote muscle memory skills and while you "might" respond to a real threat appropriately, it's not likely to be as effective as it could be with the confidence and experience you gain through more complete training.
First you learn individual elements of a concept. For example, when learning to block you learn foot placement and foundation and the basic arm and hand movements. Your brain has to process each of these new things as single units until it's properly recorded. Then you start to learn to do these things together at the same time, building more complex motor skills. Then you start to learn to apply these new groups of skills through blocked practice with cooperative opponent, at this point it's still mostly rote memory movements but you're starting to see how it's used and make small adjustments, finally in free resistive sparring you're able to move into the level of learning called correlation where you learn that if your opponent moves like "this", then implement "that" block, and you start to see weaknesses in your own technique because they are not as effective as they should be so you start to adapt.
Without correlation (which I believe in martial arts is primarily going to occur during resistive training), it's basically just head knowledge, theory, and rote muscle memory skills and while you "might" respond to a real threat appropriately, it's not likely to be as effective as it could be with the confidence and experience you gain through more complete training.
I think that we are all in agreement that resistive training is a requirement in self defense training. But does all resistive training equate to sparring? I suppose that the answer will vary depending upon the individual answering and how sparring has been defined for them in their place of training.
In the self defense situations that I have personally been in, that would be an excellent way to end up dead. I have always made it a point never to 'fight' for fun. If I cannot avoid a fight, it's because someone is trying to kill me, therefore I respond with that same level of force. Thus, if you attempted to employ your training methods against me, you would either wind up in jail because you had to kill me, or dead. Not very conducive to proper training in my opinion, although you'd get plenty of opportunity to practice in prison.
That, I think, is the biggest question. It has been my experience that actual technique is of far less importance than many other things for proper self defense unless a person is actually employed in a law enforcement, military, or security position. For the average Joe Martial Artist on the street, situational awareness, a calm demeanor, critical thinking skills, and a strong desire are all much more important than actual technique for self defense. Resistive training of some sort is a good way to train several of these desirous traits, but free sparring is only one kind of resistive training.
Just my two cent's worth, based on my experiences.
Well, yes I do think we should attempt to define sparring, the OP used:
And while simunitions and the like clearly take away the importance of redirecting an opponents attack (duh
FoF training is also done with all of those standards in mind, you need to for the safety of the participants. As for "trading blows," I don't ever want to "trade blows," I want to hit him and he never hit me, I don't ever want to trade. Unfortunately it usually doesn't work out that way though.
For what I consider "sparring" it is exactly what the OP stated "freely trading, parrying, and blocking blows," but I usually try to mix things up a bit. All my beginners start with equal weapons (unarmed, knife vs. knife, stick vs. stick, machete vs. machete, etc) and then after their first year I mix things up. Usually starting with knife vs. club and unarmed vs. knife. I will also start people in compromising positions against the weapon (not 6 feet away). I absolutely consider this sparring, where most of the tools can come into play at hard contact. One of the things I repeatedly say in my class is "all training is artificial."
I consider sparring to be one of the cornerstones, the other three being basics, techniques, and drills.
Interesting. From my point of view the worst possible weapon to use against a knife is another knife. Now I have to control two blades instead of one. Then again I have never studied any of the FMA so I am coming from a Hapkido perspective. My favorite non firearm weapon v.s. knife is a good sturdy chair.
Hehe - This kind of assumes some kind of Fight takes place. When two folks have knives, normally only one of them will have His out, whilst He, You know, stabs You. And if, somehow, You do square off, neither of You are going to be thinking about each others knives.Interesting. From my point of view the worst possible weapon to use against a knife is another knife. Now I have to control two blades instead of one. Then again I have never studied any of the FMA so I am coming from a Hapkido perspective. My favorite non firearm weapon v.s. knife is a good sturdy chair.
You (Thinking): "IM GONNA STAB YOU!" *Add some Obsceneties*
Him (Thinking): "IM GONNA STAB YOU!" *Add some Obsceneties*
A strong Chair is a good call but. Id say a small table, a vase, or anything like that would work just as well. You dont need to take them out with it, just set them up to get in or out.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this Jason. The way I view a drill, is something that is done in a static fashion. Focus mitt training is a good example. You decide on the combos you want to do, and the trainer holds the pads accordingly. Little to no movement, nobody hitting back. Now, apply those drills to sparring, and you get much more out of it.
