Do you favour sparring over drilling or vice versa?
How much of your time do spend sparring(that is if you do any?) and how much on drilling?
Here’s my take on this…
I personally love doing both. Although one is basically there to build up to the other. Drilling is a means by which to learn application of a technique in a hands on environment (vs. doing it in the air). Proper structure, Timing, and feel are learned here, and once it can be applied well in a drilling session, it can be thrown in with the rest of the techniques and then attempted in a live session (ie sparring).
So one is a step stool for the other. Ultimately the goal is to be able to apply anything and everything in a live environment, but drilling them prior helps to build specific application skill in efforts to transpose it from the learned stage to the “spontaneous” stage.
Right now I’m doing only drills and no sparring (broken wrist) but normally I drill techniques to keep the technical aspects sharp and “correct”, and then spar just as much as possible to make sure things are spontaneous and actually absorbed. As far as which I prefer, it really depends on what’s injured…
Vankuen is correct about the importance of both (he’s incorrect about timing coming from drills; you only get timing from fighting).
All fighting methods use some variation of the following: Step 1 - learn the form or technique or tool or strategy or whatever; step 2 - drill it until you are “comfortable” with it (drills can also be progressive); step 3 - put it into fighting (what we are training to do; the activity itself). And it’s often a loop, in that your experience in step 3 may change your view of whatever you learned in step 1, which means you’ll need to do step 2 again with this new insight in mind, and then try putting it back into step 3. And so on.
Not to hijack the thread…but Terence, I believe that timing can be learned from certain drills, but I guess to elaborate, I need to know what your definition of “timing” is…I just didn’t want to debate on something that may be merely a matter of semantics.
Van:
Yeah…you can learn “some” timing from drills…but the real place for timing education is when it’s “live” and spontaneous: during sparring.
Drill, drill, drill. You have too drill to understand timing, if you don’t, you could get hurt very easily jumping right into applications, by not drilling you will not see were timing has it place in a certain technique, easily getting you teeth knock out, and at the same time becoming very wild with your wing chun. There are drills for distance, timing, and entries, very simple mon sao drills for entries. To understand the concepts you must ponder on the principles, without strong principles you will have no substances, without substances you will have no subtleness, without subtleness you will have very wild wing chun when needed for real. Then again who I’m I too say, we are all born free, maybe wild is good. If you can, wait for one year before sparring.
Ali Hamad Rahim.
Wild turkeys?..
See so far I think Ali has got it for the most part. Drilling sets you up and prepares you for the real thing. To me, it does take timing to apply techniques to a real attack coming at you, even if it is merely a fragment of a “live” session.
Drilling can be done a million ways, on hundreds of techniques and fighting concepts. To me, it is basically a “fragment” of what can happen in a fight, a piece of a pie so to speak, with the pie being the fight and the piece being…well…part of the pie. If that makes sense. You can tell I haven’t eaten lunch yet right?
Anyway, you train how you want to fight…as Ali says, if you want to be wild…then so be it…what works for one person may not work for another.
IMHO, You “learn” something and after you “test” it to see how well you “learned” the **** thing. Just as when you were in school,it was too late to learn something when the exam day had come.
Timing is one of those things.
I suppose one can get some sense of timing from an “alive”-type drill (sparring-type drill) but not where there is any pattern to the drill. Timing is being able to “pull the trigger” in exectution when it’s appropriate during fighting – and you can only find that for yourself by fighting. Go ask fighters, like boxers or BJJists, if they get timing from drills. After they stop laughing, have them explain how you can’t get timing or distance or all the things that make the “techniques” work in any way except from fighting, and how they must maintain those by fighting (and if they stop fighting, they begin to lose all those things). Drills are absolutely necessary but they only take you so far.
To the original question,
depends on the learning phase. I’ve been at ‘sparring’ 90%+, I’ve been at ‘drilling’ 90%+.
If you’re learning something or trying to refine it you need to drill it to get the groove. Once you know how it works, you need to use it against resistance to incorporate it into your game.
I favor work against light resistance with variabilty (‘live drilling’, ‘limited sparring’) immediately after ‘pattern-type’ drills- basically exercises in mechanics. It makes for a much faster learning.
Once you add intent and variablity to a drill, the boundary between it and sparring gets pretty fuzzy- ‘here’s a double neck tie, here are your mechanics for countering it, here are your mechanics for when you’re broken, here are 3 counters based on where the guy tries to take you with the neck tie. guy with the neck tie can push, pull, or knee. 2 minutes.’ Is that a drill or sparring?
