sparring

[Brian R. VanCise]

Chris one of the great things about the Takamatsuden arts is that you get quite a bit of exposure to roughly six different systems. However, even though the overall systems are broad practitioners from any of the Kans can benefit from cross training. Hatsumi Sensei came into it with a wide background in other systems. I believe this helped him as a martial practitioner. Tanemura Sensei also cross trained. Manaka Sensei also cross trained in the military. All of this training gave them a deeper perspective on the Martial Sciences which in my opinion is very important. I believe in "Scenario Based Training" that is where one or more people act out a prescribed role and the defender or defenders then react. This is excellent training and I have encouraged it since I began teaching a long, long, time ago. In this type of training I believe in a walk through of the practitioners role then pad up and see what happens. I believe in introducing variables in this type of training as additioinal stressors that the participants actually have no idea in what is coming. (ie. maybe a training knife is introduced during an unarmed session) However, I also feel it is good to "Spar" ie. against a resisting opponent both with tools (padded weapons), empty hand and also grappling. This allows a practitioner to get good at timing and distancing in conjunction with an opponent who is resisting and or attacking. Now both of the above do not need to happen all the time but...... in my opinion they are essential and practitioners benefit greatly from this kind of training. It certainly does not hurt them or make them unable in any way to function in a moment of violence. Instead do to the variety of the training it should help them deal with unpredictable variables that are one thing that is constant in a moment of violence. Traditional systems of martial practice can be excellent forms for personal protection. They may like the Takamatsuden arts take a while longer to get good at but they certainly can turn out martial practitioners that are very, very capable of defending themselves and their loved ones. This brings us to athleticism. Athleticism is important. I have been in and around athletics and athletes most of my life. While athleticism is not necessarily a prerequisite to defending oneself it is a distinct advantage if a martial practitioner is in shape with a good balance of aerobic and anaerobic exercise. (strong cardio and strength training) A martial practitioner would if they are taking their training seriously want to be in as close a state of peak physical fitness that they could achieve. A professional level athlete frankly with a little training is going to be a bear to deal with. (provided they have good attributes and mind set conducive to personal protection skills) Why should not every martial practitioner strive to be in their best physical condition? Simply they should. It is insane to argue against being in great shape. (even though it may not necessarily be necessary in some violent encounters) Bill and the other guy in the Human weapon were professional athletes (Bill being at a top tier level ie. the NFL) Their athleticism was at a much higher level than Bruce. However, Doug was closer to his opponents and it reflected in their encounter. People need to understand in my opinion that being as athletic as you can is a great advantage to a martial practitioner! Very, very important in my opinion. Let me recount a story of watching a "professional level athlete" in a room full of martial practitioners. This was a long time ago when I was teaching a seminar to Budo Taijutsu practitioiners. This seminar was geared towards "Scenario Based Training". After a couple of hours of training, coaching with instruction on how to act as the aggressors, etc. We started the drills. The professional level athlete watched as a few scenarios were held. When it was his turn he and another practitioner were paired up in a bar situation where their goal was to get out safely through an exit after being confronted. As the scenario unfurled it was rather easy for him to maneuver with his partner out. It was impressive! Mind you he had been practiticing Budo Taijutsu for a short period of time and the aggessors at this point were all his seniors by several years. Later he was in a two on one situation in a mugging and he dominated yet again against two seniors. His natural athleticism and his attribute of a longer reach allowed him to literally beat away his attackers easily even though they were more highly skilled. So I base not just on this encounter but many encounters like it as well as my own athletic skill sets and attributes that have allowed me to do the same as a good reason that practitioners should strive to be as athletic as they can be. While a system might not require you to be a athletic there is no reason not to be as athletic as you can be! Now one does not have to spar or be involved in scenario based training all the time. Too much would take away from technical training which would also be a negative. Yet, a martial practitioner will always benefit from contact and physical resistance training that is involved in sparring and scenario based training!

 

[Chris Parker]

Totally agree.
"contact that's unpredictable" = sparring, and not just performing Katas, in an open system (a system which involves strikes, wrestling, small joint manipulation, pressure points and all other things that are ilegal in UFC...)
"Dealing with someone who is full on resisting you" (and the sparring that I've just described) takes a great deal of practice and guidance to do safely.

The idea is to keep your sparring partner safe.

None of which explains why the Ninjutsu sparring found in Akban bears no relationship to the Ninjutsu techniques, movement, methods, structure, or anything else. But more to the point, if you're using the term "sparring" to simply refer to any unscripted training, that's not what we've been arguing against, so you know. We've been arguing against the form being shown in the Akban video clips thus far, which is a competitive form resembling light kickboxing combined with a bit of judo and some BJJ.

And does "full on resisting" means taking someone's eye out? pulling a hidden blade and using it? a gun and using it? pushing someone down the stairs?
And if not, why not? I mean, if someone will try to hurt my family, I will definitely "full on resist"....

The biggest difference between randori and tatakai is THE INTENT TO HARM.

To be honest, that linked article reads very well... but it's not borne out in any evidence, frankly. The sparring shown shows little resemblance to a real fight (absent the "intent to harm"), it resembles what it is, a competition. For all the talk of having understanding and researching real fights, I don't see any of that evident in any clip provided. I'd also say that the key fundamentals of kata practice aren't properly understood in that article either, but that's getting into another area.

When it comes to the concept of "full on resisting", an article that might be interesting for yourself is one from Rory Miller: The Myth of the Fully Resisting Opponent (http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2009/09/myth-of-fully-resisting-opponent.html).

You take that intent out of the equation, you get some good people and with some good professional guidance and you can practice just about anything.

Agreed... but, again, that doesn't explain why the Akban Ninjutsu sparring bears no relationship to any Ninjutsu. That was the big issue, after all.

Hi Chris

I respectfully disagree.



For example, this is one of the places I worked in security while studying in the university in Jerusalem-

I left 2 years before this incident happened (this footage was just recently released to the public) -
[video=youtube_share;Kqr4AnMw454]http://youtu.be/Kqr4AnMw454[/video]

A real, committed attacker will do all kind of things.

