View Single Post
Old 10-10-2007, 04:03 PM   #10 (permalink)
darrianation
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,061
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
darrianation is just really nicedarrianation is just really nicedarrianation is just really nicedarrianation is just really nice
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Wright View Post

But to answer your question (sorry Ghost) I do believe that full contact training is certainly an advantage. Physically, you aren't pretending to fight - you are fighting. Boxing is a great example, your key goal is to knock the other guy out, that’s what you train for. It translates well to the street where hands tend to be king, and distance and intent are crucial before the fight hits the ground. Mentally, full contact sparring of whatever nature can accustom the student to fear, adrenaline, confrontation, aggression etc. I have personally found it to be an advantage, however it has to be taught in a progression.
Michael, if you would care to comment, there seams to be two schools of thought one being sparring should be used conservatively because it can develop tag-like tendencies in the fighter i.e. give and take or symetrical fighting.

Whereas a purely combative system is an all or nothing event, where in the ideal situation one combatant is doing all the fighting and the other is standing there getting hit or trying to cover, asymetrical. I think that is why many in the combatives community prefer to work on Bobs or against opponents wearing bullet man suits downplaying dojo/ring types of sparring.

Personally I think I am somewhere in the middle of the two preferring limited sparring drills that develop a specific skill and not just a free-for-all.
__________________
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. -G. Gordon Liddy

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. – George Bernard Shaw

NOBAMA!
darrianation is offline   Reply With Quote