Terrence- IME, my best work on timing comes not from totally free sparring but light limitation sparring designed for work on timing. I know good competetive fighters who train this way, and have felt the best results in free sparring when I’ve done light work mostly for timing first. I’d add that most grapplers have very little awareness of timing, even if they use said timing, while it’s bread and butter to boxers and kickboxers, one of the reasons why converted strikers can be so dangerous on the ground (Bas, Mo Smith, CroCop)- they think in smaller time.
Later,
Andrew
To me a drill is not a pattern thing. As an example one student attacks with anything, the other tries to apply movements learned on the dummy to counter. There is distancing and timing in that. I think it requires more skill to do this intensively without hurting your partner then to just go in wild not caring for your partner’s safety.
Most often on the news real fights are multiple opponents who are armed.
A more useful training scenario might be to work through the following table:
Number of opponents
1
2
3
4
5
Scenarios: empty hand punching only, punching and kicking, weapons. So there are 15 entries in my table.
I think fencing even intensively against a highly skilled guy still develops a different thing than training fencing against several people attacking you at the same time.
Maybe it’s not practical but this is another way to beef up the intensity because it shortens the time you have to react, it trains your footwork under stress.
It’s a good experiment to compare Choy Lee Fut and Wing Chun under these circumstances. Maybe there is a place for flailing away.
In the multiple opponent situation, for example against two, the two should learn how to cut off the circle to prevent one of the two from being isolated. So they learn to fight as a team. Likewise for the case of three and up.
With one on one, there may be a lot of rest time that’s not available with the many on one case. You can’t just back up or create some distance like a Thai boxer might with a push kick because you may just back yourself up into the next guy.
I think it requires more skill to train intensively and not break your partner’s nose than to train intensively and break it. I think the level of intensity should be whatever is possible to still control. Safety should always be a concern. There are many injuries that can end your martial arts career.
Originally posted by AndrewS
I’d add that most grapplers have very little awareness of timing…
That statement is completely off the mark. Grappling depends just as much on timing as does striking.
Takedowns, throws, chokes, arm locks, leg locks…counters to each of these… getting position… improving a bad position…mess up your timing and the opportunity is gone.
It’s a different kind of awareness of timing…but it’s still awareness of timing that a grappler must need to develop.
For example - the timing needed to deal with (and to throw) punches and kicks form a standup non-contact range distance…is a very different “timing awareness” than what a grappler needs in order to exploit openings or changes in position on the ground, for example.
But in the end…timing skills…are still timing skills.
It is what it is…and ALL competitive athletes (whether it be fighting or anything else)…need to develop them.
And in the end…we need to develop all of the possible timing skills necessary to be a good fighter…standing…in the clinch…on the ground.
KF writes:
>That statement is completely off the mark. Grappling depends just as much on timing as does striking.
Dale,
I didn’t say that grapplers didn’t have/use timing; I said they weren’t as aware of it as strikers. The point I was trying to make is that you are far more likely to get a serious discussion of timing in stick fighting, boxing, or kickboxing training than in grappling training. If you’re used to trying to read whether a guy is gonna jab, picking up whether he’s gonna shoot is much easier (why few people open with a double leg in MMA any more).
Any combat sport requires developing timing, yet there are differences between the grappling and striking arts in terms of the attributes developed. Striking sports require visual reactions and tend to work at a quicker pace than grappling. In terms of motor skills, the timing discussed in striking is hand/eye coordination, and control of distance, while that in grappling is heavily dependant on your tactile perceptions of another’s balance in relation to your own. They are physiologically different things.
Having watched a few strikers learn to grapple, I think that’s one of the things a striking background brings to the table. a greater awareness of timing, and a comfort in working in much ‘faster’ situations.
Later,
Andrew
Originally posted by AndrewS
I didn’t say that grapplers didn’t have/use timing; I said they weren’t as aware of it as strikers. The point I was trying to make is that you are far more likely to get a serious discussion of timing in stick fighting, boxing, or kickboxing training than in grappling training. If you’re used to trying to read whether a guy is gonna jab, picking up whether he’s gonna shoot is much easier (why few people open with a double leg in MMA any more).
Grapplers just talk about it in different terms, but it is still the same thing… ie- "when he pulls his arm in, you push it through and shoot up to the triangle’; “when he pushes his arms up, you swing around for an arm bar”; “from the head and bicep tie-up, shuck down and penetrate for the double leg”; “fake to this arm and then sit back to the other arm”.