Hmm, bluntly, that showed exactly what I said. The physical interaction (between the fleeing guy in the white t-shirt - the terrorist, I assume - and the one in the green t-shirt) involved the guy in the green trying to stop/apprehend the one in white, and the one in white trying to escape. There was no actual resistance, it looked nothing like sparring, as both were working towards opposite aims, not the same one (one key difference between sparring, or sports, and actual fights/assaults, by the way). From there it's just running and shooting... again, no actual resistance, it's one person chasing another. This is not to make light of the very serious situation that occurred, but to point out that what you found demonstrates exactly what I described. I'm not sure what your point was...

"If your goal is to look at defending against an assault, don't spar"- I think it all depends on the sparring.

The form of sparring that we have been discussing is the one-on-one competitive form that is shown in all the Akban clips.... two people square off, facing each other, and they engage with the same goal (outperformance of the other), similar skill sets (none of which was Ninjutsu... which was presumably what the Ninjutsu school would want to test in sparring?), and, in that regard, it is so far removed from the realities of an actual assault/fight that, yes, don't spar. It really doesn't do much. Free form training based on reality? Absolutely. But not the form of sparring seen. It has benefits, but preparation for actual conflict isn't it.

Isn't it like saying- if your goal is to work in security, don't learn how to actively attack and pursue?
Just learn how to shoot from behind a table in indoor gun ranges?

Gotta tell you, that's not really what security is like in other parts of the world... so no, learning to actively attack and pursue really isn't much to do with security here. Nor in Canada I'd suggest either, you may want to look at your new home, it's not really like Israel.

As with everything in this realm, though, the key is to have it related to it's actual usage. Which is what I've been saying for the last three pages.

Whenever I wrote about gun ranges of course I was talking about tactical shooting.

This guy's training in tactical shooting (and Paintball too, by the way, was part of training in that job) helped him eliminate the terrorist eventually.

You may want to remember that you are discussing with a global community here... a gun range in many parts of the world will typically be the corridor-type, stand behind the barrier and fire downrange at a target. So when you mean something different, clarification can help us understand where you're coming from.

Speaking of Paintball, (let's try to say that paintball is the "sparring of the tactical shooting world"...), notice that the people who have experience and have been under fire are always more careful and cautious when it comes to handling themselves in a paintball game.

Then I think that shows that the relationship is actually reversed.... if people who had been off playing paintball were more careful and cautious being under fire, you'd have a point. But due to the mental side of the experience, unless treated as a serious training exercise, and guided properly as such, it's benefits are going to be limited in that fashion. That said, I'm really not surprised that the ones with experience under fire would have a different response in a paintball game. They're associating it with the emotional and mental experience they've already had.

hmm, so let me phrase this analogy...it might be a good one:

Akban's sparring to Ninjutsu is like paintball to tactical shooting, only with less protective gear.

Hmm. Not sure I'd agree from the evidence presented. More like kids play-fighting with sticks (sword fighting) to a firefight. I don't mean offence by that, more just to highlight how different the environments and mechanics/technicalities are between your sparring and Ninjutsu, as paintball and tactical shooting do share some similarities.

Chris one of the great things about the Takamatsuden arts is that you get quite a bit of exposure to roughly six different systems. However, even though the overall systems are broad practitioners from any of the Kans can benefit from cross training.

Hey Brian,

It depends on what you're cross-training for, really. For instance, if you want to get good at the methods of the various Ryu, then no, it really doesn't add much at all. If you're looking at having a self defence capability, maybe. If you want to understand things that aren't covered (such as ground fighting), then okay. But that's not the same as saying that practitioners can all benefit... some may truly have absolutely no need. And some can have some downsides as well.

Hatsumi Sensei came into it with a wide background in other systems. I believe this helped him as a martial practitioner. Tanemura Sensei also cross trained. Manaka Sensei also cross trained in the military. All of this training gave them a deeper perspective on the Martial Sciences which in my opinion is very important.

It gave them a particular perspective, as anything they trained afterwards would be filtered through that early experience... but that's not the same as saying that because they trained in other arts before and during their time training in the Takamatsuden that requires it, or is even necessarily benefited by it. For instance, watching Moti Nativ's DVD of Kukishinden Ryu Dakentaijutsu, it's quite a good production, but I do wonder what it would look like without his Judo background, as the influence is very easy to see. His Judo experience may make him a better martial artist in some ways, but does it make him a better practitioner of the Takamatsuden arts, or does it take him further from the truth of them as he keeps his Judo present in what he does? Hypothetically, of course.

I believe in "Scenario Based Training" that is where one or more people act out a prescribed role and the defender or defenders then react. This is excellent training and I have encouraged it since I began teaching a long, long, time ago. In this type of training I believe in a walk through of the practitioners role then pad up and see what happens. I believe in introducing variables in this type of training as additioinal stressors that the participants actually have no idea in what is coming. (ie. maybe a training knife is introduced during an unarmed session)

Yep, that's what I'd recommend as well. It goes up to the point where the attack is un-nominated and without warning... you can use such drills as the "boogey-man" drill for that.

However, I also feel it is good to "Spar" ie. against a resisting opponent both with tools (padded weapons), empty hand and also grappling. This allows a practitioner to get good at timing and distancing in conjunction with an opponent who is resisting and or attacking.

Timing and distancing are very much what kata training is about. And, again, actual resistance is actually unrealistic, so that doesn't count as a positive to my mind. I'd still avoid sparring, for reasons already stated.

Now both of the above do not need to happen all the time but...... in my opinion they are essential and practitioners benefit greatly from this kind of training.

Sure, but sparring isn't the only, or even the best way of achieving that.

It certainly does not hurt them or make them unable in any way to function in a moment of violence.

It provides a reinforced framework of less-than-ideal actions and stratagems, tactics, and so on. It can lead to habits that are dangerous, or at the least, ill-advised. And as such, yes, it can certainly hamper the ability to function in the best possible way in a moment of violence.

Instead do to the variety of the training it should help them deal with unpredictable variables that are one thing that is constant in a moment of violence.

By training in a way that doesn't match or apply to the realities of an assault?

