The Raging Debate Continues

[Szczepankiewicz]

A well written article concerning the debate between sport and self defense.


The author argues a strong case. However, having been a practicioner of both sport training and self defense training, I still stand strongly by my point that they are not, nor will they ever be the same thing.

In self defense training if you are using a technique that you cannot practice full speed full power, then don't plan on using it and stop wasting your time practicing said technique.


Spanky

[ryanhall]

I wonder why this is even a debate anymore. Everyone is "borrowing" the stuff that the top "reality" guys have been preaching for 20 years. That alone proves a difference. Is there a difference between swimming in the pool and the ocean? Is there a difference between fighting 1v1 w/out shoes+other clothing and a referee and fighting in low light against an unknown opponent in an unchosen arena? The answer is painfully obvious. Mentally stagnant individuals are their own bane.

[JIMI]

I cant believe that there are even people who would debate such a silly thing. I think that it is whatever the person involved makes it mean. How can it be any other way. People can go on and on about this subject but its whatever that person wants to make of it. Does that make any sense? I hope

[Kingston]

oops

[MrPoopy]

I agree that you should not practice techniques that can't be practiced. If you're gonna learn to punch people in the throat and poke their eyes out, then there needs to be a realistic and full speed method for practicing it.

[Szczepankiewicz]

Another Zen koan:

you should not practice techniques that can't be practiced




A throat strike is nothing more than a strike to the chest, only a little higher. Point is I practice all the same strikes, my target is not a key to my technique.

If you try to poke some guys eye out, you may win in the short term, but you can bet he'll be lookin' for payback.


Spanky

[Kingston]

well, he does make one good point "playing" with a training partner is a good way to learn some stuff.

but dont all people spar, and "play around" or try to one-up there partner.......

So basicaly the guy is saying that sparing with (in most cases) more restrictions, and for medals(though getting medals is not important) is better or equal to sparing with less restrictions, and perhaps more "painfull" techniques.......doesn't make sense to me.

He makes some good points, but they realy arent exclusive to "sport arts". If anything the majority of "sport arts" sparing training is far inferior to what is done at reality based schools.
(iv seen a video of were they didn't even touch each other, stoped right infront of there partners face...not sure if this was a seperate type of exercise, but i wasn't impresed)

But then again its not realy a "sport vs reality" type article.....

[Big Johnson]

What about the rich philosophy that has been diluted over the centuries to extinction?

The martial arts use to be a way of life, not just the art of hurting people. The teaching of the martial arts focused on improving the body, mind, and spirit.

Now, its self-proclaimed "students" talk about how to better poke someone's eyes out and such; its sacriligious.

[ryanhall]

Actually, martial arts were developed for the sole purpose of causing harm to another person to preclude their ability to do the same to you. The deep philosophy aspects only became a part of it later. You need to be responsible and hold yourself to a moral code of conduct, but don't forget the reason that hand to hand combat exists--it's not enlightenment.

[Big Johnson]

You are arguing something you know nothing about.

Buddhist monks first developed what would later be called Kung Fu. By definition, the difference between a fighting style and the martial arts IS the inclusion of spiritual and philosophical teachings in martial arts.

Buddhist monks created the first martial arts to help them stay fit and to protect their temples from rogues. Rogues were trained to fight without learning how to live in harmony with the world and their society. These men were, and still are, everything a martial artist is not.

A martial artist is someone who is infinitely more powerful because he is infinately more compassionate. He is strong because he chooses not to overpower. He is rich because he needs nothing.

Why do you even open your mouth? You only make yourself look ignorant and argumentative.

[ryanhall]

To believe that formalized martial arts were the first form of hand to hand combat is quite shortsighted. The fact that they created these systems of fighting to protect themselves proves my point in and of itself. They were created first for self protection, only to take on other significance later. Did you also fail to take note of my comment about a "moral code?" It seems so.

Why do you even open your mouth? You only make yourself look ignorant and argumentative.

