Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 22:42:43 GMT
Katori Shinto-ryu is not sparring at all - refer to the videos I posted up on the topic. You think that a practitioner who is capable to be that "free" in his moves will have a problem in a free-sparring competition? I have my doubts that he will be an easy meal for someone. I think that is hard to grasp the difference between "instinctive"sparring and "educated" sparring. I don't know if these practicioners would have a problem in a free-sparring competition. They surely move well and demonstrate their competence with the weapon, all good and necessary things to do well in sparring (or real fighting). But they don't show their ability to perform against an opponent who doesn't do what the kata says he must do (correct me if I'm wrong, I am under the impression that what they are showing is a pre-planned sequence) and there is no intention to actually hit the partner. For the excercise, that is fine of course, the goal of what they do is something else. The only way to know how they would perform in sparring is to see them spar. That is the gist of what I'm saying: the only way (short of actually fighting for earnest) of testing your skill set is sparring. How the sparring is conducted (equipment, rules, etc) can all vary depending on the goal of the training but a few aspects must be included: 1) there is no pre-fixed sequence or anything, both fighters are essentially free to do what they wish (with regards to the setting and levels of equipment used) 2) the goal is to hit the opponent and not be hit yourself 3) both fighters must want to achieve 2) (as soon as fighter A free willingly "lets" fighter B perform a technique to fighter A's own disadvantage, it's not sparring anymore) I wholeheartedly century this.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Mar 21, 2017 23:02:35 GMT
Japanese think this way: "I teach you prefixed drills and you execute them until you get them in your system. Once there you will be capable to do whatever is needed in any circumstance." I am not saying it is happening overnight, and I am not saying that whatever style you train into will solve the equation of any fight you get involved. But they will give you something more than "trial and error" can give you, without knowing what you do.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 21, 2017 23:02:35 GMT
The only way to know how they would perform in sparring is to see them spar. That is the gist of what I'm saying: the only way (short of actually fighting for earnest) of testing your skill set is sparring. It isn't the only way of testing your skill set. Plenty of skills can be tested in isolation using, e.g., drills with a resisting partner, or sometimes even solo drills. Sparring offers an integrated test of a large subset of the total skill set. There are skill that are very difficult to test (or even learn) outside sparring (such as effectiveness of feints), but there are also skills that are difficult to test in sparring (some are just difficult to test, and others can be tested e.g. in more controlled drills without much difficulty). Sparring, done properly, can be a very effective teaching method. It's poor for learning technique, very good for integrating technique. IMO, people who simply state "sparring is ineffective for learning MA", "you can't learn to fight by sparring", etc. are wrong. If they restrict their statements to things like "I don't learn from sparring", fine - that might be true for them, but it can't be generalised to all people. OTOH, people who say that you can't learn to fight without sparring are also wrong. Restrict that to "you can't learn to fight purely from solo and compliant partner drills" and that's OK (though should probably be "very difficult to learn" rather than "can't learn", even if we leave out martial arts like archery). Drills with appropriate resistance from your partner are also a very good teaching method, and can make up for key things that might otherwise be missed without sparring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 23:10:10 GMT
Literally. It is not bravado or over exaggeration that I would have died had I not gotten myself out of the way of a real sword cut. This isn't puffing myself up to sound hard, its just how training is. I have two questions: - Was the attack with a sharp that you evaded made with the intention of it hitting you? - Was it a fixed drill where certain techniques and moves were clear to both partners before? Absolutely yes. If he did not have the intention of hitting me or the correct distance, there would be no point in doing anything I'd just yawn at him as he swung at the air and ask him when he might feel like getting serious. There's a progression so it isn't like you're thrown immediately to the wolves. Over time and repetition you learn how to play with variables, for example when he delivers the attack, what attack he delivers, he may try to get you to move too soon, or to move when not necessary so in addition to coordination there's training nerve and perception. Lots of other variations come into play - do I just avoid him? Do I intercept him and take his sword away or strike him with fist or tsuka? Do I draw my sword and essentially trade places with him? Lots of places it can go. Does he reach a little further in the hopes that he can get you, and what does that do to his