Traditional systems of martial practice can be excellent forms for personal protection.

They can provide applicable skillsets and principles... but in and of themselves, nope. They need a fair amount of adaptation first, which requires a great deal of understanding of the requirements of the different situation to begin with.

They may like the Takamatsuden arts take a while longer to get good at but they certainly can turn out martial practitioners that are very, very capable of defending themselves and their loved ones.

Sure... but so can anything, given the right person. That doesn't mean that they're suited to it in the first place.

This brings us to athleticism. Athleticism is important. I have been in and around athletics and athletes most of my life. While athleticism is not necessarily a prerequisite to defending oneself it is a distinct advantage if a martial practitioner is in shape with a good balance of aerobic and anaerobic exercise. (strong cardio and strength training) A martial practitioner would if they are taking their training seriously want to be in as close a state of peak physical fitness that they could achieve. A professional level athlete frankly with a little training is going to be a bear to deal with. (provided they have good attributes and mind set conducive to personal protection skills) Why should not every martial practitioner strive to be in their best physical condition? Simply they should. It is insane to argue against being in great shape. (even though it may not necessarily be necessary in some violent encounters) Bill and the other guy in the Human weapon were professional athletes (Bill being at a top tier level ie. the NFL) Their athleticism was at a much higher level than Bruce. However, Doug was closer to his opponents and it reflected in their encounter.

Athleticism was brought up in relation to Bruce versus Bill on the Human Weapon episode. You posited that it was due to Bills superior athleticism, being a former pro footballer, that gave him the win. Let's see:

The bout between Bill and Bruce goes from 1:47 to 4:53.

Now, the entire bout is with swords. And watching it, can you really say that Bill's athleticism comes into play at all?

People need to understand in my opinion that being as athletic as you can is a great advantage to a martial practitioner! Very, very important in my opinion.

I get your take on it, I really do. And I agree that fitness should be looked at by anyone even halfway considering themselves a martial artist, really, I think it should be looked at by everyone regardless, honestly.

Let me recount a story of watching a "professional level athlete" in a room full of martial practitioners. This was a long time ago when I was teaching a seminar to Budo Taijutsu practitioiners. This seminar was geared towards "Scenario Based Training". After a couple of hours of training, coaching with instruction on how to act as the aggressors, etc. We started the drills. The professional level athlete watched as a few scenarios were held. When it was his turn he and another practitioner were paired up in a bar situation where their goal was to get out safely through an exit after being confronted. As the scenario unfurled it was rather easy for him to maneuver with his partner out. It was impressive! Mind you he had been practiticing Budo Taijutsu for a short period of time and the aggessors at this point were all his seniors by several years. Later he was in a two on one situation in a mugging and he dominated yet again against two seniors. His natural athleticism and his attribute of a longer reach allowed him to literally beat away his attackers easily even though they were more highly skilled. So I base not just on this encounter but many encounters like it as well as my own athletic skill sets and attributes that have allowed me to do the same as a good reason that practitioners should strive to be as athletic as they can be.

All that tells me is that some people will have a natural gift or affinity... it isn't really an indication of anything else. After all, with minimalist experience, he could outclass people... so what's the point in training, if natural ability can trump it? You train to cover the gaps where natural ability isn't present, where there aren't genetic gifts. Yes, work on it, absolutely, but don't rely on being more athletic.

While a system might not require you to be a athletic there is no reason not to be as athletic as you can be! Now one does not have to spar or be involved in scenario based training all the time. Too much would take away from technical training which would also be a negative. Yet, a martial practitioner will always benefit from contact and physical resistance training that is involved in sparring and scenario based training!

I agree with the principle you're talking about, but not the details, honestly. Scenario training, yep. Sparring, nope. Unless it's suited to the arts usage... which would not be self defence.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Chris I think you place way to little on the timing and distancing and mental strength that is gained from sparring. It is not the same as a two man kata where the attack and outcome and determined. Timing and distancing in "real time" is essential for application of Martial knowledge. Bills superior athleticism and attributes gave him and advantage over Bruce that helped to negate Bruce's experience. (even though he may not have done sparring with Fukuro Shinai before) Bill would be a handful for most martial practitioners in any one on one sporting aspect because of his athleticism and size. Sure he would lose some and sure he would win some. If you look throughout the Human Weapon series you will see him win and lose. Martial practitioiners should be fit and in shape. Hard to argue with that!

 

[Haikuguy]

Honestly this discussion just re-enforces in me the need for sparring in Ninjutsu, and the reason there is sparring in Akban.

Sparring in some way is better then no sparring at all.

Chris, your assertion that "Ninjutsu sparring found in Akban bears no relationship to the Ninjutsu techniques, movement, methods, structure, or anything else", and which I disagree strongly with, still does not convince me why sparring is wrong.




And regarding the shootout video, (that has nothing to do with Akban, by the way) I wasn't talking about the physical fight, I was talking about the importance of training in "controlled chaos" to simulate a real-life situation:
Knowing how to change the magazine while on the run, handle malfunctions on the move, use your surroundings, interact with the target WHILE having to report on the radio the location, what happened, what steps need to be done- all this cannot be acquired from sitting in a class or shooting in a closed restricted gun range, and I don't care if you do it for 50 years.

(By the way, one of Akban's veteran that has a lot of shooting experience, and owns a gun, goes to this kind of closed shooting range once a month, to shoot one single bullet- he says that a week before he already starts to get nervous- it gives the whole shooting session an entirely different dimension)


Anyway, to sum up my take on it all-
Sparring is essential in any form of physical practice of fighting which involves 2 or more bodies interacting with each other.

If you believe in practicing Ninjutsu alone, or that ninjutsu is not meant for fighting, then sparring would not be necessary for you.

What kind of sparring?
in what form (if at all)?
under what kind of mutual understanding (that has to exist to do it safely)?

Those are open to interpretation, and the interpretations are all welcomed.

