When do you start sparring?

[anerlich]

Just a note on that last part - that depends a lot on the instructor. I know instructors who don't like students to question them until they get to advanced student ranks. I like questions from my students - even the challenging ones - because 1) it tells me THAT they are thinking, 2) it tells me WHAT they are thinking, and 3) it gets me thinking.

I've only really spent time with two instructors, out of dozens I've taken classes with, who did not welcome intelligent questions.

A Jiu Jitsu instructor (perhaps Dave Camarillo?) said in a podcast something like:

It's OK to ask the instructor technical (how-to) questions about a technique he/she is showing straight away and at any time thereafter.

But don't QUESTION a technique (as in be critical or look for reasons why and places where it won't work, or try to improve it) until you've spent a reasonable amount of time trying to make it work.

Quite a few Jiu Jitsu instructors (myself included) don't like to teach counters to particular techniques until the student base has a reasonable facility with the technique itself. It's hard to learn a technique well in rolling if the other guy is always countering it. Conversely, if no one in the class learns the first technique really well because they are always getting countered, the counters don't have to be developed to a high degree. So the gym entire ends up with a wishy washy technical base. Not what we want.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

we spar to learn so there is never any pressure to win. ... I'm not sure how common this is for other schools.

This idea may not work for wrestling. In wrestling, you are either standing, or you are down. When you are down, it's your opponent who takes you down and you did not go down yourself.

The "pressure" that you try not to be taken down by your opponent will always be there.

 

[anerlich]

There will always be "pressure" not to get hit in pugilistic sparring as well.

It depends what you mean by "win". If you want to avoid takedowns at all costs, just run away for the whole round. Or hide in the toilet. If you want to learn to counter takedowns, you have to let your partner at least try to take you down. If you get taken down, hopefully you get the opportunity to see the holes in your defence.

You win or you learn, and you usually learn more from losing than winning. The sparring environment should allow you to experiment without paying for your failures with serious injury or ridicule.

Ending up on the ground isn't seen as losing in some styles of grappling. People will even go there by choice.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Ending up on the ground isn't seen as losing in some styles of grappling. People will even go there by choice.

You are right. This guy will love to be taken down. I'll keep this clip forever just to remind myself, "You can't take someone down if he is already down."

 

[anerlich]

Link doesn't work. I assume it's not of great import to the discussion.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Link doesn't work. I assume it's not of great import to the discussion.

You are right. This guy will love to be taken down. I'll keep this clip forever just to remind myself, "You can't take someone down if he is already down."

I really like this clip. It shows how ridiculous when MA turns into "sport" can be.

http://img.izismile.com/img/img6/20131007/1000/daily_gifdump_470_15.gif

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I really like this clip. It shows how ridiculous when MA turns into "sport" can be.

http://img.izismile.com/img/img6/20131007/1000/daily_gifdump_470_15.gif

It is still not working, but is it safe to assume it is the (I think BJJ world finals) were one guy goes on the group and tries to scoot to get the other guy to eventually just fall into his guard?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It is still not working, but is it safe to assume it is the (I think BJJ world finals) were one guy goes on the group and tries to scoot to get the other guy to eventually just fall into his guard?

That's the one. I always wonder what if his opponent just kicks into his groin?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Keep in mind that that we spar to learn so there is never any pressure to win. If you watch some of the sparring videos on the website you will hear things like "sorry" if we think we injured or partner or you'll hear the advanced students give praise during sparring when a students gets a technique right or when they make an effort to do a technique even if they fail.
I'm not sure how common this is for other schools.

I have been learning some new approaches to sparring from some of the posts here on MT. Somehow, I've always kept a more win-lose mindset on sparring and randori, a mindset which shows up nowhere else in my training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I've only really spent time with two instructors, out of dozens I've taken classes with, who did not welcome intelligent questions.

A Jiu Jitsu instructor (perhaps Dave Camarillo?) said in a podcast something like:

It's OK to ask the instructor technical (how-to) questions about a technique he/she is showing straight away and at any time thereafter.

But don't QUESTION a technique (as in be critical or look for reasons why and places where it won't work, or try to improve it) until you've spent a reasonable amount of time trying to make it work.

I'm even okay with new students asking those questions. I'm not sure that's better or worse than the view you suggest, though. I just like to have them thinking, and to see how they react to the response. I have a Shotokan-trained student who early on would say things like, "That wouldn't work on a Shotokan man, because..." And he'd have a point. Then I'd point out to him that someone moving that way wouldn't get themselves into position for the technique, so we don't have to worry about whether it works on them or not. These explanations seemed to help him wrap his head around the situational effectiveness of some of the techniques. If he had repeatedly come out of those discussions with a mindset that the technique was flawed (rather than acknowledging that it just wasn't appropriate for the scenario he was suggesting), I'd eventually have suggested he find a better fit for himself. His questions challenging the technique give him a chance to learn a bit differently. They also help me, because he sees things I don't (my Shotokan background was many years ago, and not nearly as deep as his).

Quite a few Jiu Jitsu instructors (myself included) don't like to teach counters to particular techniques until the student base has a reasonable facility with the technique itself. It's hard to learn a technique well in rolling if the other guy is always countering it. Conversely, if no one in the class learns the first technique really well because they are always getting countered, the counters don't have to be developed to a high degree. So the gym entire ends up with a wishy washy technical base. Not what we want.

