Very rarely does anyone spar FULL contcxt, its usually hard contact , the full beingleft for competitions.
We (those that train for full contact fighting), must start off with medium contact, to get used to being hit and hitting, form there we go to hard contact, the difference between hard and full being the INTENT behind what we are doing - sparring being training and cooperative and competition being about winning.
Training hard enough to be “honest and true” reactions from your partner is crucial in developing fighting skills.
There are, as always, pros and cons with this, the pros being obvious, the cons being the possibility of injury and the development of “sport specific attributes” that can be counter-productive VS other systems or in the “real world”.
Sparring is something this is crucial, the most crucial element, in the development stages of any fighter.
The good thing is that you can spar any way you like, as long as you maintain awareness of the pros and cons.
[QUOTE=Wood Dragon;866133]
Question: Which approach is optimal for serious martial arts practitioners? Why?
[/quote]
My opinion is that the closer to simulating real fighting conditions a sparring exercise is the more effective it is at preparing a fighter.
Question III: Why is sparring of this type so scarce in “traditional” styles? Especially the systems reputed to produce (at one time) superb fighters?
In the twentieth century, since the end of the second world war especially, there has been a significant trend both in north america, europe and asia to keep military technology out of the hands of civilians. This has included the banning of martial arts weapons (canada, europe and china) and the dismantling, banning and/or regulation of fighting sports (north america, europe, asia). The fact is that a lot of those fighting legends lived prior to the twentieth century and they spent a lot of time… well… fighting.
When the challenge matches and the grudge fights and the duels all stopped a lot of martial artists found that their techniques were increasingly not being used. When they passed these techniques on to students and the students didn’t go out and pick fights with every person they could find and instead started competing in tournaments that put greater and greater emphasis on safety over realism a broken telephone effect started that stripped a lot of the martiality out of the martial arts.
Add to that a generous handfull of mcdojos staffed by underqualified instructors and you begin to see the problem with many modern schools. What Vale Tudo, and MMA in general has done, more than anything else, is return to a more traditional method of testing and improvement: more realistic fighting with fewer rules.
Signed: Simon McNeil - Syncretic Traditionalist
[QUOTE=Wood Dragon;866231]Not really, as the objective is to achieve dominance (even, in the case of Self-Defense, momentarily) against a resisting/attacking opponent.
FYI, Army SF don’t get a whole lot more H2H training than the average 11B Rifleman. MAC (Modern Army Combatives) is the Army-wide personal combat program. None of it would be unfamiliar to a serious martial arts practitioner. The only real difference is in the pedagogy.
SF does have it’s own H2H program (with MAC as the base), but it’s just the old USMC LINES system.[/QUOTE]
Have you trained with any SF?
We can talk about SF in another thread or off line
[QUOTE=rogue;866337]Have you trained with any SF?
We can talk about SF in another thread or off line[/QUOTE]
I’m an 11A. In as much as having worked with SF ODA’s in Afghanistan (sharing an AO, conducting coordinated operations together and being part of the same TF), yes. Have I been a part of an SFG? No.
I am, however, a Level III MAC Instructor, and the Schoolhouse runs everyone through the same programs, w/o differentiation as to MOS. The SF guys with me were getting MAC Instructor-certified, then would get the LINES cert at Group.
This is current, as of JAN2007. It may be completely different now, but nothing’s been said by the Schoolhouse.
OTOH, ARSOC units have much, much more in the way of discretionary funds, and can get trainers in for whatever, so an individual Battalion or Group could be learning Togakue-ryu, and we’d never know.
None of the above is OPSEC, BTW.
my friend stated
FYI, Army SF don’t get a whole lot more H2H training than the average 11B Rifleman. MAC (Modern Army Combatives) is the Army-wide personal combat program. None of it would be unfamiliar to a serious martial arts practitioner. The only real difference is in the pedagogy.
As an former Marine, I have seen the opposite!