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris I think you place way to little on the timing and distancing and mental strength that is gained from sparring. It is not the same as a two man kata where the attack and outcome and determined. Timing and distancing in "real time" is essential for application of Martial knowledge. Bills superior athleticism and attributes gave him and advantage over Bruce that helped to negate Bruce's experience. (even though he may not have done sparring with Fukuro Shinai before) Bill would be a handful for most martial practitioners in any one on one sporting aspect because of his athleticism and size. Sure he would lose some and sure he would win some. If you look throughout the Human Weapon series you will see him win and lose. Martial practitioiners should be fit and in shape. Hard to argue with that!

No, I'm not placing too little emphasis or importance (you seem to be missing a word, so if you meant either of these...) on such aspects in sparring, but they are just as present in free-form scenario training, so I don't see the need to have sparring, which features a range of issues that counter the skills intended from our art, just to have them. As I said, the benefits can be found in other methods without the problems. I will say, though, that timing and distancing is better learnt in "real time" in kata training... after all, that's what it's for. Testing is another matter, and that's where forms of free-form training come into it. Sparring just isn't a good way for us, though.

When it comes to Bruce versus Bill and the issue of athleticism, I really do have to ask where in that entire encounter did Bill's "superior athleticism and attributes" help him? A longer reach gave him some advantage, but it wasn't really taken advantage of. What worked for him was pressing forward all the time and taking risks. Nothing to do with athleticism at all. And whether or not he would be a "handful for most martial practitioners" is kinda beside the point... you said that it helped him beat Bruce (narrowly), overcoming Bruce's experience with the weapon in question. I put up the video and asked for some evidence.

Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing against training for fitness and athleticism, not in the slightest. I'm really not arguing that at all. I am, however, arguing that the reason Bill "won" was due to his "superior athleticism". It wasn't a factor in the match in any real meaningful way... in fact, the most athletic thing Bill did in the fight was to roll to pick up the fukuro shinai... and he got whacked as a result.

Honestly this discussion just re-enforces in me the need for sparring in Ninjutsu, and the reason there is sparring in Akban.

Sparring in some way is better then no sparring at all.

I really don't know what to say to that... honestly I'd suggest re-reading the thread, because there's been very little support for one-on-one "game of tag" style sparring at all. Randori/scenario training, free-form responce, yep, absolutely. But the form of sparring seen in each and every Akban clip I've looked at? No, none at all.

If you mean "sparring in some way" to mean free-responce training, we've all agreed with that. But that's not the construct of "sparring" that has been discussed. And in the construct that has been used, it serves little benefit.

Chris, your assertion that "Ninjutsu sparring found in Akban bears no relationship to the Ninjutsu techniques, movement, methods, structure, or anything else", and which I disagree strongly with, still does not convince me why sparring is wrong.

Firstly, find me some Akban sparring that shows Ninjutsu methodology in use. So far I haven't seen any, from yourself, or my searches. You may strongly disagree, but the evidence is all present.

As far as why sparring is "wrong", it's not. It's just not suited to the art itself. Why would you test an art designed to teach you to end things in one or two powerful actions and escape by having two people continuously engage, not ending things (symbolically, not actually), not escaping, and not using anything from the actual art being tested? If just makes no sense whatsoever.

And regarding the shootout video, (that has nothing to do with Akban, by the way) I wasn't talking about the physical fight, I was talking about the importance of training in "controlled chaos" to simulate a real-life situation:
Knowing how to change the magazine while on the run, handle malfunctions on the move, use your surroundings, interact with the target WHILE having to report on the radio the location, what happened, what steps need to be done- all this cannot be acquired from sitting in a class or shooting in a closed restricted gun range, and I don't care if you do it for 50 years.

(By the way, one of Akban's veteran that has a lot of shooting experience, and owns a gun, goes to this kind of closed shooting range once a month, to shoot one single bullet- he says that a week before he already starts to get nervous- it gives the whole shooting session an entirely different dimension)

What? You posted the video as a direct responce to my comment that, in a real encounter, "resistance" is not a realistic thing to expect the opponent to do, so training against it is not actually realistic from a self-defence/real encounter perspective. In fact, your exact words were:

Hi Chris

I respectfully disagree.



For example, this is one of the places I worked in security while studying in the university in Jerusalem-

I left 2 years before this incident happened (this footage was just recently released to the public) -


A real, committed attacker will do all kind of things.

How are you now saying that you didn't post it to show such resistance? Seriously, all the things you discuss there are completely beside the point, and not a part of what was being said at all.

Anyway, to sum up my take on it all-
Sparring is essential in any form of physical practice of fighting which involves 2 or more bodies interacting with each other.

No, appropriate training and testing methods are required for martial art training, which might include sparring, but might not.

If you believe in practicing Ninjutsu alone, or that ninjutsu is not meant for fighting, then sparring would not be necessary for you.

That's honestly not an accurate assessment, really. If sparring hampers your actual ability to apply the methods of the art by deliberately and specifically training and testing methods that are not part of the art's approach, don't spar.

Say, tell you what. Here's a story from my Chief Instructor. When he left Japan the first time, he mentioned to his instructor, Nagato Sensei, that his father was a martial artist and a boxer, and would want to see what he had learnt in Japan. So he asked Nagato what techniques he should use. Nagato just looked at him and asked "Are you prepared to break your father's bones?" "No, he's my father." "Then don't spar. Ninjutsu isn't a game".

If you're not ending it quickly, and training in such a way that that is the consistent aim (whether or not it's always successful), you're not testing the art's methods or employing them. And, in that way, it's fairly safe to say that you're not actually doing the art in any way.

Sparring has a large number of benefits, but as an analogue to reality, it fails on so many levels that there's no reason to have it to improve realism. Because that's the same as having a flight simulator which mimics the environment of an X-Wing fighter going against Imperial Tie Fighters in space. Some aspects will be transferable, but for testing ability in flying a commercial jet, it's applicability is severely limited.

What kind of sparring?

Hmm, you seem to have jumped a bit here.... are you asking what form sparring should take, if it's to be used at all? Assuming that you are, I'd employ (as I have said) free-form responce training based in realistic scenarios, with the attacker acting in a realistic fashion, the effects of technique being shown in a realistic fashion, the aims of the training being understood and followed. Not basically a form of light kickboxing which doesn't have anything to do with what we do at all.

in what form (if at all)?

