SPARRING (Better to give than receive)

[Sagacious Lu]

I actually promote and advocate a whole spectrum of force-on-force training - not just hitting equipment - but I carefully avoid going down the classic 'sparring' route for the reasons outlined in the aforementioned article.

Key facets to facilitate this are starting such active drills from less prepared positions, both physically and psychologically, and making the engagements very short in duration to ensure constant offensive action is maintained over and above all else. Often the participants have to cover ground to engage their adversary in order to promote hitting with extreme forward momentum as opposed to the circle and probe affair that sparring effects. To this end, such training is full-contact, has no restricted targets, and utilises 'supersafe' type headgear, karting neck braces and groin protection - nothing else.

In short I stress 'reverse engineering' what a fight requires, rather than 'forward engineering' what training provides. I train as I know I will have to fight, and not try to fight as I've trained, hoping it will suffice - this isn't the only approach obviously, and everybody's mileage certainly varies but this has proven to be the most effective and, more importantly, efficient approach for myself and those that I train.

To be quite clear, I'm not a fan of the general 'RBSD' approach - and personally I cannot even stand the term, as it is wholly redundant in my opinion. Too many follow a collection of 'dirty tricks' as being the solution, and seem to fantasise about how effective various seemingly nasty methods 'should' be in actual application, without ever trying them on a resisting person. I do not acknowledge this too-typical situation - it's like having a pile of spare parts and accessories piled high in your garage, but not even a basic vehicle to drive!

Hope this wasn't too verbose, or lacking in content.

Mick

Thanks for your response, this does clarify things for me consdierably. Welcome to the board.

[Uke]

There is any easy way to escape the loop.

Stop reading and replying to what Uke says. Since all that you do with Uke's longish posts is quote them and then add one line commentary. You never actually discuss why "whatever it is that you train" works better, techniques to back it up, or how to apply them.

Jubaji never discusses what he trains period, let alone whether it works or not. I'm okay with being ignored. Isn't there a button for it?

If I seem repetitive at all its because facts don't change like opinions do. If you rehash the exact same points in different debates are the answers supposed to change if the methods still work? It's almost as if they think that if they wait a while the answers about training and technique will be different. Am I supposed to create something new when the questions are all old?

Talk about something different for a change and see if I can discuss it. Mike Brewer did on the "hard and soft" topic. That wasn't discussed here before since I have been posting here. We all (Me, Boar, KOTF, Medic, IPON, Brewer) had a great discussion about it. Still, I didn't see most of you there. In all actuality, its only when we begin having a discussion about this exact topic that one can be assured that jubaji and company will show up!

I'm not complaining as its a forum where we can post where we wish. Still, one line comments do not a discussion make. Comments devoid of substance that relate to the subject matter like technique, concepts or method are replaced with what the author "doubts" without having ever tried and the likelyhood of success of a method based on the author's own opinions.

That's fine too, but let's not call it a debate or discussion. Its a person with a red pen pretending that they are grading an english paper instead of offering something relevant worth discussing. If you want the debate to change then I suggest bringing something more than just doubt to the table.

[Mick Coup]

Thanks for having me here, I'd like to post more but I actually have my own forum elsewhere and don't fancy spreading myself too thin - I don't have as much time as I'd like these days and I've neglecting it!

Happy to clarify anything in the meantime though.

Mick

[TTEscrima]

I actually promote and advocate a whole spectrum of force-on-force training - not just hitting equipment - but I carefully avoid going down the classic 'sparring' route for the reasons outlined in the aforementioned article.



Mick

Thank you for the clarification, and for taking time out of your busy schedule to post here!!

[jubaji]

If you want the debate to change then I suggest bringing something more than just doubt to the table.

That sort of sounds like, "you have to agree with me!"

[Uke]

That sort of sounds like, "you have to agree with me!"

No it doesn't. I'd be happy with agreeing to disagree as long as there was some substance to what someone had to say. The most we get by way of replies are teacher comments written in red ink commenting more on your mood at the moment than anything else.

Sometimes there's wit, while other times there's a tantrum. There is never a time however when you discuss anything with any measure of insight that would lead any of us to suspect that you're speaking from experience.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, most of us aren't interested in debating theory as much as we are the practical. Besides, the author of the article already made it clear for you. Why would I need you to agree with me at this point? Why would I want you to agree with anything now that its been settled?

I told you a long time ago that this isn't "Uke's dogma". The article written here is just a very well crafted and articulate rendition of what some of us have always known because this is what we do. Disagree with it. Love it. Hate it. It doesn't matter, but never say that you weren't afforded an opportunity to learn something here while you doubted around.

[jubaji]

No it doesn't. I'd be happy with agreeing to disagree as long as there was some substance to what someone had to say.

What a load of bull that is. These points have been hashed and reshashed a million times. You don't like my 'brief' posts? Others, like Mike or Sag Lu, have written long detailed versions of the same. Everytime you respond as if you've never heard of such ideas before.

There is never a time however when you discuss anything with any measure of insight that would lead any of us to suspect that you're speaking from experience.