center of gravity and my ability to throw him on his face? It's a wild little practice, you start with a simple thing and over time you end up learning how he's likely to react after you sock him in the gut or whatever. If you throw him on his back, what do his arms do while he's holding the sword? We get to explore a ton of variables that you might never encounter once in a decade of free sparring, because we get the opportunity to tear apart the individual components and create the scenarios to guarantee they happen, instead of never even getting a chance to experience it because random chance didn't generate it. Kiai's absolutely work. Every time a car honks its horn and someone suddenly hits their brakes or swerves their car or breaks their daydream at the green light is a successful kiai. That guy in the video is a goofball though.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Arias on Mar 21, 2017 23:52:33 GMT
Spar if you want to guys, I can't and won't stop you. I think it's an inferior method, and I don't make a secret of my take on it. "I want to see what you could really do in a fight, but don't hurt me" screams paradox to me. I have total faith in my system. Unlike the sensei worrying about losing, I don't have to keep students around to make rent or losing face. Somebody trouncing me just means I need to train more, it doesn't invalidate an art. Thats kinda the point. If you don't want to spar then bully for you. But saying you dont see a value is having an opinion you pass to a student and that creates the cult mind. Sparring is a prospective tool to work an intent or task. But in the Military officers used kendo sparring and even had regimental competition during the war. The practice of kendo existed long before the sport days. Martial arts have a long history of "dojo storming" protocol issuing challenges to dojos. Musashi him self stormed a few Shinkage Ryu dojos and took banners from the Sensei there. In Chanbara the sparring in the dojo is a free exchange of ideas. To spar a new weapon or style and see how it goes. And the Goshindo side is all about self protection. To me this is still chanbara. Hataya Sensei is a 7th Dan in Goshindo. Very much chanbara. Using a stiffer blade is not a huge change. Most of this could be done with bokken or iaito. But at full force you get broken bones and nobody can keep training. People mock the soft foam but it is that way for full speed and force and still be safe. Nobody will call it reality but its what Tanabe prefers over armor because being made for self defense first the normal person does not fight in armor. People can chose what they want. But you cant argue the logic of sparring for a self defense training mindset. If your only after art and dont want to fight its your choice to skip it. But it can shine light on aspects. It is often called the "truth and falsehood of swordmanship" (gekken) for a reason. But you kinda said it. If you did get bested you just train more. But the point we are making is that sparring now is better. You get "trounced" on the street you are facing serious injuries or death. So if you screw up there is no later.... thats the point thats lost in translation is the world outside the dojo that does not abide the same rules...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 0:18:04 GMT
I can say so, because I did it. I sparred as part of formal classes I took under a highly regarded teacher who had official fencing credentials. The man had a lot to offer, but I got so much more out of actual classwork and drilling than I ever saw from the sparring. My opinion is not based on what I think sparring might be, I went, I did it, I stuck it out something over a calendar year, and after approaching it with an open mind and giving it a fair chance, I'm fully prepared to write it off.
The time spent doing freeplay could have been put to much better use, and now it is.
Saying you do see a value in sparring also creates "the cult mind", whatever that might be. I don't have students, so I'm not indoctrinating anyone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 0:37:22 GMT
We're getting to a point where there are more straw men getting set up than at the East and West Coast Tai Kai's put together.
I'm sorry that sparring does not appeal to me. A lot of people do it and have a lot of fun, so they are probably right.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Arias on Mar 22, 2017 1:16:58 GMT
The only way to know how they would perform in sparring is to see them spar. That is the gist of what I'm saying: the only way (short of actually fighting for earnest) of testing your skill set is sparring. It isn't the only way of testing your skill set. Plenty of skills can be tested in isolation using, e.g., drills with a resisting partner, or sometimes even solo drills. Sparring offers an integrated test of a large subset of the total skill set. There are skill that are very difficult to test (or even learn) outside sparring (such as effectiveness of feints), but there are also skills that are difficult to test in sparring (some are just difficult to test, and others can be tested e.g. in more controlled drills without much difficulty). Sparring, done properly, can be a very effective teaching method. It's poor for learning technique, very good for integrating technique. IMO, people who simply state "sparring is ineffective for learning MA", "you