Scenario training is the way to approach it, really. As above.

under what kind of mutual understanding (that has to exist to do it safely)?

Under a mutual understanding of the roles that each has, the aim of the training or testing, the effects of the techniques (so they don't have to be employed with full force), and so on.

Those are open to interpretation, and the interpretations are all welcomed.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Chris I agree that "Scenario Based Training" is an excellent form of practice for personal protection. I do not feel that it should only be that with no sparring. The timing and distancing in kata is very important. That allows a practitioner to work on technique and applicatioin of a very specific set of technique and the circumstances that go with it. Unfortunately, typically there is not unexpected movement in a prearranged drill like "kata". (though of course there are methodology that can take this into effect and counter this argument) Real time timing and distancing against an opponent who can come at you with a wide variety of technique and the contstant adapting movement and footwork found in sparring is very important. Just as is rolling against a person trying to submit you is equally important in that they both take the application of technique out of theory and into application against a live human being. Athleticism will always come into play in any sparring, scenario based training or real life encounter. It was there in that exchange even if you could not observe it in a flamboyant matter. I understand your point of view here but..... it may not necessarily be the right point of view for all martial practitioners in the Takamatsuden arts.

 

[Haikuguy]

There is quite a live discussion about the AKBAN way of training on youtube, you can check out the comments and add your thoughts under a video like this one on the youtube website

[video=youtube_share;p9_AOVBlZk0]http://youtu.be/p9_AOVBlZk0[/video]

I feel that I've hogged this thread....

 

[skuggvarg]

There is quite a live discussion about the AKBAN way of training on youtube, you can check out the comments and add your thoughts under a video like this one on the youtube website

Hey, nothing wrong with sparring/randori/pressure drills, whatever you like to call it if and when done correctly. However, I got a bit sceptical when I watched a video from the AKBAN guys demonstrating how to "change" your taijutsu from "traditional" to fit a more street effective approach. The instructor took Koku as an example and proceeded to show why it was ineffective against a "modern" punch. First he showed the "traditional" kata and since it looked nothing like Im used to (for example didnt include the ken kudaki) I wonder how they can so quickly dismiss it. SHouldnt they focus on first getting the "correct" feel for the kata...

Regards / Skuggvarg

 

[Haikuguy]

Are you referring to this video?

Everyone at Akban do the "correct" Koku no kata, among many others, at the beginning of every class...(with the ken kudaki).
That's why this video is meant for more advanced practitioners who want to be able to implement koku in combat situations.



It is best described in this kata analysis from Koto ryu:


"1. Preserve – in this stage we do the Kata exactly as it was transmitted.

2. Break – this is the stage where we change different parameters of the kata, look for a different ways of doing it and for context usability.

3. leave – this is the stage where we try to perform the kata or the sequence in free sparring."

 

[Tanaka]

I agree with Mr. Parker on most subjects, but I think sparring is a great preparation tool for self defense. Coming from a school that incorporates all of the above(kata, sparring, drills, etc) There are somethings I've learned through sparring that I would not see myself learning if I had not sparred. Of course you have timing, distancing, taking pain, unpredictable, and countering. You will learn sometimes the first technique doesn't work, and you will have to turn it into something else. Then you learn that second technique didn't work again and you have to flow it into something else. Then you finally find the third technique that gets it done. You will also learn that different people attack you differently and there's certain techniques that just favor for those certain people. You will also see the effect of weight and body type has on your technique. You will also get used to the unpredictable changing energy being given to you by your opponent and which technique to use accordingly. Really the list goes on and on, but do not mistake me for saying sparring is like a real fight. Sparring is not a real fight(atleast not for me). I am trying to learn during my sparring sessions, so I am usually experimenting and seeing how things work in the constantly changing situations.

I read that article about "Fully resisting opponents" from Rory Miller. And I have to say with due respect that I do disagree with some of the things he has said. Based on my experiences and experiences of my teachers. Specifically on the part of slapping a rear naked choke on someone and them gouging your eyes to escape. Eye gouging, groin grabbing, throw jabbing, etc are all good stuff in self defense, but they don't make up for lack of technique. I've slapped many rear naked chokes on people and had them slapped on me. And if I didn't apply the proper countermeasures to get out of it. I would of been out in seconds, especially if I was a person who wasn't used to being choked and got excited(with my blood pressure going up).
Which brings up another point... Somtimes you gotta be put in these situations because if you are constantly put in those stressful situations your stress level gets higher. Thus it takes more to make you start to panic.(Unless you went into the situation with emotions high)

I am going to stress this point a little more. If you don't get hit, choked, and etc with intent daily... Then you aren't prepared. < That is my belief.
And one more point to stress because I see this strawman attacked a lot. Sparring is not to emulate a real fight or be considered close to a real fight.

 

[MJS]

I know that Indagator and MJS have agreed with this comment, thanked you for it etc, but honestly, it's not true. Unpredictable (random) training is highly beneficial, certainly, and is recommended. However, the issue is with the idea of training against resistance. Frankly, it's unrealistic.

If you are attacked, your attacker will not resist. Mainly because they won't be concerned (looking for) your counter attacks, they'll just be wanting/trying to attack you. They don't actually actively defend anything, they don't actively resist anything, they just attack. What they will do, though, if you start defending or counterattacking, is react. This is incredibly different to the way someone who is trying to outperform you "resists" your actions. In sparring, both opponents are simultaneously trying to attack (score) and defend (stop the opponent scoring). This means that they are more "aware" of your attempts to "score" on them, and are looking for you to do so, having a range of actions designed to counter such attempts. But when it all comes down to it, this is completely removed from the reality of an attack.

The simple fact is that a real, committed attacker won't resist. They won't really give any thought to defence. They'll just be concerned with attack. If your goal is to look at defending against an assault, don't spar. It's nothing like a real assault, and therefore of no real benefit to that end.

