the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Hey Dan I'm not talking about defending any method. That's not it since I agree that the description was misleading. Good try at re-directing though.

I'm asking you to show us your sparring against fully resisting opponents. At least let's establish what it means to "fully resist".

Now stop dancing around my suggestion like a fairy and post your vid of sparring fully resisting opponents.

When we spar we have gotten broken bones, bruises, need to see the chiropractor the next day and all manner of mayhem. And we are at least in some manner, getting kicked, hit, thrown, head butted, choked etc for our trouble.

This I have to see.

I wouldn't consider the clip sparring either. That being said, guy with the beard has 'it'.

my definition of sparring is that both parties do not know what the other will do next and at what time.
this is what i understand by sparring; whether you pre-fix it with "heavy", "light", "hard", "soft", "slow", "fast", "organic", "caffeine-free", "kung- fooey", or "chop-socky" ; or a combination thereof. (also not that the above defn does not take into account of disparity in 'level' or experience, i think as social scientist like to call it its asymmetry of information)

if either of the parties know what the other will be doing; then it is more of a demo or drill

perhaps others have another way of looking at it; it would be interesting to know another pov and definition.

just saying
S

strawdog wrote:I'm asking you to show us your sparring against fully resisting opponents. At least let's establish what it means to "fully resist".

Now stop dancing around my suggestion like a fairy and post your vid of sparring fully resisting opponents.

I have a better idea. Why don't you ask him if -you- can spar with him, if he'll have you? Hands-on experience is worth far more than armchair quarterbacking a video, and you'll get a clear picture of what he is trying to explain and describe here.

Strange (and everybody),

RE: "my definition of sparring is that both parties do not know what the other will do next and at what time.". I agree. What distinguishes it from drilling is that element of uncertainty, no matter how small. In fact, I believe it's the ability to "dial in" that variable, both more and less of it, that makes all levels of intensity of sparring useful. For instance, let's say you're wanting to take a new tactical idea you've learned and want to see where the opportunity for using it might occur in a real situation. You wouldn't want to start with anything-goes, full-contact sparring because the proper context for using that given tactic might never arise. You could spar several rounds before anything close to a proper opportunity for it came up.

Of course, you do want to keep at least some degree of randomness to make it more natural, otherwise it's just a 'you do A and I'll do B' drill. Let's say your tactic is a specific kind of takedown from clinch. One of the things you can do is rule out long-distance kicks and no more than a brief exchange of hand strikes before agreeing to close to clinch. Depending on the circumstances, it might be helpful to rule out the straight single and double-leg shots from here as well, or else the fight may go to ground before the exploration can happen. Other than these restrictions and once in clinch, anything else goes.

While there is a certain degree of artificiality about it, limiting the sparring to the particular range that the tactic in question is relevant is a good way to multiply the number of opportunities for its application dramatically (which is the advantage of a specific drill) while still retaining a good degree of the uncertainty, the challenge to one's ability to see opportunities for it, and the challenge to one's ability to time the application correctly (which is the advantage of full-on, anything-goes sparring). IOW, you get a little of both, and you can alter the ratio to your specific training needs by further limiting the parameters of the sparring or by relaxing them as the case warrants.

In our example, the trainee still has to contend with the full arsenal of everything else the opponent can bring to bear in the clinch range, so the application will not be easy. In fact, it may still prove too difficult at first, or for less experienced students. In that case, dial back on the intensity by limiting the exchange to medium or even light contact and/or ruling out elbows and knees. The point is, with some thought (and with a distinct absence of machismo), it's possible to tailor the training to the precise needs of the individual at that moment.

To complete our example, let's say the trainee has identified the proper context and appropriate opportunities for applying his new takedown. He's worked it repeatedly in the narrowly defined parameters as set above. Let's say he's now able to identify and apply the move correctly at least half the time against a variety of opponents, and can do so consistently throughout the training session, if not over several training sessions. At this point, he's learned and practiced the move in context, and his instructor might wish to test/increase the robustness of that move by having him use it in sparring sessions with increasingly relaxed parameters. Now instead of clinching range only, the sessions could introduce the inclusion of both long-range strikes and kicks, or perhaps allow elbows and knees to be used, or allow shots going to the ground, or eventually all of the above. Once all ranges are included, the intensity level can be raised to medium, and eventually to full-contact.