can't learn to fight by sparring", etc. are wrong. If they restrict their statements to things like "I don't learn from sparring", fine - that might be true for them, but it can't be generalised to all people. OTOH, people who say that you can't learn to fight without sparring are also wrong. Restrict that to "you can't learn to fight purely from solo and compliant partner drills" and that's OK (though should probably be "very difficult to learn" rather than "can't learn", even if we leave out martial arts like archery). Drills with appropriate resistance from your partner are also a very good teaching method, and can make up for key things that might otherwise be missed without sparring. Here is a kumitachi from I believe shinkendo (80% sure). I have had shinkendo sensei as well as koryu sensei tell me that if the Kata and Kumitachi are right you dont need free sparring. And for their goal of proper techniques and cutting I say sure. But for use in a self defense situation the exercises and kata make assumptions that are not likely to occur. Having attended and taught workshops this is what I have seen even from marines and army rangers. I never recommend chanbara to a person by itself who wants self defense. But I do use it to work out moves learned in Kata and individual waza so students can find what works. But just like chanbara alone can lead to a lot of fast moves and jumping... the "traditional" hallmarks of training are slow and predetermined. But tanin- gake ( 2to1, 4to1 10to5 ex.) Is also not taught in most martial arts. So that is a major reason why I think as a self defense instructor first. It is a common method I use to make people get why we spar at all.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Arias on Mar 22, 2017 1:37:39 GMT
I can say so, because I did it. I sparred as part of formal classes I took under a highly regarded teacher who had official fencing credentials. The man had a lot to offer, but I got so much more out of actual classwork and drilling than I ever saw from the sparring. My opinion is not based on what I think sparring might be, I went, I did it, I stuck it out something over a calendar year, and after approaching it with an open mind and giving it a fair chance, I'm fully prepared to write it off. The time spent doing freeplay could have been put to much better use, and now it is. Saying you do see a value in sparring also creates "the cult mind", whatever that might be. I don't have students, so I'm not indoctrinating anyone. Who was this esteemed instructor? From what I can tell your a guy doing what you do as a hobby. And thats fine. If you dont want to see things in a practical self defense mindset cool. You wrote things off because the goal was not yours. But you need to make that clear. If your just preserving an art or system then to you drilling standard kata and waza is time better spent.... but for defense of your life you need to get out there against different people and situations. You will rarely hear a drill instructor call trigger time a waste of time. There is a difference between target shooting and CQB shooting. The intent and techniques are different but valid in their own context. The op video guy is not talking about dojo styles but real fighting. So its funny that Yourself, Jammer, and Derzis are talking so much about how silly the claims are when you dont train in sparring and dont intend to really use what you learn in reality. Your target shooters who dont like the defensive shooting training, concepts or style... yet are applying your concepts to training and scenarios that you dont train and that the styles you learn have not been used for in oh around 140 years minimum... Yeah the op video guy assumed a lot and is not train. But edge contact happens in the heat of the moment. Most dont train it that way. Same as people don't teach their kids to text and drive... but it happens every day.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Mar 22, 2017 1:41:50 GMT
Lindybeige isnt really a martial artist. He is more of a scholar than anything, and a former LARP guy, last i remember. He knows more about history than actual fighting techniques. I still love his videos tho
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 1:52:11 GMT
I did HEMA at the Higgins Armory in Worcester MA. Ken and Jeffrey are great guys and many of the students were really talented and driven people.
On the JSA front, my first introduction was a modern quack who dressed his approach in pseudo millitary tacticool linguistics so that does not impress me anymore. Been there, did that, literally got the t-shirt. Great way to milk the seminar scene though. You get a cop or a reservist to show up once and you get to put LEO / Military instructor on your website. What a racket.
If you want to call it hobby, knock yourself out. I don't run a commercial school, but since the bar for that is so incredibly low I fail to see how it factors in at all anyway.
I'm glad you think it's funny. I think the absolute lack of zanshin when a point is scored or a judge wags a flag is funny. I don't even trust the ground I walk on as much as the gentlemen in the videos you've shared seem to place in each other.
I hope you and your students enjoy your sessions.
Edited (again) to add:
"If you dont want to see things in a practical self defense mindset cool. You wrote things off because the goal was not yours."