I think that while the wording is slightly different, the meaning is the same. Just like in that 'pure art' thread I started and we were talking about 'pure' and 'original'. This is why I often talk about gaining control of a weapon when doing a disarm. If you grab the guys weapon or limb holding the weapon, he's going to resist by puling away, trying to free his weapon. If someone grabs me in a headlock and I try to reach up to grab his hair, eyes, etc, sure, they're going to react, but they're also going to be resisting your attempts at escape, ie: change the attack, move you around in an attempt to stop your defense.

 

[skuggvarg]

Are you referring to this video?

Everyone at Akban do the "correct" Koku no kata, among many others, at the beginning of every class...(with the ken kudaki).
That's why this video is meant for more advanced practitioners who want to be able to implement koku in combat situations.



It is best described in this kata analysis from Koto ryu:


"1. Preserve – in this stage we do the Kata exactly as it was transmitted.

2. Break – this is the stage where we change different parameters of the kata, look for a different ways of doing it and for context usability.

3. leave – this is the stage where we try to perform the kata or the sequence in free sparring."

Yes, that was the video I was refering to. I did find other "versions" of Koku by Akban on youtube were the ken kudaki was present. Still, I cant really see where the Koku is in the other video. Why does he say "lets look at the traditional koku no kata" when what he shows next is far from it. It looks like he took out the ken kudaki and the footwork/positioning that comes with it (one of the key components in my humble opinion).

Regards / Skuggvarg

 

[Indagator]

Just a wee question pertinent to the "analysis of Koto Ryu" mentioned earlier and referred again to above; what relevant qualification does the AKBAN member in question have to make a critical analysis of koto Ryu? Menkyo? Menkyo kaiden? Something else?

I realise this may sound like a loaded question but honestly I'm just aking to get an idea of where you guys are coming from with some of the analysis here.

 

[Chris Parker]

Ah, I've been a bit busy to get back to this one, so this'll cover quite a bit at once...

Chris I agree that "Scenario Based Training" is an excellent form of practice for personal protection. I do not feel that it should only be that with no sparring. The timing and distancing in kata is very important. That allows a practitioner to work on technique and applicatioin of a very specific set of technique and the circumstances that go with it. Unfortunately, typically there is not unexpected movement in a prearranged drill like "kata". (though of course there are methodology that can take this into effect and counter this argument) Real time timing and distancing against an opponent who can come at you with a wide variety of technique and the contstant adapting movement and footwork found in sparring is very important. Just as is rolling against a person trying to submit you is equally important in that they both take the application of technique out of theory and into application against a live human being. Athleticism will always come into play in any sparring, scenario based training or real life encounter. It was there in that exchange even if you could not observe it in a flamboyant matter. I understand your point of view here but..... it may not necessarily be the right point of view for all martial practitioners in the Takamatsuden arts.

I think what I'm talking about when I say "Scenario training versus sparring" might need some clearing up. Sparring I am using (as stated earlier) to refer to a one-on-one "duel", where both partners are going in with the same aim (attack and defend against the other persons' attacks, in order to "outperform" the other), with similar skill sets, and for an extended time period (in other words, you stay in till the sparring session is called over, the round is over, or whatever). This leads to habits of staying when you should leave, as well as a highly unrealistic expectation of what to expect from your potential attackers in the street (that's actually a good distinction there, the guy on the street is not an opponent, they're an attacker.... which leads to a range of changes in the behaviour of both sides).

Sparring typically looks like this:

Kickboxing

Karate

MMA

Now, each of these are specific and suited to the needs of the arts they are employed in... but the tactics, strategies, and habits formed go against the needs of actual defense or combative usage.

When I talk about Scenario Training (as free-form training), I am talking about a training method where there is an attacker (or more than one, depending on the scenario being drilled) against a defender (or more than one, for example in security training, bodyguard training, partner protection training, and so on). The defenders aims and the attackers aims are not the same thing (the attacker wants to attack, the defender wants to defend/escape... which can involve going on the offensive, but doesn't mean the same thing as being the attacker), the tactics and strategies are by necessity different as well (with the aim of leaving the situation as soon as safety allows, and not wanting to "stay and trade blows" as you would in sparring, and so on.

Here are some examples (Note: some language warnings):

Now, there are simply thousands of different scenarios that can be trained.... and, when done properly, it gets to the point where the attackers attack with random attacks, not stopping until they're "stopped", and the defender(s) have complete freedom of response as well, from slow all the way up to full pace (with safety equipment). The tactics employed are exactly what would be employed in self defense, the attacks are exactly what would be encountered in an actual self defense situation, and so on.

Simply put, scenario training is designed to mimic reality as closely as possible, whereas sparring is designed to mimic a competition as closely as possible. Which are you training for?

There is quite a live discussion about the AKBAN way of training on youtube, you can check out the comments and add your thoughts under a video like this one on the youtube website

[video=youtube_share;p9_AOVBlZk0]http://youtu.be/p9_AOVBlZk0[/video]

I feel that I've hogged this thread....

Er, actually, Oded, I'm not able to engage the conversation on you-tube... it seems my pointing out that the version of Itsutsu no Tachi from Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu that Yossi put up was missing parts, showed a desperate lack of understanding of the kata itself, showed large mistakes and gaps in timing, distancing, targeting, and more, and that, if, as Yossi said, the aim was to show respect for the art they were "teaching" with no authorisation, they would be best advised to stop showing it and remove the video, I was banned from making comments on any of the Akban clips. Whoops.

As for the video, up to about 34 seconds, it was recognisable as Ninjutsu (I saw some Gyokko Ryu mainly), but after that it was nothing to do with the art whatsoever. Especially for the section from 0:37-0:45... I mean, that was just the kickboxing stuff again. Nothing like anything found in Ninjutsu at all. And that's really been my point. If you're also teaching kickboxing, great... but if you're calling that part of the Ninjutsu teaching, you really need to have a closer look at what makes each art what it is.

Are you referring to this video?

Everyone at Akban do the "correct" Koku no kata, among many others, at the beginning of every class...(with the ken kudaki).
That's why this video is meant for more advanced practitioners who want to be able to implement koku in combat situations.

Koku at every class? Why? I can see why you'd do the Kihon Happo, or Sanshin, but Koku? But, as Richard said, that ain't Koku. It misses pretty much everything that makes Koku Koku.

