For all "martial artists" who don't spar (Tai chi, Choi Kwang Do, Aikido etc.)

Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by BigBoss, Jun 1, 2005.

  1. medi

    medi Sadly Passed Away - RIP


    I think that's a totally idealized view of fighting, which you'd become aware of if you sparred more often.
     
  2. Matt_Bernius

    Matt_Bernius a student and a teacher

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong or the kickers you faced were not up to the snuff of the people that I work out with, but I have never found that traversing kicking range has either been:

    a. "easy"

    or

    b."something that you don't need a resisting partner to practice"

    and it's clear that you will probably not change your view (and I'm not prepared to shift on mine) so I'll end this part of the debate (though I expect others will pick it up and beat it into the ground).

    A streetfight where people start out touching. For someone who has been so adiment that sparring, it seems strange to compare such a relatively structured form of fighting to an unstructured streetfight.

    Again, I'll have to disagree. My fundiment ideology is that sparring is about getting better at fighting against all types of opponents. All I see Chi Sau doing is getting you good at fighting against your own system. There's an important differentiation there (which, quite frankly, most martial art schools seem to miss).

    - Matt
     
  3. I like that video posted on the first post. Thanks.
     
  4. Getalifebud

    Getalifebud Valued Member

    I thought the video was quite interesting...

    "99% of martial artists" was way off, and a stupid assumption pretty much. Also the chess idea was broken as described earlier.

    Anyway I wish my dojo would have much more sparring, sometimes we dont spar in lesson, and when we do it isn't much.
     
  5. tekkengod

    tekkengod the MAP MP

    yes, i have too. and i can tell you first hand. closing range is MUCH easier than most MT or TKD guys will admit to. but then again, you have to ask yourself do your really want to close range with an MT guy?

    its not as complicated as people make it sound, and it is fairly common to get caught once or twice on the way in.

    The kicker has 2, maybe 3 attacks at the most before range is closed and mid range, clinch or takedown is acheived.
     
  6. Bil Gee

    Bil Gee Thug

    Its not just my view of fighting but the whole basis for the system that I'm training in. I've found it a principal that holds true. Most people in the class I attend have studied another martial art for two or more years prior to taking up wing chun none have them have expressed this doubt or demonstrated techniques that alllow them to choose a range to fight at. It is as easy to close the gap to bridging distance as it is to close the gap to a clinch. The potential to do this has been proven.
     
  7. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    May I ask what calling something sparring or not has to do with Aliveness? Aliveness appears to be more about HOW you do things than WHAT you do.

    No matter what you call it, if you are training with Energy (the energy like a real attack would have and resistance), Timing (like what would be used in a real situation), and Movement (footwork and having a moving target) then that is training with Aliveness.

    Whether that training is hitting focus pads, starting at close range or long range, kicking only, punching only, grappling only, all ranges, or if it is called sparring or not, that does not matter. Am I not correct? :confused:

    -------

    Aliveness is not the end all, it is only one concept (principle) among many. Diversity is another one. That is to train and gain experience against those that don't fight or think the same as you do. Much of this thread has turned into a question of diversity and not aliveness.

    If a TKD champion is said to be a great kicker, that does not mean they will be able to win against a BJJ champion and vica versa. However, it can greatly tip the odds in the favor of one or the other on how they train outside their base systems. If a TKD champion has spent many years also sparring against BJJ champions (I don't mean just training in BJJ, what I mean is experience with sparring TKD techniques against BJJ'ers). This is a factor of DIVERSITY and not aliveness.

    -------

    Aliveness is not the end all of making things real. Although realism is addressed in aliveness training, one can still have more or less realism in training. You can have a completely resisting opponent in point sparring that is always moving and making it very tough to close the distance without them getting in the first strike, and this can follow all the same definitions of aliveness training. On the other hand, wear street clothes and have the opponent walk up and ask the time of day, and a then another opponent sneak up behind you and put a knife into your back and have them both aggressively attack you, stabbing you many times from close in range with short cuts and stabs. One type of training has more realism than the other.

    Some of this thread is talking about REALISM and not the idea of aliveness in training.

    -------

    Stay on topic. :mad:
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2005
  8. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    Is your term "Aliveness" meaning "Realism"?
     