You're making two assumptions. Your first assumption is that you think I don't see things in practical terms. Your second assumption is that traditional koryu is not practical. You are mistaken on both of these counts. We should get some water to soak these straw men in.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Arias on Mar 22, 2017 2:38:54 GMT
I did HEMA at the Higgins Armory in Worcester MA. Ken and Jeffrey are great guys and many of the students were really talented and driven people. On the JSA front, my first introduction was a modern quack who dressed his approach in pseudo millitary tacticool linguistics so that does not impress me anymore. Been there, did that, literally got the t-shirt. Great way to milk the seminar scene though. You get a cop or a reservist to show up once and you get to put LEO / Military instructor on your website. What a racket. If you want to call it hobby, knock yourself out. I don't run a commercial school, but since the bar for that is so incredibly low I fail to see how it factors in at all anyway. I'm glad you think it's funny. I think the absolute lack of zanshin when a point is scored or a judge wags a flag is funny. I don't even trust the ground I walk on as much as the gentlemen in the videos you've shared seem to place in each other. I hope you and your students enjoy your sessions. Edited (again) to add: "If you dont want to see things in a practical self defense mindset cool. You wrote things off because the goal was not yours." You're making two assumptions. Your first assumption is that you think I don't see things in practical terms. Your second assumption is that traditional koryu is not practical. You are mistaken on both of these counts. We should get some water to soak these straw men in. You mistake a lot of what I just said. You only want to speak sarcasm. Life is an assumption if you look at it. But I have noticed for a lot to say you dont take responsibility for much. Dont teach, dont represent any school in an official capacity, dont run a training group, dont compete , and dont show yourself at all. That is the funny pattern to this post. The 3 of you are all sticking to this high position and standard you claim to have.... yet you have no official position or standing. As far as I can tell the 3 of you are not even working hard to well represent the arts and schools you train in. Its attitudes like yours that send people to a McDojo. That is the irony... maybe if you were less abrasive you would have less to gripe about.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 22, 2017 8:55:00 GMT
IMO, people who simply state "sparring is ineffective for learning MA", "you can't learn to fight by sparring", etc. are wrong. If they restrict their statements to things like "I don't learn from sparring", fine - that might be true for them, but it can't be generalised to all people. OTOH, people who say that you can't learn to fight without sparring are also wrong. Restrict that to "you can't learn to fight purely from solo and compliant partner drills" and that's OK (though should probably be "very difficult to learn" rather than "can't learn", even if we leave out martial arts like archery). Drills with appropriate resistance from your partner are also a very good teaching method, and can make up for key things that might otherwise be missed without sparring. I have had shinkendo sensei as well as koryu sensei tell me that if the Kata and Kumitachi are right you dont need free sparring. A common enough claim. The trick is that magic word in there: "right". Similar claims are common in unarmed martial arts. "You just need to learn the forms, and then you'll be able to use the techniques in a fight." Sometimes, that's supported by the "too deadly to spar". When those claims are put to the test, the students are usually found lacking. They didn't manage that magic "right". Clearly, their claim was wrong - something beyond just learning the form is needed. As well as learning the techniques (which they will learn from the form), the students must also learn to actually hit things (e.g., via bag work), learn how opponents move, try to deceive them, how they defend, learn to deceive opponents, learn timing and distance. And learn to not freeze under pressure. Two-person kata and drills done right can provide that "right". Pressure, non-compliant partner, non-choreographed stuff - these can (and have been) done without sparring. An opposite claim is often made in unarmed MA: "You can't learn to fight without full-contact sparring." Having seen people learn to fight without full-contact sparring, I know that claim is wrong. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. More than "just forms" is needed, but full-contact sparring isn't needed. "Aliveness" is needed, and sparring is a useful and (if done right) efficient way to provide that. But not the only way to provide that. And for their goal of proper techniques and cutting I say sure. But for use in a self defense situation the exercises and kata make assumptions that are not likely to occur. If the exercises don't develop the right skills, they're not the right exercises. This is not the same as whether or not assumptions made in exercises/kata are likely to occur. If the student learns the right skills, the training methods work. Kata are a training tool, not a rehearsal for a fight.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Mar 22, 2017 9:22:52 GMT