You are both abrasive and a pontificating jerk. Why do you feel the need to lower this debate to the level of childish insults? Are you even out of high school?

You are arguing something you know nothing about.

I don't even have a response for this one. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose...

[Guest]

I never practice striking techniques by sparring (though I used to). A sparring session, or even a full contact bout, is not as real as you think.

For reality there wil be no referee to stop the fight, or call "break". No time limits. No ropes, no guarantee of a flat and slip free floor surface. No guarantee that weapons wont be involved. Etc etc etc. As nervous as you are, there can no recreation of the blind terror that you WILL suffer from in a life or death struggle.

Reality is so different from a mat or a ring, and some of the lessons learnt in the dojo can actually be detrimental to self defence development. What was that someone said about swimming in a pool or the sea? Well, you only swim in the sea when you have a real fight. In all sparring or competition you are still in the pool, although a wave machine may well be switched on.

I know that this sounds like heresy, and I would have said so too not too long ago. But I do train to strike someone in the throat, and the eyes, and the groin etc. I do train to strike pre emptively and/or go all out on the pad/bag until I drop. I cannot do this to a training partner, regardless of protective equipment.

Valuable concepts such as timing, distance and technical combinations are excellent for sport fighting. But in a real life or death desperate struggle to survive all those relatively fancy things will sail away...... So why train them (unless you want to train sport also)?

I train to explode into an opponent, using total aggression and forward drive to totally overwhelm him before I can make an escape. Timing? To me it means get as many hits in in the shortest time. Distance? To me, it means close the distance, always aim to be standing on the ground that he is on, driving him backwards - both physically and mentally.

I train in nasty strikes, and I train them again and again. I do not train to dance around, use strategies or combinations. No feints, no drawing, none of it.

I suppose we all have to find what works for us. I think that this is what will work for me.

[Kingston]

Originally posted by Bri Thai

I suppose we all have to find what works for us. I think that this is what will work for me.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Personaly i cant ever see myself giving the first strike, unless of course i was the one who wanted to fight, or somehow i new a fight was going to happen, and was willing to get into it. I also dont see myself viciously pounding on a wouldbe attacker. (the bigger they are the less i feel this way though). ok ok, i can think of a few situations (though i cant think of how i would be in them )

What can i say, im just not a violent person.
But that doesn't mean i can't work around it.
All i have to do is learn how to punch to "teach" instead of punch to cause pain/injuries.

[Bruce_Fan]

What do you guys advocate?

Hey Ryan, Spanky, Bri et al.....

I wholeheartedly agree that tournament fighting is completely different than Real fighting.
I am glad a lot of the guys on this forum realize that!

However, the question is how do you train for realistic fighting?
Full contact sparring is about as close to real fighting as we can get.
(I am assuming that most of you would not bite your sparring partner's ear off and vice versa.) lol

To me, it's about rules (Or lack there of).
As much as we spar or even compete in the ring, we must realize that there are different rules and factors involved in a real fighting environment.

I do believe that sparring helps immensely as far as psychological factors are concerned.
Keeping your wits about ya and not being overwhelmed by fear is at least half the battle in a real fight.

Feedback appreciated,
Bruce_Fan

[Kingston]

Re: What do you guys advocate?

Originally posted by Bruce_Fan
To me, it's about rules (Or lack there of).
As much as we spar or even compete in the ring, we must realize that there are different rules and factors involved in a real fighting environment.

lol thats true, there are different rules on the "street".
but i dont think that is the biggest difference.

I do believe that sparring helps immensely as far as psychological factors are concerned.
Keeping your wits about ya and not being overwhelmed by fear is at least half the battle in a real fight.
Bruce_Fan

ya thats true....i think you have to address the mental aspects as well. Sparring is not real fighting, even fullcontact, full speed sparring is not the same. Therefore you should not treat it the same. sparing should be treated as a game, trying fun things, different things, looking stupid sometimes....You have to give yourself room to make the mental changes required to face a "real" dangerous experience.