How Important is Fighting in YOUR Martial Art?

[drop bear]

(Sigh) You do get the distinction, yeah? Providing resistance is not "being a jerk"… I believe this was stated earlier, yeah?

What do you feel is the difference? Say we wrestle and I grind my head into your face. Am I providing resistance or being a jerk?

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, you really need to get some idea of nuance… that's not really the implication. If you don't think someone can be "broken" without crippling them, you're a bit out of your depth here… again.

So your context of breaking someone is?

 

[Chris Parker]

What do you feel is the difference? Say we wrestle and I grind my head into your face. Am I providing resistance or being a jerk?

That depends on the context of the sparring/wrestling. Again… context is everything. If you're doing that against a beginner who's trying to apply something he's just learned, you're a jerk. If it's a couple of more seasoned practitioners, it can be fine, even expected as part of the "enhancement" of technique, and could be classed as resistance. Then again, if you're rolling to achieve a particular aim, it could still be classed as a jerk action.

So your context of breaking someone is?

More of a lesson than a punishment… essentially a way of showing that, if you're going to be a jerk, you're going to end up coming up against someone who won't allow it.

 

[drop bear]

"That depends on the context of the sparring/wrestling. Again… context is everything. If you're doing that against a beginner who's trying to apply something he's just learned, you're a jerk. If it's a couple of more seasoned practitioners, it can be fine, even expected as part of the "enhancement" of technique, and could be classed as resistance. Then again, if you're rolling to achieve a particular aim, it could still be classed as a jerk action."

So I am being accused of something with a seriously fuzzy definition. And why my bad partnering idea came with a definition.

In mma there is a whole bunch of stuff That is seen as pretty low brow and yet are viable techniques. It is a terrible way to spar someone in that it is just mean. But we have to acclimate people to the concept. I would have called that being a jerk.

 

[drop bear]

More of a lesson than a punishment… essentially a way of showing that, if you're going to be a jerk, you're going to end up coming up against someone who won't allow it.

So you tell them off. Beat them up. I am still not sure how you are breaking people.

 

[Chris Parker]

"That depends on the context of the sparring/wrestling. Again… context is everything. If you're doing that against a beginner who's trying to apply something he's just learned, you're a jerk. If it's a couple of more seasoned practitioners, it can be fine, even expected as part of the "enhancement" of technique, and could be classed as resistance. Then again, if you're rolling to achieve a particular aim, it could still be classed as a jerk action."

So I am being accused of something with a seriously fuzzy definition. And why my bad partnering idea came with a definition.

In mma there is a whole bunch of stuff That is seen as pretty low brow and yet are viable techniques. It is a terrible way to spar someone in that it is just mean. But we have to acclimate people to the concept. I would have called that being a jerk.

No, you're not being accused of anything of the kind… you claimed to have come up with the idea of a "bad partner", which you didn't. The phenomenon has been around as long as people with egos have been training together… but, the thing is, it's not what you're defining it as… a "bad partner" is only concerned with their own sense of ego and power… providing serious resistance and fighting back in sparring is actually being a "good partner". Being a jerk is not the same thing as sparring seriously. One more time, the fact that you seem incapable of recognising this is what's leading to the issues in communication.

So you tell them off. Beat them up. I am still not sure how you are breaking people.

Yeah, I get that you don't follow. And, one more time, it depends. It might be simply pointing it out to them in a definite way, or it might be inviting them to try it with me… which might lead to my simply not allowing them to do what they were doing with their partner, or it might be me being a bit harsher. Context and nuance.

 

[drop bear]

"No, you're not being accused of anything of the kind… you claimed to have come up with the idea of a "bad partner", which you didn't. The phenomenon has been around as long as people with egos have been training together… but, the thing is, it's not what you're defining it as… a "bad partner" is only concerned with their own sense of ego and power…"


So even when I put a meaning to the concept you are going to ignore that place your own meaning on it and then argue that.

and then say I don't get it?

 

[Chris Parker]

So even when I put a meaning to the concept you are going to ignore that place your own meaning on it and then argue that.

and then say I don't get it?

No, when you apply a different, I'd suggest inaccurate, definition to a concept that has existed long since previous, then continue to argue against the common meaning, I will say you don't get it.

 

[drop bear]

No, when you apply a different, I'd suggest inaccurate, definition to a concept that has existed long since previous, then continue to argue against the common meaning, I will say you don't get it.

I defined it as a concept that goes against the comon meaning.

Right from the outset I said I made it up as a concept. Now it might have a common meaning that is different but that is obviously not the meaning that I am using.

You are basically trolling at this point.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You don't have to fight in order learn a Martial Art but if you want to be able to use the Martial Art in a fight or for self-defense then you'll have to practice it that way and actually fight with it.

 

[mograph]

In my opinion, a good partner provides enough resistance that allows the other person a chance at finding a way to counter the resistance. The resistance should allow a possibility of incremental advancement by the other. The good training partner is able to provide dynamic resistance, always sensing the other's skill and applying no more force/resistance than necessary to allow the other to explore solutions to the resistance. This dynamic relationship is affected by the relative skill level of the partners, of course.

A good training partner is not there to win, but to learn and train, and to help others learn, and to maintain a reputation as a good training partner ... so he doesn't run out of training partners because he's a jerk. To me, this is the implied contract between training partners.

 

[JowGaWolf]

a good partner provides enough resistance that allows the other person a chance at finding a way to counter the resistance.

Correct. There has to be a good balance of it being serious enough so that it provides a good challenge and light enough not to cause serious injury. Having a sparring partner that hits too light is just as bad as one that is trying to hurt you.