I think alot of the time, people tend to fall back on the crutch of saying, "Well, you can't replicate reality." and that is true. However, there are ways to get close. Again, in a Firearms Training Simulator, the badguy on the screen who's shooting at the cop, really isn't going to 'kill' him, if he gets hit, but its the stress and mindset of the training/drill, that will help the officer on the street.
Of course reality is the best. However, IMHO, I feel its better to learn from your mistakes, so to speak, in the training arena, rather than find out what you drilled, failed you, because you never really were put under any pressure.
That's one way of doing focus mitt drills, or pad drills, but from that beginning, the sky is the limit. There is no rule saying that you have to always do it like that. taekwondo's modern training methods, for example, do pad drills or focus mitt drills in an infinite variety of ways.
How about those obstacle courses with pop up bad guys? I would think that helps as well.
Exactly. Pressure, even though it does not rise to the level of a real situation all the time, is still better than nothing.
shihansmurf
Black Belt
First off,
Welcome to Martialtalk, Sijo.
That said, I agree 100% with the above. I can only comment on my personal experiences but I've yet to see a martial artist from a school that didn't spar do well against one from a school that spars regularly. Its like the old saw about experience being something you acquire after you need it. Seems better to gain it in a controlled and safe enviornment. If you train to be able to use the skillset in an actual self-defense situation, then training against a non-compliant partner is totaly indispensible.
Lee and I teach our students that the grab isn't the attact. The attack is what follows after the initial grab. That being said, I instruct my students to address the grab as it is better to engage the opponent when he has at least one of his tools tied up.
Just a thought.
Mark Chapman
Of course.
And I'm sure movemen could be added in, ie: the pad holder advancing or retreating, from the puncher, to give them a more realistic feel. Sure.
Exactly.
I spar. Kendo, taekwondo, and hapkido. I will reiterate that while I don't think that it is essential, I think that it is helpful. I do think that some kind of hard contact/pressure test is essential, however.
Interesting. From my point of view the worst possible weapon to use against a knife is another knife. Now I have to control two blades instead of one. Then again I have never studied any of the FMA so I am coming from a Hapkido perspective. My favorite non firearm weapon v.s. knife is a good sturdy chair.
The FMA perspective is generally "use something," a chair is good, pool cue is good, laptop bag is good, whatever. But a knife is convenient to carry, and so is just another available tool. (edit: It actually also teaches how to control their weapon while bringing yours into play, which is very very valuable. If you can control their weapon while one of your hands if free to do whatever, then this provides a valuable skill and opportunity.) The reason for isolation of a weapon set in the beginning is to start understanding the range of a particular weapon, both of your use and of theirs. We also vary the length of the weapon, so a person could have a longer or short stick/machete or longer or shorter knife. It is really driving the student to understand the "edge of range." In my experience bladed weapon arts do that better than most others, the margin for error is simply far lower.
I will be the first to say that the "duelling" approach that is most often seen in FMA is not very realistic for "real life." I don't expect my students to get in a machete duel. Real life is asymmetric, but we deal with that in the sparring environment as well, and those are the matches that I find the most fun and informative.
Someone gave me a dog brothers gathering video (don't know the exact term used) and what I remember from that is that you didn't see any of the intricate movements that are normally associated with FMA. It looked more like well timed bashing more than anything else. I only watched a small portion of the tape though.
As a practitioner of FMA, I see all of the movements that I train for in DB matches. Well time bashing? Sure, they are stick fighting. Guy trying to take my head off with big stick? Zone to the outside to avoid the attack and then lean back in and hit him. Simple, elegant, very effective, why would that not be a part of every combative art? Alternately zone to the inside with a roof block and then hit him, or better yet snake over with your left hand to capture their weapon arm and hit him repeately with your weapon. That technique shows up in every weapon based martial art that I have ever seen.
With regard to "intricate movements" there is often a common misconception between "drills" and "sparring." Drills don't have to look like sparring. Drills are often set up at artificial ranges to allow lots of repetition. In the case of Pekiti, many of the drills take place in medium range which is simply for training, for application you transition through the medium range as fast as possible. But the drill allows lots of reps to let you survive that zone and move through it. The important thing is that the student needs to understand the difference between the two.
Fighting with two sticks doesn't look like two people doing siniwali patterns, the siniwalli patterns are just there to train you to use your weapons in a somewhat systematic manner. It is a drill. A good instructor has to move his students beyond the drill into application, and from application to resisted training.