This is a good point. I'll need to look at where I'm teaching counters, to see if I'm bringing them in too early. I have been teaching them earlier, so folks could understand the transitions to the next technique better (know the counter, feel the counter early, bypass the counter), but it may have some long-term problems. I'm wondering if knowing the counters early might also encourage them to NOT be resistive, since they have to avoid using the counters in most drills. This gives me a good idea for a curriculum update I'm working on: teaching counters to techniques only after the student passes a test on those techniques.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This idea may not work for wrestling. In wrestling, you are either standing, or you are down. When you are down, it's your opponent who takes you down and you did not go down yourself.

The "pressure" that you try not to be taken down by your opponent will always be there.

I think the point JGW was making was that you give up the need to win, in order to work on some weakness. So, for wrestling, it might mean practicing leading with the leg you normally wouldn't, or committing to not using a single-leg takedown if that's your favorite move, or such, so you put pressure on areas that need development. By doing this, you give up some of your advantage (and thus, some of your chance to win) so that you can learn more.

 

[swivel63]

i trained wing chun for three years and the closest we ever got to sparring was me and a training partner did free chi sao. basically just rolling, then doing whatever we wanted. it was ok.

 

[drop bear]

That's the one. I always wonder what if his opponent just kicks into his groin?

They knee bar you then someone does that weird slappy back thing that does absolutely nothing to help with groin pain.

 

[drop bear]

I think the point JGW was making was that you give up the need to win, in order to work on some weakness. So, for wrestling, it might mean practicing leading with the leg you normally wouldn't, or committing to not using a single-leg takedown if that's your favorite move, or such, so you put pressure on areas that need development. By doing this, you give up some of your advantage (and thus, some of your chance to win) so that you can learn more.

No you still need to win. Giving up an advantage shouldn't change that.

Like sparring guys who are better than you. Ok you probably won't win but you should spar as if you can win.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No you still need to win. Giving up an advantage shouldn't change that.

Like sparring guys who are better than you. Ok you probably won't win but you should spar as if you can win.

In that scenario, sure. But if I'm sparring to see what happens if I always stay just outside my punching range until I'm ready to punch, for instance, I'll stick to that strategy regardless of whether I'm winning or losing. Of course, I'll contest as much as I can within those parameters, but I'm perhaps giving up enough to cause me to lose, even to a less-skilled opponent. Nonetheless, I'll stick to that limitation rather than win.

As I type that, I'm not sure you and I are saying different things here. Within that limitation, I fight as if I could win, and still try to win, just not with every tool I could possibly use to win (because I've placed a limitation on myself). Of course, if I'm sparring a much less skilled student, I'm not really doing much to try to win - I'm doing what I can to challenge the student without smothering them with stuff they're not ready for.

 

[drop bear]

In that scenario, sure. But if I'm sparring to see what happens if I always stay just outside my punching range until I'm ready to punch, for instance, I'll stick to that strategy regardless of whether I'm winning or losing. Of course, I'll contest as much as I can within those parameters, but I'm perhaps giving up enough to cause me to lose, even to a less-skilled opponent. Nonetheless, I'll stick to that limitation rather than win.

As I type that, I'm not sure you and I are saying different things here. Within that limitation, I fight as if I could win, and still try to win, just not with every tool I could possibly use to win (because I've placed a limitation on myself). Of course, if I'm sparring a much less skilled student, I'm not really doing much to try to win - I'm doing what I can to challenge the student without smothering them with stuff they're not ready for.

So now you have an idea of when I say fighting to win in sparring essentially means. It does not have to be an ego spar.

But you are also not short changing yourself or you team mate by only being fifty percent there.

Not sparring to win protects you from ever really loosing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So now you have an idea of when I say fighting to win in sparring essentially means. It does not have to be an ego spar.

But you are also not short changing yourself or you team mate by only being fifty percent there.

Not sparring to win protects you from ever really loosing.

I like the way you expressed that. It's not the way I've explained it, but I'm stealing at least part of that to explain self-limited sparring from now on.

 

[Buka]

I hope to never spar again. Sparred for too long, too often, and every bit of it was fun. (it really was) But I'm just tired of sparring, tired of getting hit, even more tired of hitting other people. I never really enjoyed hitting people, but it was just part of the work, I'm sure you guys know how it is.

Never would have suspected I'd feel this way, but I do. I'm just going to watch from now on.
Gotta' get me some popcorn.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I hope to never spar again. Sparred for too long, too often, and every bit of it was fun. (it really was) But I'm just tired of sparring, tired of getting hit, even more tired of hitting other people. I never really enjoyed hitting people, but it was just part of the work, I'm sure you guys know how it is.

Never would have suspected I'd feel this way, but I do. I'm just going to watch from now on.
Gotta' get me some popcorn.

I feel ya', Buka. I've never enjoyed hitting other people. I think that's why I never got into sport arts. For most of my training I avoided it where I could (and that wasn't hard). Now I seek it out, but still prefer to keep it to a functional minimum.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The reason why I don't spar to win is because then you'll just stick with the techniques that will allow you to win. If the goal is to win, then why work on a technique that you aren't good at? If the goal is to win, then working on techniques that you aren't good at are just going to make you lose. This is why we often see martial artists revert back to basic kickboxing skills instead of using the other techniques within the system.

If you spar to learn then the focus is to learn how to use the techniques. If you spar to learn how to increase your ability to successfully execute various techniques, then right away you know that you'll fail often at the start, but as you become more familiar with the use of the technique you begin to become more successful with the technique. All of this only happens when you aren't trying to win.

After all why would you use a technique that you aren't good at if you are trying to win?