At least, since the Gulf War, more units are being taught H2H and there seems to be more exposure/application/concept/principle due to the apparent closeness of urban combat dynamics! When I entered in the 1976, H2H was unit based depending on where you were located and your MOS. One unit might be taught judo (the local judo expert), another wrestling, another karate with somewhat of a grappling and escape solution. It was never standard. In boot camp, we received a 2 day introduction!
Now (within the last 5 years but officially 2 (I think) where a Marine Corps Bulletin was signed officially implememting the MCMAP programme as part of a all Corps impetus to officially train personnel to make this training an essential part of espirit de corps. There is even a MOS designation for the person who carries out the training!
Steering back on topic
So what does this have to do with the amount of sparring in martial arts training curricula?
[QUOTE=Wood Dragon;866387]I’m an 11A. In as much as having worked with SF ODA’s in Afghanistan (sharing an AO, conducting coordinated operations together and being part of the same TF), yes. Have I been a part of an SFG? No.
I am, however, a Level III MAC Instructor, and the Schoolhouse runs everyone through the same programs, w/o differentiation as to MOS. The SF guys with me were getting MAC Instructor-certified, then would get the LINES cert at Group.
This is current, as of JAN2007. It may be completely different now, but nothing’s been said by the Schoolhouse.[/QUOTE]
Excellent, your information is more up to date than mine as the guys I hang out with have now all retired. I thought LINE was dropped?
[QUOTE=Wood Dragon;866387]OTOH, ARSOC units have much, much more in the way of discretionary funds, and can get trainers in for whatever, so an individual Battalion or Group could be learning Togakue-ryu, and we’d never know.[/QUOTE]
There is that, and from what I’ve been told there is or at least was a lot of institutional knowledge that would get passed down from the old experienced guys. Not sure it’s still this way but each of the guys I get together with were expected to go and master a martial art on their own. Of course that method does have it’s down sides but supposedly it did keep things unconventional.
I’ve seen a few variations of some common techniques that
[QUOTE=Wood Dragon;866387]None of the above is OPSEC, BTW.[/QUOTE]
Not to worry, I’ve learned to have a very short memory.
BTW, What’s the main differences between levels I, II, III & IV?
[QUOTE=Wood Dragon;866133]Having started out in a JKA (Shotokan) club, and run the gamut through Judo (Kodokan) to Kyokushin and Daido Juku…I’ve pretty much seen it all, with regard to sparring/randori.
JKA: jiyu kumite. Any and all techniques, but with surface contact only. No penetration of any kind. Strikes are pulled immediately upon contact with the opponent.
Judo: Randori. Full contact. Throw them if you can. No striking at all.
Kyokushin: No strikes below the knee or to the major joints. No groin shots. No hand techniques to the face or skull. Throws are occasionally allowed (a association-based variation). Full contact, Knockdown Rules. No pads.
Daido Juku: No ground and pound (simulated only). Wear full helmet. Any and all striking or throwing techniques allowed, including to the cranium and face (which is fairly well protected by the helmet). No intentional joint attacks or groin shots. Full contact.
Which leads us to:
Question: Which approach is optimal for serious martial arts practitioners? Why?
Question II: Do systems which practice no full contact (in the manner of Judo or Kyokushin/Daido Juku) sparring set up their practitioners to fail (as their training is unlike the actual combative environment)?
Question III: Why is sparring of this type so scarce in “traditional” styles? Especially the systems reputed to produce (at one time) superb fighters?
Note: this is not a “traditional vs. MMA” thread. I’m more interested in the reasons behind the current state of affairs.[/QUOTE]
the last three are great. the first has its uses, but IMO is inferior to the latter in terms of actually learning to fight.
a system that does no sparring is definitely setting a person up to fail in a time where other schools and styles do spar. application and experience are key. can you imagine piloting a plane on your own if all you have ever done are flight sims? How about being on a battlefield and your only prior training was through videos and lectures? In theory, you would know what to do, but realistically, you would have problems applying it.