As far as reading the shoot vs. the jab, of course the shoot is easier to read. It takes much longer to move the whole body than it does to flick out a jab… not to mention the fact that there are more visual cues with a shoot. If anything, the guy who shoots and hits the double leg has to have better timing than the guy who is landing jabs.
Originally posted by t_niehoff
I suppose one can get some sense of timing from an “alive”-type drill (sparring-type drill) but not where there is any pattern to the drill. Timing is being able to “pull the trigger” in exectution when it’s appropriate during fighting – and you can only find that for yourself by fighting. Go ask fighters, like boxers or BJJists, if they get timing from drills. After they stop laughing, have them explain how you can’t get timing or distance or all the things that make the “techniques” work in any way except from fighting, and how they must maintain those by fighting (and if they stop fighting, they begin to lose all those things). Drills are absolutely necessary but they only take you so far.
See that’s what I thought you were getting at and just wanted to make sure, in reference to your definition. TO me, a drill isnt necessarily a preplanned and patterned exercise. I have lot’s of drills that use to apply timing principles or “pulling the trigger” as you say.
Some drills, for example a typical pak sau drill, doesn’t do much for timing, in fact most people go off of the rythm of the person feeding the punches, and you’re right, but that’s not what I was thinking of. What I was thinking of more, was for example a sparring drill teaching someone to pak da against a punch from any side, not telegraphed, and in a moving environment…so in other words, like a “piece” of a fight, they move around for position, one person is attempting to hit the other with either hand at any given moment, and with any rythm they wish, and the “defender” is practicing his pak da. What I tend to encourage also is that if they mess up and something else comes out, to “deal with it in any way you know how”. I tell them "things rarely go as planned in fights and you’re going to need to adapt and overcome in this drill, just like in real life, so if you mess up, deal with it, and then try again. "
Hopefully that example makes more sense and you can get a better visual of what Im talking about.
AndrewS wrote:
Terrence- IME, my best work on timing comes not from totally free sparring but light limitation sparring designed for work on timing. I know good competetive fighters who train this way, and have felt the best results in free sparring when I’ve done light work mostly for timing first.
**Good stuff. The isolation/limitation permits you to focus more on that aspect, then you put it into your game.
YongChun wrote:
To me a drill is not a pattern thing. As an example one student attacks with anything, the other tries to apply movements learned on the dummy to counter. There is distancing and timing in that.
**IMHO this is a really poor way to train, and will develop very little real skill. And there is no timing in it.
I think it requires more skill to do this intensively without hurting your partner then to just go in wild not caring for your partner’s safety.
**This is why they have protective equipment – so that you can really hit without injuring your partner. FWIW, one significant problem (there are so many) with your drill is that folks aren’t dealing with genuine attacks and they are not responding with genuine responses (but holding back). You can’t learn to hit people with real power if you don’t practice trying to hit people with real power; you can’t learn to respond to real attacks without facing real attacks. This is just contrived nonsense.
Most often on the news real fights are multiple opponents who are armed.
**In my town, fights rarely make the news – shootings make the news.
I think fencing even intensively against a highly skilled guy still develops a different thing than training fencing against several people attacking you at the same time.
Maybe it’s not practical but this is another way to beef up the intensity because it shortens the time you have to react, it trains your footwork under stress.
It’s a good experiment to compare Choy Lee Fut and Wing Chun under these circumstances. Maybe there is a place for flailing away.
In the multiple opponent situation, for example against two, the two should learn how to cut off the circle to prevent one of the two from being isolated. So they learn to fight as a team. Likewise for the case of three and up.
With one on one, there may be a lot of rest time that’s not available with the many on one case. You can’t just back up or create some distance like a Thai boxer might with a push kick because you may just back yourself up into the next guy.
**Multiple attack scenario training is IMO, for the most part, a waste of time. Learn to deal with what you are actually going to face – and you aren’t going to face people that behave like they do in the drill. All you develop from these sorts of drills are poor habits.
I think it requires more skill to train intensively and not break your partner’s nose than to train intensively and break it. I think the level of intensity should be whatever is possible to still control. Safety should always be a concern. There are many injuries that can end your martial arts career.
**Hence why we have protective gears, why conditioning is so very important, and why fighting is mandatory (that’s how you learn to protect yourself from injury).
YongChun wrote:
To me a drill is not a pattern thing. As an example one student attacks with anything, the other tries to apply movements learned on the dummy to counter. There is distancing and timing in that.