Here again, despite your claims to the contrary, is another version of "I'm right, you're wrong, and no one has any real experience but me!"

In case you haven't figured it out yet, most of us aren't interested in debating theory as much as we are the practical.

Despite the fact that most of what you talk about is in fact theory? Most of what you claim in absolute terms, you've never done. Most of your training is in "this is what I would do in this situation," rather than, "this is what I did today during my training." Take a look at the topic of the thread, for crying out loud.

Besides, the author of the article already made it clear for you. Why would I need you to agree with me at this point? Why would I want you to agree with anything now that its been settled?

Oh, it's been settled? Because someone did a cut and paste job? Did they cut and paste the Bible? The fact that you are so eager to claim "its been settled" really says a lot about your whole way of thinking and is why we can't have productive discussions.

I told you a long time ago that this isn't "Uke's dogma". The article written here is just a very well crafted and articulate rendition of what some of us have always known because this is what we do. Disagree with it. Love it. Hate it. It doesn't matter, but never say that you weren't afforded an opportunity to learn something here while you doubted around.

In other words, "I'm right, you're wrong, STFU!" Yes, you've been saying that all along.

[Uke]

If you look at 99.9% of what you write, it has nothing to do with the subject. Once again this is a case where you are cherry picking little pieces and grading them according to your own standards.

Look through the thread and count how many times that you actually talk about the subject. Me counting how many times that you actually write about martial arts as opposed to your opinions about our writing styles and choice of words isn't me implying "I'm right and you're wrong". If that's what you think then that a personal problem you have there, jubaji.

Mike Brewer and I argued, but it was a joke because as I pointed out and have proven on several occasions ... he didn't actually disagree with any of my own stances besides him believing that BJJ/ground wrestling had SD value beyond escaping positions and reversing chokes and submissions. He agreed with me on everything else about SD and the proof was here on this forum before his posts mysteriously vanished. He agreed with me on boxing. He even laughed out loud when ninjas got suplexed.

No one is sure what Sag Lu ever disagreed because as soon as Mick Coup showed up and wrote a post that echoed everything that Boar, KOTF and I have been saying, Sag Lu instantly "got" clarification from basically the same information we've been writing all along.

So you see, it has nothing to do with any of you disagreeing. It has to do with you folks not liking the source.

Unless you are disagreeing with the original article from the first post and are willing to debate what it is you disagree with then it is settled. Everything aside from that is a critique of writing styles and petty points with the red pen.

And after 10,000 tries it's apparent that that pen isn't mighty at all.

[jubaji]

LOL! And you complain about my lack of content! LOL!

[Sagacious Lu]

No one is sure what Sag Lu ever disagreed because as soon as Mick Coup showed up and wrote a post that echoed everything that Boar, KOTF and I have been saying, Sag Lu instantly "got" clarification from basically the same information we've been writing all along.

Not at all. Mick described the way he has his students spar, which is with a lot of head and groin protection but no gloves. They're still using real force on each other and they're still using protective gear. It turns out that they do spar after all, they just use different methods. This sounds like a pretty good idea to me; I still think that sporting methods are better for developing fundamental skills but Mick's version of sparring seems to have something to offer. If you look over my posts I've asked about what training methods are used in RBSD a number of times. For some reason no one other than Mick cared to answer me- you (Uke) in particular used hundreds of words without addressing my questions.

[kingoftheforest]

Not at all. Mick described the way he has his students spar, which is with a lot of head and groin protection but no gloves. They're still using real force on each other and they're still using protective gear. It turns out that they do spar after all, they just use different methods. This sounds like a pretty good idea to me; I still think that sporting methods are better for developing fundamental skills but Mick's version of sparring seems to have something to offer. If you look over my posts I've asked about what training methods are used in RBSD a number of times. For some reason no one other than Mick cared to answer me- you (Uke) in particular used hundreds of words without addressing my questions.

Umm I believe this was a pretty fair explaination of what "we" do. Now if you disagreed with how we train that's fine, but you can't say it's not an explaination just because you didn't like the answer.

We sustain bruises bumps black eyes and swollen lips here as well. We just don't throw on gloves and a mouth piece before we train. This isn't meant to be condescending it's just how we do it.

The idea we use is that you train something slow till you"own it" when you know where you are at any given time using that form or technique or whatever you want to call it, then you can be in any position and transmit power for the strike. We also train range so that you know where your strikes stop and with what force.

We "spar" in a sense by attacking each other but with limited power. Most people who train here now can evade pretty well and know there range. You will get throw, knocked down or hit if you mess up. However I don't need to try to take you head off to understand how to use a move.

If you know your range, power, and where you are at then when it's real you can take out all the stops. So I guess instead of teaching each other we can beat on a person for 3 minutes non-stop and not hurt ourselves or possibly not incapacitate them. We do the opposite, we train that if you can attack and defend at a slower speed than full on, and still get desired results then when you go "all out" the damage is going to be even greater.

Just last week me and the wife were "playing" in class and I managed to slap here ear. It swelled up huge and I'd say i hit here about as hard as you'd smack your kids ass for misbehaving.


it also boils down to what you feel works best for you. If sparring is your thing great. Love it own do it. if a different way works better in your mind go for it.