It is best described in this kata analysis from Koto ryu:


"1. Preserve &#8211; in this stage we do the Kata exactly as it was transmitted.

2. Break &#8211; this is the stage where we change different parameters of the kata, look for a different ways of doing it and for context usability.

3. leave &#8211; this is the stage where we try to perform the kata or the sequence in free sparring."

Yes, that's known in Japanese arts as Shu Ha Ri. But it doesn't mean that you train in one art, which gives you a particular postural concept, a particular usage of body weapons, a particular movement concept, a particular power source concept, a particular distancing concept, and a particular timing concept, and then doing something completely unrelated and saying "oh, well, we're doing the "Ri" approach to it". No you're not.

I agree with Mr. Parker on most subjects, but I think sparring is a great preparation tool for self defense. Coming from a school that incorporates all of the above(kata, sparring, drills, etc) There are somethings I've learned through sparring that I would not see myself learning if I had not sparred. Of course you have timing, distancing, taking pain, unpredictable, and countering. You will learn sometimes the first technique doesn't work, and you will have to turn it into something else. Then you learn that second technique didn't work again and you have to flow it into something else. Then you finally find the third technique that gets it done. You will also learn that different people attack you differently and there's certain techniques that just favor for those certain people. You will also see the effect of weight and body type has on your technique. You will also get used to the unpredictable changing energy being given to you by your opponent and which technique to use accordingly. Really the list goes on and on, but do not mistake me for saying sparring is like a real fight. Sparring is not a real fight(atleast not for me). I am trying to learn during my sparring sessions, so I am usually experimenting and seeing how things work in the constantly changing situations.

Hopefully the above examples will show clearer what I mean when I'm discussing Scenario training versus sparring... and how all the benefits that sparring gives are present in proper Scenario training, with an even closer analogue to a real situation/fight. Sparring really just isn't close enough for me.

I read that article about "Fully resisting opponents" from Rory Miller. And I have to say with due respect that I do disagree with some of the things he has said. Based on my experiences and experiences of my teachers. Specifically on the part of slapping a rear naked choke on someone and them gouging your eyes to escape. Eye gouging, groin grabbing, throw jabbing, etc are all good stuff in self defense, but they don't make up for lack of technique. I've slapped many rear naked chokes on people and had them slapped on me. And if I didn't apply the proper countermeasures to get out of it. I would of been out in seconds, especially if I was a person who wasn't used to being choked and got excited(with my blood pressure going up).
Which brings up another point... Somtimes you gotta be put in these situations because if you are constantly put in those stressful situations your stress level gets higher. Thus it takes more to make you start to panic.(Unless you went into the situation with emotions high)

Oh, absolutely train the technique... but the issue isn't when the choke is on, it's getting it on in the first place, which isn't always as clean as you might find in the dojo. If you do get it clean and fast, you will typically get a "panic" response from whoever you're putting it on... which can come out in different ways. Some more effectual than others, it must be said. But if you're still trying to get it on, not quite in position, and the other guy is seriously (realistically) trying to claw your eyes... and by that I mean that they actually will pull your eyes out, not that they are "replicating" the moves... it's quite a different situation. That's what Rory Miller was getting at. Until you've done it for real, against a real person with that amount of desperation, then it's still not "real" in your training.

I am going to stress this point a little more. If you don't get hit, choked, and etc with intent daily... Then you aren't prepared. < That is my belief.
And one more point to stress because I see this strawman attacked a lot. Sparring is not to emulate a real fight or be considered close to a real fight.

But if it's said that sparring is "preparation" for a real fight, then it must be seen as having properties similar to one, agreed? And the fact is that most of the aspects that most people look to to say "this is just like a real fight" are actually very far removed from a real defensive encounter... but are very close to the "real fights" that people see in MMA competitions....

I think that while the wording is slightly different, the meaning is the same. Just like in that 'pure art' thread I started and we were talking about 'pure' and 'original'. This is why I often talk about gaining control of a weapon when doing a disarm. If you grab the guys weapon or limb holding the weapon, he's going to resist by puling away, trying to free his weapon. If someone grabs me in a headlock and I try to reach up to grab his hair, eyes, etc, sure, they're going to react, but they're also going to be resisting your attempts at escape, ie: change the attack, move you around in an attempt to stop your defense.

Ha, I'm going to head back over to that thread, hopefully later tonight...

Yep, reaction is what happens, which is not the same as the reactions (or "resistance") found in sparring matches, say, BJJ rolling. In that encounter, one BJJ practitioner might have found themselves in a position where a particular armbar is available, so they start to attempt it... the other will then employ a defence directly against that lock, responding with a trained, skilled reaction, seeking to "defeat" the first persons lock. But against a "street attacker", starting to get the same lock on, the reaction will be quite different. There won't be the training to back anything up, so that skilled response won't be there... but what will come out will more likely be a direct attack towards the person trying the lock, whether that's hitting at them, kicking, scratching, or whatever. The difference is that the aim of the BJJ practitioner is to not be defeated, and preserve the opportunity to then "defeat" their opponent... whereas the street attacker just wants to attack, and is just looking to continue that attack. It really is very, very different.

Yes, that was the video I was refering to. I did find other "versions" of Koku by Akban on youtube were the ken kudaki was present. Still, I cant really see where the Koku is in the other video. Why does he say "lets look at the traditional koku no kata" when what he shows next is far from it. It looks like he took out the ken kudaki and the footwork/positioning that comes with it (one of the key components in my humble opinion).

Regards / Skuggvarg

The better version of Koku from Akban is this one:

This is not Koku:

But it does give a clue as to what Yossi was doing in the earlier one....

Oded, Koku is not about just outflanking and hitting the ribs (for the record, Yossi's target in the "ura gata" form was way too high as well, if he was a few inches lower he'd be getting the floating ribs, which might have an effect), and the "feel" of this movement is very different to Gyokko Ryu. It's slightly closer to Koto Ryu, or some aspects of Togakure Ryu, but it certainly ain't Gyokko Ryu or Koku itself.