we have slim to no knowledge of what some of these fighters were actually like. If you have seven guys who train, but NONE of them spar, someone is bound to be better than the others. If he fights all seven and wins, he is now an undefeated fighter…
[QUOTE=mawali;866392]
Now (within the last 5 years but officially 2 (I think) where a Marine Corps Bulletin was signed officially implememting the MCMAP programme as part of a all Corps impetus to officially train personnel to make this training an essential part of espirit de corps. There is even a MOS designation for the person who carries out the training![/QUOTE]
Errr. None of that contradicts my post…
I said that Army combatives training is fairly stable across the Combat Arms, to include SF, and that SF uses the same system as the rest of the Army (MAC), with an arguable boost from LINES (a system that has it’s own major flaws, as the USMC found).
OTOH, due to MAC (and the competitive elements), combatives has finally carved out a niche on the unit training plans. This was not the case with the old 21-150 Combatives “system”, which no one trained or sustained due to it’s lack of any real pedagogy.
Which brings us back to the difference between MAC (and, indeed MCMAP) and civilian systems. Primarily it is one of pedagogy (teaching method). The demographic is different, so adjustments are made to take that into account. So is intensity (we only have x# of training hours at BCT/OSUT/BOLCII/III, at PLDC and BNCOC, and on the unit training plans, so the maximum amount of utility is squeezed out of the time invested). Lastly, training context is different, as few civilian martial arts practitioners come off a a 10km speed hike and are told to put on the gloves and fight some random Soldier from another squad.
The MCMAP and MAC are fairly comparable, though MAC started out with lessons learned from watching the USMC insitute their program, so it’s a bit better tuned. The use of the MCMAP-style belt system is currently being argued back and forth.
A good video for MAC, with the developer himself: https://www.benning.army.mil/videos/video16/
[QUOTE=mawali;866392]my friend stated
As an former Marine, I have seen the opposite!
At least, since the Gulf War, more units are being taught H2H and there seems to be more exposure/application/concept/principle due to the apparent closeness of urban combat dynamics! When I entered in the 1976, H2H was unit based depending on where you were located and your MOS. One unit might be taught judo (the local judo expert), another wrestling, another karate with somewhat of a grappling and escape solution. It was never standard. In boot camp, we received a 2 day introduction!
Now (within the last 5 years but officially 2 (I think) where a Marine Corps Bulletin was signed officially implememting the MCMAP programme as part of a all Corps impetus to officially train personnel to make this training an essential part of espirit de corps. There is even a MOS designation for the person who carries out the training![/QUOTE]
a while back, I compared notes with some buddies of mine who were involved with MACMAP - it was basically just basic striking (pretty much unversal), joint locking and basic judo and bjj. They also told me that (at the time, anyway) it was only required that marines go through the first two belt levels (I think it was tan and green, or something). Anything after that was optional.
[QUOTE=rogue;866469]
BTW, What’s the main differences between levels I, II, III & IV?[/QUOTE]
There are four different courses taught at the Combatives Center:
Combatives Train the Trainer – Skill level 1: a 40-hour, one week course. It is tailored for developing the instructor base necessary to get basic combatives to every soldier. Students learn to teach the techniques of basic combatives. The Army’s goal is to have one skill level 1 trainer per platoon.
Combatives Train the Trainer – Skill level 2: an 80-hour, two-week course that builds on the skills introduced in the basic course. It is tailored to teach the more advanced techniques which illuminate why the basic techniques are performed as they are as well as the teaching philosophy/methodology of the program. The Army’s goal is to have one skill level 2 trainer per company.
Combatives Train the Trainer – Skill level 3: a 160-hour, four-week course that builds on the skills taught in the previous two courses. It is designed to take the skills that have been until now been stand alone, and integrate them into unit-level training. The Army’s goal is to have one skill level 3 trainer per battalion.
Combatives Train the Trainer – Skill level 4: a 160-hour, four week course designed to provide master trainers. The Army’s goal is to have one skill level 4 trainer per brigade.