@timo: yes, technically sparring is not the ONLY way if testing your skills. But it is, IMO, the way that tests most aspects of fighting in the most realistic setting. Certain aspects are wholly lacking (such as cutting into/through) which is why other excercises are needed as well (test cutting, etc). But overall, it is the closest approximation to real fighting that we have. I have two questions: - Was the attack with a sharp that you evaded made with the intention of it hitting you? - Was it a fixed drill where certain techniques and moves were clear to both partners before? Absolutely yes. If he did not have the intention of hitting me or the correct distance, there would be no point in doing anything I'd just yawn at him as he swung at the air and ask him when he might feel like getting serious. There's a progression so it isn't like you're thrown immediately to the wolves. Over time and repetition you learn how to play with variables, for example when he delivers the attack, what attack he delivers, he may try to get you to move too soon, or to move when not necessary so in addition to coordination there's training nerve and perception. Lots of other variations come into play - do I just avoid him? Do I intercept him and take his sword away or strike him with fist or tsuka? Do I draw my sword and essentially trade places with him? Lots of places it can go. Does he reach a little further in the hopes that he can get you, and what does that do to his center of gravity and my ability to throw him on his face? It's a wild little practice, you start with a simple thing and over time you end up learning how he's likely to react after you sock him in the gut or whatever. If you throw him on his back, what do his arms do while he's holding the sword? We get to explore a ton of variables that you might never encounter once in a decade of free sparring, because we get the opportunity to tear apart the individual components and create the scenarios to guarantee they happen, instead of never even getting a chance to experience it because random chance didn't generate it. Kiai's absolutely work. Every time a car honks its horn and someone suddenly hits their brakes or swerves their car or breaks their daydream at the green light is a successful kiai. That guy in the video is a goofball though. There is a difference between "not aiming for air" and "intending to hit". I can execute the technique with correct distance and timing so that it would hit if not for a slight modification at the end of the movement (stop before target, pull back slightly, etc). I HIGHLY doubt your training partner was actually trying to hit you with a sharp sword. If he was, you need someone who is not out to kill people. I believe he knew the set-up, was expecting you to do a certain thing (evade/parry/whatever) and wanted to give you the possibility to do those things (so follow the excercise) but his ultimate intention surely was not to hit you. You didn't really answer my second question but from what you write I take that it was a pre-determined exchange. That is in no way comparable to an actual fight. Indeed, repetition and all these fine aspects are what makes a training. But in all you do there is one big flaw: there is no reality check. You perform all techniques with a partner that adheres to whatever is expected of him. Furthermore, he has not the ultimate goal of actually hitting you (and not be hit yourself) because there is no environment that allows for it (protective equipment, safe training tools, etc). You can tell me all you want that he was trying to make it realistic but humans (generally) don't freely hit other humans if injury (and other repercussions) is likely to happen unless there are certain factors at play (fear for own life, etc). None of that is given in a training setting where both partners still have to live together and continue in society afterwards. If I never encounter a scenario in a decade of sparring, it isn't particularly likely that I will encounter it in a real fight (providing that the sparring is done well!). I would much rather be competent in the aspects I am likely to encounter when it goes down for real than knowing I have tried 100 different potential versions but can't do the likely ones as well as I might. I'm sure you know Bruce Lee's quote.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 22, 2017 11:53:54 GMT
@timo: yes, technically sparring is not the ONLY way if testing your skills. But it is, IMO, the way that tests most aspects of fighting in the most realistic setting. Certain aspects are wholly lacking (such as cutting into/through) which is why other excercises are needed as well (test cutting, etc). But overall, it is the closest approximation to real fighting that we have. Sure. I was only griping about the "only".
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Mar 22, 2017 13:49:06 GMT
Deleted. It's a waste of time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 16:13:39 GMT
@timo: yes, technically sparring is not the ONLY way if testing your skills. But it is, IMO, the way that tests most aspects of fighting in the most realistic setting. Certain aspects are wholly lacking (such as cutting into/through) which is why other excercises are needed as well (test cutting, etc). But overall, it is the closest approximation to real fighting that we have. Absolutely yes. If he did not have the intention of hitting me or the correct distance, there would be no point in doing anything I'd just yawn at him as he swung at the air and ask him when he might feel like getting serious. There's a progression so it isn't like you're thrown immediately to the wolves. Over time and repetition you learn how to play with variables, for example when he delivers the attack, what attack he delivers, he may try to get you to move too soon, or to move when not necessary so in addition to coordination there's training nerve and perception. Lots of other variations come into play - do I just avoid him? Do I intercept him and take his sword away or strike him with fist or tsuka? Do I draw my sword and essentially trade places with him? Lots of places it can go. Does he reach a little further in the hopes that he can get you, and what does that do to his center