If these other intensity factors are introduced intelligently and gradually, the trainee learns to contextualize his new skill into an increasingly wider and more realistic context. In the technical parlance, these processes are called permeation and generalization. In order for the skill to be fully useable in real combat, both the scope and the intensity of the context for its use must gradually, but eventually, be increased to that which is identical to the native context of the skill, i.e., full-on and anything-goes, possibility of weapons, starting from a diminished capacity, presence of environmental obstacles, bystanders, multiple opponents, darkness, heat, cold, rain, etc. IOW, you can make the experience as intense and realistic as you want, and the skill as robust as you need it to be for the needs of that trainee.

On cue, Interloper comes to back-up Dan Harden. Your "aiki" network need to stop dancing around the idea of actually showing yourselves on video. Dan Harden says a lot of good stuff and I agree with him for the most part, but at this point I just need to see.

Bodywork wrote:

Chris Fleming wrote:How many martial artists does it take to spar? 100. Two to got at it and 98 to say "well they aren't really sparring. what I do is..."

Thats all well in good-who gets counted among the two- some guy with vids, sparring low key in his own dojo?
If people want to put up vids with misleading commentary and just get pats on the back...great. If you note Shawn didn't take insult and saw the critiques for what they were and acknowledged the description was off a bit on the Shen Wu vid. Which was no big deal. Does the shen wu method really need any defending anymore? Doesn't Tim's work speak for itself?
Stop being such pantywaists over commentary- it doesn't speak well of your efforts good or bad. To flip it around I could say "Every minute of fight review (even critique by others) saves you five minutes worth of mistakes under stress in the ring." And "Five minutes can last a...very... long time.
So, love it, don't hate it.

It's hard to understand what you are saying here. Anyway, my joke wasn't necessarily aimed specifically at you but at the idea in general which we seem to be seeing when it comes to sparring clips lately. Some couldn't even agree if Maoshan and Lyte were actually fighting in the clip of them going at it, and then some similar things here, overly verbose, intellectual mental masturbation as to what REALLY is sparring . Funny as hell. At least to me.

Chris,

RE: "Some couldn't even agree if Maoshan and Lyte were actually fighting in the clip of them going at it, and then some similar things here, overly verbose, intellectual mental masturbation as to what REALLY is sparring". Nobody's been as "verbose" as I've been on this thread so far, so I will assume that at least part of your criticism here is directed at me, but I'm curious...do you find my contribution to be mental masturbation?

I don't know I don't have time to read all that.

Chris McKinley wrote:Chris,

RE: "Some couldn't even agree if Maoshan and Lyte were actually fighting in the clip of them going at it, and then some similar things here, overly verbose, intellectual mental masturbation as to what REALLY is sparring". Nobody's been as "verbose" as I've been on this thread so far, so I will assume that at least part of your criticism here is directed at me, but I'm curious...do you find my contribution to be mental masturbation?

Chris,

Sometimes you are just too serious

Chris Fleming wrote:I don't know I don't have time to read all that.

Heh, heh, my thoughts exactly. Them there's too much werds ta fits in mah lil ol' brayn et this here point in tyme...

Thank you, MTV, for your contribution to attention spans everywhere.

RE: "Sometimes you are just too serious". I take training with deadly seriousness in some cases because I have people entrusting their lives to the training I provide. It's natural that that's going to bleed over into my discussion of the topic. That said, the other main reason I come off that way on the forum is because people expect me to be. In fact, when I drop the occasional smartass comment like every other poster on the board does, I am frequently ankle-bitten by some of the more self-righteous party line chihuahuas for doing so. Comes with the territory when you challenge the status quo. Ah well...ze beat, she goes on, non?

we have chihuahuas?

Yo qiero some whoop-ass, Biotch!

Chris McKinley wrote:Thank you, MTV, for your contribution to attention spans everywhere.

RE: "Sometimes you are just too serious". I take training with deadly seriousness in some cases because I have people entrusting their lives to the training I provide. It's natural that that's going to bleed over into my discussion of the topic. That said, the other main reason I come off that way on the forum is because people expect me to be. In fact, when I drop the occasional smartass comment like every other poster on the board does, I am frequently ankle-bitten by some of the more self-righteous party line chihuahuas for doing so. Comes with the territory when you challenge the status quo. Ah well...ze beat, she goes on, non?

Wow. Just wow.

Still, Chihuahuas are cute, and Christina Aguilera has one- that's good enough for me.

Sorry, I forget- who in this discussion has decided that their member is biggest? Just so that I may avoid them.