Trainers at skill level 3 are or higher are certified to teach all courses lower than their certification level. Skill level 1 and 2 courses are now usually taught and participants certified at the unit level. Skill level 3 and 4 courses are usually held at Ft. Benning, GA. A Soldier who has a level 3 certification can certify other Soldiers to be skill level 1. Soldiers who are skill level 4 can certify other Soldiers to be skill level 1 or 2.
This does not include unit-level training, which is of course done by the Instructors at the Platoon and Company level, inspected and overseen by the Battalion and Brigade-level personnel.
Alright, I’ve derailed my own thread long enough. MAC/MCMAP discussion can be directed to a new thread that can be started in the Street/Reality forum.
Back to the sparring discussion…
Has the topic of sparring in TMA been covered or do people have such a view of TMA that it just does not matter?
[QUOTE=rogue;866742]Has the topic of sparring in TMA been covered or do people have such a view of TMA that it just does not matter?[/QUOTE]
Sparring has always been a part of TMA, always.
Free sparring or full contact sparring is rather “new”, simply because of the inherent dangers that people in the past were not able to deal with.
Not the case now where, protective equipment being common place, we can go ful contact on a regular basis and test our skills VS skill practioners without having to “kill” anyone.
See I think the main fuel in the TMA / MMA debate (aside from the usual ‘my sensei can beat up your sifu’ nonsense) is the mistaken notion that full contact sparring and resistance drilling are new.
The fact that these techniques were abandoned by many martial arts in the second half of the twentieth century, for reasons detailed previously by Ross and I, does not mean they were never previously applied.
[QUOTE=SimonM;866755]See I think the main fuel in the TMA / MMA debate (aside from the usual ‘my sensei can beat up your sifu’ nonsense) is the mistaken notion that full contact sparring and resistance drilling are new.
The fact that these techniques were abandoned by many martial arts in the second half of the twentieth century, for reasons detailed previously by Ross and I, does not mean they were never previously applied.[/QUOTE]
Actually, full contact sparring is “new” in the sense that, how we do it NOW, with gear and such, is new.
In the old days, sparring had to be controlled in some form or another.
Now, perhaps because of challenge matches and the reality of the world at tat time, people didn’t need full contact sparring as much since they coudl test their skills in other ways.
I beg to differ. Combative sport predates protective combative sporting equipment.
EG: Lei Tai challenge matches.
Bare-Knuckle Boxing.
German Student Dueling.
These last two, especially, were sport and predated the equipment used to make the sport safe.
[QUOTE=SimonM;866772]I beg to differ. Combative sport predates protective combative sporting equipment.
EG: Lei Tai challenge matches.
Bare-Knuckle Boxing.
German Student Dueling.
These last two, especially, were sport and predated the equipment used to make the sport safe.[/QUOTE]
SPARRING Simon, SPARRING is what we are talking about.
posted this before, but since it came up here
Traditional Martial Arts (TMA)
Vs.
Mixed Martial Arts (MMA)
Do you have to take sides?
In recent years, there has been growing tension between what people call Traditional Martial Arts (TMA) and the new Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). The new MMA movement has its share of aggressive advocates, often aggressively promoting what they do in ways that offends TMA practitioners. There is also a lot of truth in the claim that some TMA people are just too resistant to change. The new MMA movement is foreign to them and some feel threatened, increasingly so as MMA goes “mainstream.”
As a person with an extensive TMA background who now runs a Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) program as his school’s main curriculum I really want you to understand that in reality these are artificial distinctions. It isn’t about making a choice. There are no sides to take. If you are a martial artist, you should be thrilled to see the fighting arts finally getting the attention they deserve. You should also take this opportunity to re-invigorate your practice and your school.
If you haven’t already done so, sit down and watch a Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) event. Straight punches, hook punches, front kicks, round kicks, side kicks, foot sweeps, throws, takedowns, joint locks and chokes. These are techniques we’ve all practiced, which we have in our self defense programs, which we have in our forms, sets, Hyungs or Kata. Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) didn’t invent the techniques, but they do practice them differently. The difference between Traditional Martial Arts (TMA) and Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is not “what” they train; it is “how” they train.
Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is often dismissed as nothing more than a “sport”. Self appointed defenders of Traditional Martial Arts (TMA) insist that since “sports” have rules, have restrictions, have protective equipment, judges, referees and officials they are not really “martial arts”. By this they mean that so called “self defense” is about fighting in the street, where there are no rules. This is, in my opinion, a rather limited and uninformed view on the subject.
The vast majority of my students, approximately 90%, will NEVER engage in any sort of sport or competition. That isn’t what my school is about, but my school’s program is certainly a Mixed Martial Art (MMA) program! My school’s entire curriculum, like all MMA programs, is built upon the importance of functional training. Today there are a lot of ways to describe this concept, but I actually prefer the term Dr. Jigoro Kano, the founder of Judo, coined. Dr. Kano was the grandfather of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) and without him we would not have Judo, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Sambo or San Da. The term Dr. Kano used was “randori”.
Randori is different from sport and/or competition (which Dr. Kano called “shiai”). Everyone who does Judo practices randori while many never engage in competition. Randori means practicing the techniques in a realistic manner with resistance. It is commonly thought of as “sparring” but the concept is actually much broader. Only through such training can a student develop functional skills and learn to confront the stress and adrenaline a real fight will present them with.
Those who argue that a sport or competition is more limited than a life-or-death conflict on the street are missing the point. It is IMPOSSIBLE to recreate those situations, so how can we best prepare our students for a situation they have never faced before? Regardless of what you want to call it (randori, “live” training, sparring, sport or competition) the process is what is important. It is not about winning or losing. They are simply relatively safe methods of engaging in situations which, while certainly not identical to an assault, approach these conditions as much as reasonably possible. The process is what is important.
Consider what you would need to survive a life-or-death conflict? First, you would need the tools, offensive and defensive, to get the job done. Second, you must be proficient enough in the techniques to use them upon an opponent who is knowledgeable, resisting them and also attempting to launch their own attack. This ability requires not only perfecting the technique but developing your sense of space and range, the ability to see openings, reaction time and personal strategy. Include into this equation the possibility that the opponent may be using techniques and strategies different than your own.
Finally, do you have both the physical and mental condition to engage in a struggle such as this? Do you have the strength, endurance, flexibility? Do you have the determination? Will you fall apart under the stress and adrenaline rush, freeze and forget everything you have learned? It has certainly happened in the past to many practitioners. Remember, if you have not been hit or thrown full power (slamming into the ground) you don’t know how you will react to conditions such as these. This is a reality very few students studying Traditional Martial Arts (TMA) are forced to deal with in current programs.
Despite criticisms of the limitation of combat sports, they do in fact provide experiences that are hard to replace with more traditional methods of training like forms or pre-arranged attack and defense. A boxer has been punched so many times that he no longer freezes when a blow connects. A wrestler or Judo fighter has been thrown many times and is accustomed to it. These three individuals are also used to exchange, working with an opponent who is both defending and attacking. They are also used to performing under high stress conditions and for extended periods of time. They benefit from experience gained by competition, i.e. sporting adaptations of what were once strictly combat/self-defense methods. Thus, combat sports allow the student to develop the “attributes” of a warrior, including the appropriate mental attitude.
In conclusion, it is a mistake to think that Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) programs are based upon sport or competition. Sport and/or competition are for some a natural extension of randori (live practice) but it is not the central concept of the program. The central concept of a Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) program is randori (live practice); heavy bag, focus mitt, Thai pad and partner drills that are realistic and challenge the student with progressively increasingly levels of resistance.
For these reasons, I do not see any contradiction between being an instructor of a Traditional Martial Art (TMA) and yet still incorporating the Mixed Martial Art (MMA) approach to training. In fact, if you are an instructor who really cares about his students then you should be excited to discover new ways to help them be the very best martial artists they can be. This book will serve as your guide in this process.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;866790]SPARRING Simon, SPARRING is what we are talking about.[/QUOTE]
I’d assert that the german stuedent duelists saw what they did as a form of sparring… albeit one that left permanent scars.