Weapon based sparring

[hoshin160013]

Sparring rules should a least some of the time, maximally reward the techniques favoured by the system. You reverse engineer the rules to give you the results you want to see.

i am going to derail the thread here but its an old thread. this point about rule sets is one we hear about a lot. i think most MMA people dismiss the idea. my theoretical question is, what would happen in MMA if the rules were changed and there was only 1 round lasting only 1 minute?

 

[Tony Dismukes103]

i am going to derail the thread here but its an old thread. this point about rule sets is one we hear about a lot. i think most MMA people dismiss the idea. my theoretical question is, what would happen in MMA if the rules were changed and there was only 1 round lasting only 1 minute?

It would be hard to get knockouts and almost impossible to get submissions in the allotted time, so fights would almost always go to the judges decision. That means the scoring rules would determine what sort of action you would see.

I would expect the scoring rules would put a heavy emphasis on aggression, because otherwise it would be easy for fights to end with little or no action. In current MMA it's not unusual for the first minute or two to be nothing but the fighters feeling each other out.

Therefore I expect the incentivized behavior would be forward movement, high-volume striking, with maybe some quick takedown attempts. Since knockouts would be uncommon, there would be an emphasis on striking volume (for scoring points) rather than heavy shots.

 

[Langenschwert]

i am going to derail the thread here but its an old thread. this point about rule sets is one we hear about a lot. i think most MMA people dismiss the idea. my theoretical question is, what would happen in MMA if the rules were changed and there was only 1 round lasting only 1 minute?

What Tony said. MMA is a duel, and as such there is a long feeling out period since all involved are experienced duelists. You'd have to incentivize by huge bonuses for 30 second knockouts or subs in order to get people to go all out from the starting bell. Not that you'd get many, since everyone is so skilled at defending against those same things, and 30 seconds is not a long time to do any of those things. I don't think it would be very good MMA. Speed chess isn't necessarily good chess.

 

[hoshin160013]

i do not think it would be good for the sport. it would not be entertaining in my view. it is something i think about because it shows how a rule set can have a major impact on the outcome. with only one round lasting a short time, it would really be a push of urgency for the fighters. there would be no feeling out. "dont leave it up to the judges" would still apply as a mind set. it would be interesting to actually see how it effected the game. i think there would be a lot more injuries as well.
i do wonder if it would be a better representation of street fighting since its a short burst of giving it all you got and "going for broke"

 

[hoshin160013]

i have a suspicion that knockouts would be king and submissions would be almost impossible. fighters would adapt and find the best way to play the game. it would be interesting

 

[Charlemagne]

Definitely not a fan of WEKAF-type sparring. If I want to watch a couple of unskilled people not protecting themselves at all, while they hit each other with strikes it's great. But I don't. Would you actually do that crap if someone had a baseball bat, a collapsible baton, or a machete? Probably not, if you wanted to survive the encounter anyway.

Would you do what is in the video above if you didn't have all that padding and the helmet and if your opponent had a real weapon? No? Then dump it. It's BS.

Sparring that respects the strike and reflects the manner in which your system actually performs movements is what I am after. There are way too many examples of training and drilling one way, and then when you go to spar, it all goes out the window and looks like crappy kick boxing, or in the case of weapons, a crappy game of tag.

 

[Gerry Seymour11]

i have a suspicion that knockouts would be king and submissions would be almost impossible. fighters would adapt and find the best way to play the game. it would be interesting

I think it would be a strategic choice between going for high scores with aggressive striking, or building a really good defensive counter-punch game for knockouts. Submissions would pretty much fall into the latter - if the guy gives you a huge opening you take his back quickly and go for the "kill". That would be about as common as finishes with kyokushin kicks are now, I suspect, because of the surprise factor.

 

[Charlemagne]

i am going to derail the thread here but its an old thread. this point about rule sets is one we hear about a lot. i think most MMA people dismiss the idea. my theoretical question is, what would happen in MMA if the rules were changed and there was only 1 round lasting only 1 minute?

It would just turn into kickboxing for points.

 

[Anarax]

Personally I think the MMA rules in Pride made more sense. They judged the fight as a whole, rather than using the 10-Point Must scoring system. Meaning, if one guy got destroyed(not finished) in the first round, he couldn't win by playing it safe by out pointing the guy for the remaining rounds. When I see guys who are clearly more damaged than the other but they still win makes little sense.

 

[Tony Dismukes103]

Personally I think the MMA rules in Pride made more sense. They judged the fight as a whole, rather than using the 10-Point Must scoring system. Meaning, if one guy got destroyed(not finished) in the first round, he couldn't win by playing it safe by out pointing the guy for the remaining rounds. When I see guys who are clearly more damaged than the other but they still win makes little sense.