  9. Ikken Hisatsu

    Ikken Hisatsu New Member

    aliveness doesnt mean realism. an example of aliveness-

    for practicing your jab, both you and the padholder are moving around. the padholder will flash up the pad randomly for you to hit, presenting a target. he will use his other pad to check your defense now and then. this is "live" training.
     
  10. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    No, Aliveness is defined in this interview: http://www.straightblastgym.com/interview01.htm with Matt Thornton, conducted September 8th 1999 by Derrick Cox

    The excerpt is provided below:

    Aliveness is the first of five principles from Matt Thornton's Straight Blast Gym. The three key elements of Aliveness are movement, timing, and energy (resistance). Notice that no where does it say that you have to spar to be training with aliveness. You can train with aliveness and NOT spar.

    Of course sparring is most of the time is done with aliveness, nevertheless, the point is that sparring and aliveness training are not the same thing. Aliveness is a principle (concept), sparring is a training method... one is a concept the other is a method. See what I mean?

    From what I can tell, the Straight Blast Gym trains with five primary principles, the first being Aliveness, the second being Adaptability, etc. Principles apply to HOW you train methods; methods are WHAT you train.

    Now Aliveness address realism by stating that movement, timing, and energy should be similar to how they would be in a real fight. Clearly to me, but not exactly spelled out so I can't speak for anyone but myself, the concept of realism in training is another principle. So Realism is a principle, but not one of the five principles listed. That was my complaint was that Realism should be another principle. I also believe that Diversity should be another principle. I have a feeling though, that Realism and Diversity would be "down graded" to key elements if Mr. Thornton were to prioritize them. I believe they are more than key elements but that is my opinion, either works for me.
     
  11. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    But is this "aliveness", the same as sparring?
     
  12. Ikken Hisatsu

    Ikken Hisatsu New Member

  13. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    No, aliveness is a concept (principle) that shows how to train. Sparring is a training method that can employ aliveness in it. Sparring can also be dead (not alive) if you are missing any of the key elements that make up aliveness.
     
  14. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    So, in relation to this thread about people who do not spar, does aliveness fit that category?
     
  15. Ikken Hisatsu

    Ikken Hisatsu New Member

    yes. because aliveness is what differentiates crap sparring from good sparring.
     
  16. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    Sorry-this dosent make sense.
    When someone spars with a partner, this is aliveness, based upon the wording.

    However, if one is to spar with realism, this isnt aliveness?

    And how can one differentiate crap sparring from good sparring?
     
  17. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    Sparring is not what the thread should be about. IMO, BigBoss started the thread with a subject line and post referring to sparring being necessary, and using Matt Thorton's video about Aliveness as evidence. But almost immediately he was corrected in his thinking.

    People for thirty some pages of posts in my observation have had trouble understanding that sparring is a method that employs Aliveness, but sparring is NOT the only way to train with Aliveness. So we have all these posts talking about sparring and defining sparring and etc., etc. Sparring is a method, and a method can be done in many different ways. Light no contact sparring, limited techniques, heavy contact limited target areas, full out NHB, half speed sparring, etc.

    It is possible to spar without Aliveness, a sort of dead sparring. Sparring, for instance, done without moving the feet would be considered "dead" and not "alive" because it is missing the movement/footwork key element.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2005
  18. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    Wow.
    Thirty some odd pages of subjectivity and semantics. :eek:
     
  19. Ikken Hisatsu

    Ikken Hisatsu New Member

    you are being pedantic. ill try and break it down-

    aliveness in a sparring situation does equate to realism (to an extent). you asked if realism= aliveness. I said no because it doesnt, but it CAN be. muay thai sparring isnt exactly "realistic" because there are rules, same goes with basically any form of sparring. the "aliveness" comes from the contact. no contact is dead training.
     
  20. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    Sparring is usually with the goal of learning. For learning purposes, sparring can take on many different shapes and forms. Sparring is NOT always alive.

    Sparring with realism, that would be also alive. I can't think of an example of how you can spar with realism and not be sparring with aliveness also. Although you can spar without a great amount of realism and still be alive, you only need realism in movement, energy, and timing to be alive.

    The only differentiating between crap and good sparring is in what you learn from it. What value is it to you. Other than that, who really knows.
     

Share This Page