of gravity and my ability to throw him on his face? It's a wild little practice, you start with a simple thing and over time you end up learning how he's likely to react after you sock him in the gut or whatever. If you throw him on his back, what do his arms do while he's holding the sword? We get to explore a ton of variables that you might never encounter once in a decade of free sparring, because we get the opportunity to tear apart the individual components and create the scenarios to guarantee they happen, instead of never even getting a chance to experience it because random chance didn't generate it. Kiai's absolutely work. Every time a car honks its horn and someone suddenly hits their brakes or swerves their car or breaks their daydream at the green light is a successful kiai. That guy in the video is a goofball though. There is a difference between "not aiming for air" and "intending to hit". I can execute the technique with correct distance and timing so that it would hit if not for a slight modification at the end of the movement (stop before target, pull back slightly, etc). I HIGHLY doubt your training partner was actually trying to hit you with a sharp sword. If he was, you need someone who is not out to kill people. I believe he knew the set-up, was expecting you to do a certain thing (evade/parry/whatever) and wanted to give you the possibility to do those things (so follow the excercise) but his ultimate intention surely was not to hit you. You didn't really answer my second question but from what you write I take that it was a pre-determined exchange. That is in no way comparable to an actual fight. Indeed, repetition and all these fine aspects are what makes a training. But in all you do there is one big flaw: there is no reality check. You perform all techniques with a partner that adheres to whatever is expected of him. Furthermore, he has not the ultimate goal of actually hitting you (and not be hit yourself) because there is no environment that allows for it (protective equipment, safe training tools, etc). You can tell me all you want that he was trying to make it realistic but humans (generally) don't freely hit other humans if injury (and other repercussions) is likely to happen unless there are certain factors at play (fear for own life, etc). None of that is given in a training setting where both partners still have to live together and continue in society afterwards. If I never encounter a scenario in a decade of sparring, it isn't particularly likely that I will encounter it in a real fight (providing that the sparring is done well!). I would much rather be competent in the aspects I am likely to encounter when it goes down for real than knowing I have tried 100 different potential versions but can't do the likely ones as well as I might. I'm sure you know Bruce Lee's quote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 16:19:25 GMT
@timo: yes, technically sparring is not the ONLY way if testing your skills. But it is, IMO, the way that tests most aspects of fighting in the most realistic setting. Certain aspects are wholly lacking (such as cutting into/through) which is why other excercises are needed as well (test cutting, etc). But overall, it is the closest approximation to real fighting that we have. Absolutely yes. If he did not have the intention of hitting me or the correct distance, there would be no point in doing anything I'd just yawn at him as he swung at the air and ask him when he might feel like getting serious. There's a progression so it isn't like you're thrown immediately to the wolves. Over time and repetition you learn how to play with variables, for example when he delivers the attack, what attack he delivers, he may try to get you to move too soon, or to move when not necessary so in addition to coordination there's training nerve and perception. Lots of other variations come into play - do I just avoid him? Do I intercept him and take his sword away or strike him with fist or tsuka? Do I draw my sword and essentially trade places with him? Lots of places it can go. Does he reach a little further in the hopes that he can get you, and what does that do to his center of gravity and my ability to throw him on his face? It's a wild little practice, you start with a simple thing and over time you end up learning how he's likely to react after you sock him in the gut or whatever. If you throw him on his back, what do his arms do while he's holding the sword? We get to explore a ton of variables that you might never encounter once in a decade of free sparring, because we get the opportunity to tear apart the individual components and create the scenarios to guarantee they happen, instead of never even getting a chance to experience it because random chance didn't generate it. Kiai's absolutely work. Every time a car honks its horn and someone suddenly hits their brakes or swerves their car or breaks their daydream at the green light is a successful kiai. That guy in the video is a goofball though. There is a difference between "not aiming for air" and "intending to hit". I can execute the technique with correct distance and timing so that it would hit if not for a slight modification at the end of the movement (stop before target, pull back slightly, etc). I HIGHLY doubt your training partner was actually trying to hit you with a sharp sword. If he was, you need someone who is not out to kill people. I believe he knew the set-up, was expecting you to do a certain thing (evade/parry/whatever) and wanted to give you the possibility to do those things (so follow the excercise) but his ultimate intention surely was not to hit you. You didn't really answer my second question but from what you write I take that it was a pre-determined exchange. That is in no way comparable to an actual fight. Indeed, repetition and all these fine