I think the problem with the 10 point must system is that most of the range of scores are never used. Most rounds are 10-9, with only the rare 10-8 and even rarer 10-7 for completely dominant rounds. Thus the fighter getting "destroyed" in the first round is only down one or two points. If getting completely beat up resulted in a 10-6 or 10-5 round, things would be rather different.

 

[Buka21]

i am going to derail the thread here but its an old thread. this point about rule sets is one we hear about a lot. i think most MMA people dismiss the idea. my theoretical question is, what would happen in MMA if the rules were changed and there was only 1 round lasting only 1 minute?

That would be interesting. But then, consider this....

UFC 1. Seven matches. No judges. One round. No time limit.

And what did we have? 12 minutes and 33 seconds of actual fighting time on the whole card.

 

[Anarax]

I think the problem with the 10 point must system is that most of the range of scores are never used. Most rounds are 10-9, with only the rare 10-8 and even rarer 10-7 for completely dominant rounds. Thus the fighter getting "destroyed" in the first round is only down one or two points. If getting completely beat up resulted in a 10-6 or 10-5 round, things would be rather different.

Good point, in the UFC they usually score it 10-9, unless they take a penalty point.

 

[hoshin160013]

That would be interesting. But then, consider this....

UFC 1. Seven matches. No judges. One round. No time limit.

And what did we have? 12 minutes and 33 seconds of actual fighting time on the whole card.

and you get Royce Vs Severan where they basically layed on the ground for 20 min.

but the key factor in these fights and my original question is the time limit. in the UFC there was no time limit and what i was asking is the effect of only having one minute to prove yourself.
i got this idea from an 1980's kung fu magazine about the old challenge matches in China. There was a 1 or 2 minute time limit, and that was the quote from the magazine article that in China they believed anyone worth their salt could prove themselves within that time frame.

 

[Tony Dismukes103]

That would be interesting. But then, consider this....

UFC 1. Seven matches. No judges. One round. No time limit.

And what did we have? 12 minutes and 33 seconds of actual fighting time on the whole card.

Part of that was the sharks vs minnows aspect of the early UFC. Most of the fighters didn't know how to be effective in that context and so you ended up with some real mismatches which ended quickly. I think that with todays crop of experienced professional fighters you don't see nearly as many lopsided battles and early stoppages are less likely.

 

[donald1]

Weapon sparring is pretty good stuff. I like my rokushaku bo the most. Good for distance.

 

[Langenschwert]

Part of that was the sharks vs minnows aspect of the early UFC. Most of the fighters didn't know how to be effective in that context and so you ended up with some real mismatches which ended quickly. I think that with todays crop of experienced professional fighters you don't see nearly as many lopsided battles and early stoppages are less likely.

Yup. This led to the era of articles titled "How to Defeat the Gracie Tackle" and the like. As if there was a magic pill to stop a trained grappler asides from learning how to grapple yourself. So many of them didn't know what to do if they got grabbed let alone taken down, making them easy prey for a grappler.

I admit being slightly nostalgic for old school UFC commentary. My perennial favourite:

"Where did that tooth go?"

"I think it's under my desk, Jim"

The halcyon days of yore.

 

[BrendanF]

Yup. This led to the era of articles titled "How to Defeat the Gracie Tackle" and the like. As if there was a magic pill to stop a trained grappler asides from learning how to grapple yourself. So many of them didn't know what to do if they got grabbed let alone taken down, making them easy prey for a grappler.

I admit being slightly nostalgic for old school UFC commentary. My perennial favourite:

"Where did that tooth go?"

"I think it's under my desk, Jim"

The halcyon days of yore.

Poor old superfoot couldn't believe it...

 

[Juany118]

To the OP.

I spar with plastic training knives, the edges of which are covered in chalk. We use plastic core sticks wrapped in thin padding to spar. Our training with the baston is largely identical to how we fight with swords (though some of the disarms wouldn't work with blades).

In either case eye/head protection and gloves as appropriate.

 

[Gerry Seymour11]

To the OP.

I spar with plastic training knives, the edges of which are covered in chalk. We use plastic core sticks wrapped in thin padding to spar. Our training with the baston is largely identical to how we fight with swords (though some of the disarms wouldn't work with blades).

In either case eye/head protection and gloves as appropriate.

Do you buy commercial padded sticks, or are they something your instructor made hiimself? I've been looking at some and wondering if any of them are worth buying.

 

[Juany118]

Do you buy commercial padded sticks, or are they something your instructor made hiimself? I've been looking at some and wondering if any of them are worth buying.

We use commercial padded sticks. I'll check with my instructor where he got them. They are stupid simple (and thus cheap). A plastic tube surrounded by maybe .25 to .5 poly foam. The good things about them are that they STING and will leave a mark, but not injure. I like that aspect because it forces you to, as we chant constantly, "zone, evade, deflect" as well as attack.