If you don't believe in your training it won't work. I just don't like to have an opinion on something I haven't tried. Hell I ate a chicken foot once because I didn't know what it tasted like.

I'll never do that again. But now I know and can have an educated opinion on it.

I've sparred and while it is great fun and exhilarating, I felt it was lacking after training the way I do know. that's just an opinion statement. I'm not here to change minds, I'm just here to advocate what I train, just like everyone else here.

KOTF

[Sagacious Lu]

Umm I believe this was a pretty fair explaination of what "we" do. Now if you disagreed with how we train that's fine, but you can't say it's not an explaination just because you didn't like the answer.

No argument, you've been forthcoming, that complaint was meant for Uke. I definately like the idea that I bolded when I quoted Mick, and I think I've got a good idea what your talking about but those are two different things even though both are from RBSD schools. I don't believe Uke has told us much, if anything about the actual drills and exercises that he uses to train. I've heard so much about what he doesn't advocate I'd like hear what he does.

[kingoftheforest]

Cool.

[Uke]

No argument, you've been forthcoming, that complaint was meant for Uke. I definately like the idea that I bolded when I quoted Mick, and I think I've got a good idea what your talking about but those are two different things even though both are from RBSD schools. I don't believe Uke has told us much, if anything about the actual drills and exercises that he uses to train. I've heard so much about what he doesn't advocate I'd like hear what he does.

Hold on, what drills and exercises has anyone talked about beyond what I've written? This is just another case of you being purposely dense because you don't like the source. The first article in this thread stated everything that needed to be said, but of course you couldn't find what you wanted there, so the author basically paraphrased what he had already written and then and only then were you satisfied because he gave you the attention you desired.

And even when I discuss the exact drills, concepts and methods that we teach our students you can't see them because its not written out in the "step 1" format. The reason it appears that I haven't discussed the way we train in your eyes is because you're expecting to hear about us playing around instead of doing and practicing the same exact methods and concepts we use when I talk about in real violent situations.

Next, you have illustrated an important point. A boxer/kickboxer picks his shots, waits for openings and plays the "give and take" game in order to get opportunities to hit back. That's not how our training is done at all. We work off of an initial attack, then follow up with lighter strikes to occupy our opponents focus, while delivering power shots in the broken rhythm of striking.

One of the most important aspects of combat, sport or reality, is to control your opponent's focus. Even in boxing, you work behind the jab because the jab effectively maintains distance and disrupts the man's focus long enough for you to attempt something else. You double up on the jab so that he doesn't see that straight right following it.

Same principle with RBSD, but different delivery. We first "shock" our opponents with an initial strike. Attacking from a natural, non-threatening stance allows us to do this. We don't take stances so that you have no indication that you're about to get blasted. Once our man is shocked, we overwhelm him with strikes. Each strike sets up the next one and keeps his mind on what just happened instead of what's coming next ... just like working off the jab, but in close quarters. You mix in heavy strikes during the barrage, like a broken rhythm so it isn't predictable.

I can't speak for everyone, but the way we do it isn't like kempo speed slapping. Each strike is delivered with purpose and with some amount of attention grabbing power. It's less about how fast you can hit and more about timing and how you can control your opponent's focus, vision, balance and movements by overwhelming him. Block. Strike. Sweep. Stomp. Throughout that sequence there's a lot going on ... all types of concepts like touch and go, high-low striking, closest weapon to the closest target, etc. It's about as far from competition as you're going to get in terms of combat because every element that would distinguish a combat method from being competitive was used to create RBSD. There is no pugilistic approach. There is no trading. There are no stances.

That's why you don't see sparring in RBSD. It would defeat the purpose and instill one of those bad habits I've been talking about for what seems like forever: Trading and the willingness to do it. That same willingness is an open invitation for someone to quietly slip you the blade. Now if you treat every attack like its meant to open you up, how much more do your chances of surviving increase?

If you understood what I wrote above in that quote, you'd see that I just gave you quite a bit of insight in to what we do. Not only did I tell you what we train to do, but I gave you the concepts that shape that training. Did you see that? Did you notice the sequence or the striking method? What is it going to mean to you if I start writing about vee stepping? Or kuntao kicking drills? Or the fifteen dimension drills? I'm not about to waste my time explaining it to you so that you and your tag team partner can make it seem like I'm trying to sell you on what I do. I'm not here to persuade you to do what I do.

Even though we've all pretty much agreed that there are different tools for different jobs you two(Sag Lu & jubaji) continue to accuse this discussion about being "better than something". Its almost as if you're pissy because we have said that shovels dig holes more efficiently than hammers, but hammers are better for banging in nails. You don't have to like it, and you don't have to agree with it, but for the most part it is what it is.

[Uke]

LOL! And you complain about my lack of content! LOL!

It didn't lack content. It was just full of examples of how you guys don't really disagree with anything, but still want to be heard and a part of the discussion without having anything else but doubtful conjecture to offer.