aspects are what makes a training. But in all you do there is one big flaw: there is no reality check. You perform all techniques with a partner that adheres to whatever is expected of him. Furthermore, he has not the ultimate goal of actually hitting you (and not be hit yourself) because there is no environment that allows for it (protective equipment, safe training tools, etc). You can tell me all you want that he was trying to make it realistic but humans (generally) don't freely hit other humans if injury (and other repercussions) is likely to happen unless there are certain factors at play (fear for own life, etc). None of that is given in a training setting where both partners still have to live together and continue in society afterwards. If I never encounter a scenario in a decade of sparring, it isn't particularly likely that I will encounter it in a real fight (providing that the sparring is done well!). I would much rather be competent in the aspects I am likely to encounter when it goes down for real than knowing I have tried 100 different potential versions but can't do the likely ones as well as I might. I'm sure you know Bruce Lee's quote. No, it is exactly as I described. Doubt if you want, in order to train correctly the context has to be correct, so without the real risk of death or serious injury then it would be a lie. We'd be robbing each other if we did not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 16:26:28 GMT
I did HEMA at the Higgins Armory in Worcester MA. Ken and Jeffrey are great guys and many of the students were really talented and driven people. On the JSA front, my first introduction was a modern quack who dressed his approach in pseudo millitary tacticool linguistics so that does not impress me anymore. Been there, did that, literally got the t-shirt. Great way to milk the seminar scene though. You get a cop or a reservist to show up once and you get to put LEO / Military instructor on your website. What a racket. If you want to call it hobby, knock yourself out. I don't run a commercial school, but since the bar for that is so incredibly low I fail to see how it factors in at all anyway. I'm glad you think it's funny. I think the absolute lack of zanshin when a point is scored or a judge wags a flag is funny. I don't even trust the ground I walk on as much as the gentlemen in the videos you've shared seem to place in each other. I hope you and your students enjoy your sessions. Edited (again) to add: "If you dont want to see things in a practical self defense mindset cool. You wrote things off because the goal was not yours." You're making two assumptions. Your first assumption is that you think I don't see things in practical terms. Your second assumption is that traditional koryu is not practical. You are mistaken on both of these counts. We should get some water to soak these straw men in. You mistake a lot of what I just said. You only want to speak sarcasm. Life is an assumption if you look at it. But I have noticed for a lot to say you dont take responsibility for much. Dont teach, dont represent any school in an official capacity, dont run a training group, dont compete , and dont show yourself at all. That is the funny pattern to this post. The 3 of you are all sticking to this high position and standard you claim to have.... yet you have no official position or standing. As far as I can tell the 3 of you are not even working hard to well represent the arts and schools you train in. Its attitudes like yours that send people to a McDojo. That is the irony... maybe if you were less abrasive you would have less to gripe about. Ricky, I don't care. If people want to join a mcdojo, they'll either waste their money, they'll quit, or they'll grow out of it and find a real place. I don't belong to a pyramid scheme so I don't care if I recruit new members. I don't have the requisite licensing to speak from a stance that would be twisted as speaking for the art so I don't and I won't and am not going to be manipulated into it. I do have material out there, but I don't shamelessly self promote myself, and for the most part I'm more concerned with training than making it look like I'm training.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Mar 22, 2017 16:46:20 GMT
I think something more than just forms against air is necessary if you want to understand how swords function. But there are a lot of variations in approach that include everything from boffer combat to sharps work. I suggested it would be nice to be able to spar because I've found it to be a good way to calm down toxic battles on the forums and to help test your own and others' techniques. Personally I felt strongly against the heavy gear approach to HEMA for years and someone challenged me to go do it, so I did. And I found some use to it though I still prefer my own group's approach. Plus it's more difficult to rage against someone when you've sparred with them on equal ground. You come to respect their efforts and so long as both sides are open to change you may both improve your own fighting and interpretations. When all sword arts are isolated into camps with rigidly defended frontiers, they start to develop dojo syndrome and spend too much time seeking to satisfy rigid criteria instead of keeping an open mind about sword work.
I respect your position and bow to your commitment. I've done sharps play but never with full intent. But I do wonder if you're being too rigid. Perhaps try some slow play with someone outside your tradition? Not a big deal, just see what happens. Heck I find new things to learn sparring with Force FX sabers with my six year old! He fights organically with NO rules. No preconceptions. And by god if he doesn't nail my shins sometimes. We can get so lost in complex forms sometimes that we forget sword fighting can be absurdly simply as well.
|
|