Just a wee question pertinent to the "analysis of Koto Ryu" mentioned earlier and referred again to above; what relevant qualification does the AKBAN member in question have to make a critical analysis of koto Ryu? Menkyo? Menkyo kaiden? Something else?

I realise this may sound like a loaded question but honestly I'm just aking to get an idea of where you guys are coming from with some of the analysis here.

Well, Yossi was a senior student of Doron Navon, so anything would presumably come through him. They are still part of the Bujinkan, according to Yossi.

 

[Indagator]

I should probably look myself (hich I will) but according to Yossi only goes so far - are they part of the Bujinkan according to Soke?

 

[Chris Parker]

That would be a question for Oded regarding whether or not Bujinkan membership is part of Akban membership....

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hey Chris,

Good definitition and examples. I will absolutely agree that Scenario Based Training is excellent for personal protection skills. Particularly because of the role playing and getting people to think of their way out of the situation. (by whatever means is necessary ie. running away, etc.) One of the things I think that "sparring or submission grappling" gives a practitioner is the ability to on very specific skill sets in a one on one session. (though it can be two on one, etc.) This allows a practitioner to work on their "go to" moves that may not be as availble to work on in Scenario Based Training. Of course you can work on these "go to" moves in technique training and with focus mitts, heavy bag, etc. but then you are not working against a full on resisting human. Just some food for thought!

 

[Chris Parker]

Actually, that type of thing can be trained quite easily in Scenario training as well (in fact, a lot easier than in sparring). For example, this month I'm taking my guys through "entry" techniques (use a fake to create an opening, and follow with your attack). The way we train it is to first go through the principle as a "technique", looking at how to make it work (how to sell the fake, principles of fake high, strike low etc), then we put it into a scenario. For instance, from a talking situation, the "bad guy" gets angry, you bring your hands up in a "fence", they shove you back (this is following on from our look at pre-emptive striking last month, and assuming that, for whatever reason, you don't get your first strike off in time) and quickly follow in to strike themselves. As they approach, you throw your fake and strike, then escape. As it is continued, a range of fake and enter concepts are drilled, and the response, while always being a "fake and enter" in this scenario, becomes a free-form expression of that. The pace is increased to realistic pace and pressure as we go.

That's basically our way of drilling everything in our "street" work, and the result is that there are a range of solidly drilled concepts for all stages of combat (de-escalation before the physical, pre-emptive strikes, fake-and-enter patterns, defensive responses, weapon defenses, ground escapes, and so on). At the end, the students should be able to be put in any scenario training situation and be able to use any of the tactics they've drilled to successfully escape with complete free-form training, as in the clips above. They should be able to attempt to talk their way out of the situation, then, if that doesn't work, there's a range of fail-safes after that. But each training method is geared up to the exact result we want, and there's no point training a method that counter-acts it.

 

[Cyriacus]

Actually, that type of thing can be trained quite easily in Scenario training as well (in fact, a lot easier than in sparring). For example, this month I'm taking my guys through "entry" techniques (use a fake to create an opening, and follow with your attack). The way we train it is to first go through the principle as a "technique", looking at how to make it work (how to sell the fake, principles of fake high, strike low etc), then we put it into a scenario. For instance, from a talking situation, the "bad guy" gets angry, you bring your hands up in a "fence", they shove you back (this is following on from our look at pre-emptive striking last month, and assuming that, for whatever reason, you don't get your first strike off in time) and quickly follow in to strike themselves. As they approach, you throw your fake and strike, then escape. As it is continued, a range of fake and enter concepts are drilled, and the response, while always being a "fake and enter" in this scenario, becomes a free-form expression of that. The pace is increased to realistic pace and pressure as we go.

That's basically our way of drilling everything in our "street" work, and the result is that there are a range of solidly drilled concepts for all stages of combat (de-escalation before the physical, pre-emptive strikes, fake-and-enter patterns, defensive responses, weapon defenses, ground escapes, and so on). At the end, the students should be able to be put in any scenario training situation and be able to use any of the tactics they've drilled to successfully escape with complete free-form training, as in the clips above. They should be able to attempt to talk their way out of the situation, then, if that doesn't work, there's a range of fail-safes after that. But each training method is geared up to the exact result we want, and there's no point training a method that counter-acts it.

Out of Curiosity, are Your Students encouraged to Improvise if They make a mistake during a Scenario? As in, say for example, Student 1 is about to use a Ground Escape on Student 2. Student 1 does something of His own volition, which works just fine, but isnt what was taught to Him (Normally Id say not *EXACTLY* what was taught to Him. But Im pushing to a slightly further point for the sake of the question). Would this be Accepted, Discouraged, Encouraged... And so forth.
Just Curious. I mean, I cant say Id be surprised if Your Ground Escapes came quite easily anyway. So its just an example.

 

[Chris Parker]

My students are encouraged to utilise the principles and tactics that we're exploring. This week, we covered a lead-hand fake followed by a lead-leg kick, then we covered a rear-hand fake followed by a rear-leg kick. In pressure testing and scenario training, provided a high fake and low kick were used, whether it was lead/rear, rear/rear, lead/lead, or whatever, that's considered success. Letting the other guy get too close is considered not a successful usage of the tactic being taught, and would necessitate moving onto the next stage (defensive actions).

So while they're not encouraged to improvise if there's a mistake, they're not given "techniques" at that point either. The only aim is to drill (with success) the tactic being taught. And in that vein, there's a lot of freedom as to exactly what they do. I tend to not even give them a specific kick, as that will change each time, depending on the distance after the fake, the opponents height, your height, the angle you've taken, and more. I'll give a range of ideas, and maybe something specific for the beginners, but that's it. It's not about techniques, it's about being able to employ the strategies and tactics.

In the "martial art" portion, I get them to do exactly what is shown, or as close as they can, as that is where that form of precision is needed and beneficial, learning to do things that you wouldn't necessarily do yourself, and extending your personality that way. But for self defence, I want my guys to have a range of skills that they can depend on, based on what they are confident in and feel strong with. So provided they keep to the tactic being shown, there's no "wrong" way. Although I do often show an "easier", or "better" way for them to achieve the results....

Hmm, did that make sense?