**IMHO this is a really poor way to train, and will develop very little real skill. And there is no timing in it.
Ray: I find it’s a very good way and develops better skill than just drilling against a known technique. If you know a roundhouse is coming each time then does that develop better skill then if there is at least a choice in what kick the attacker throws? The latter is better. It’s easy to do a drill against a known technique. It’s difficult when you don’t know what’s coming. Now you are arguing for drilling as opposed to fighting. I’m advocating sparring but not in the standards you proposed in your clips. That level can be achieved in a few months of training. If those are your standards for excellence then something is wrong.
I think it requires more skill to do this intensively without hurting your partner then to just go in wild not caring for your partner’s safety.
**This is why they have protective equipment – so that you can really hit without injuring your partner. FWIW, one significant problem (there are so many) with your drill is that folks aren’t dealing with genuine attacks and they are not responding with genuine responses (but holding back). You can’t learn to hit people with real power if you don’t practice trying to hit people with real power; you can’t learn to respond to real attacks without facing real attacks. This is just contrived nonsense.
Ray: Boxers don’t go for the knockout when training with their sparring partners. Thai boxers hold back on certain elbow techniques in real matches. You don’t need to really hit your partner and injure him to learn something. If I really hit some of my female students wearing full protection, they would still end up crippled or dead. Maybe you don’t really hit your students full out in the head or perhaps your punches lack power? Your approach doesn’t make any logical sense. Put a helmet on and have one of your 240 pound students hit you as hard as they can in your head and see if you can think straight afterwards. All kinds of things can be isolated in sparring training without going 100% constantly which is counterproductive. With a proper hit, your not getting up, protection or not. Try standing in the middle of the road with your protection on and get hit by a car. There is a difference between a 250 pound guy and a 90 pound woman. You don’t hit the latter in the same way or your looking at a major lawsuit. we have size differences like that: 250 pound muscular guys and ladies who weigh less than 90 pounds. They all practice with each other. The big guys help the small ones. The small ones can’t really challenge the big ones. The small ones can go all out but not the big ones.
Most often on the news real fights are multiple opponents who are armed.
**In my town, fights rarely make the news – shootings make the news.
Ray:
In my town it’s home invasions , party crashers armed with bats. We have less shootings than in the USA because of gun control laws. Pretty well all the attacks that make the news are multiple opponent attacks. If you aren’t training that then you are also wasting your time.
**Multiple attack scenario training is IMO, for the most part, a waste of time. Learn to deal with what you are actually going to face – and you aren’t going to face people that behave like they do in the drill. All you develop from these sorts of drills are poor habits.
Ray: What we are most likely to ACTUALLY face is multiple opponent attacks. Teens operate in packs. It’s safer that way for them. We don’t drill a multiple opponent attack. You can’t drill that, you just fight and use your instincts. With practice your timing gets better. With practice the pack learns to fight better as a pack too making it harder for you. It gives you less time for your super power blows when there is more than one attacker. The Korean Thai boxer who was teaching us said the most common form of attack in Korea is also multiple opponent attacks. Non trained fighters, fight in packs. If they don’t they are stupid.
Actually for the most part we don’t train multiple opponent stuff. We did a few days ago and it was an eye opener for those who never tried it the same as wrestling is for those who never tried it. But if the goal is to train what you are actually going to face, then by that logic more multiple opponent training is a good idea.
It can be using the Terrence approved method of really trying to hurt the guy in the middle but of course he has protection on.
Ray:
I think it requires more skill to train intensively and not break your partner’s nose than to train intensively and break it. I think the level of intensity should be whatever is possible to still control. Safety should always be a concern. There are many injuries that can end your martial arts career.
**Hence why we have protective gears, why conditioning is so very important, and why fighting is mandatory (that’s how you learn to protect yourself from injury).
Ray:
Protective gear is not always useful because you develop reactions based on knowing that you are protected. Blocking a Thai roundhouse with a protected shin is different from blocking one without protection. You movements are just a little different. Facing a rubber knife is different from facing a live blade. A small lady or child can do all the conditioning they want but a full force hit will kill them. These kinds of people are martial arts students too and the training has to be adjusted accordingly which means hits have to be controlled. To go beserk is very easy. To injure someone is very easy. Remember the people we are talking about are students trying to learn a martial art. They don’t have the reactions of a professional that can stop 90% of hits? So if you can hit them 90% of the time then control is necessary or you won’t have any students left. Phil’s many video clips show controlled drilling and sparring. Most clubs do this. There is forms, sparring and fighting. Sparring has a control element and is not fighting no matter how intense. It is a training that isolates various factors to work on. From free sparring you can discover weaknesses than can then be drilled by isolating that particular thing. The intensity can be increased slowly to check if your response will really work.
Of course I do advocate protective gear!