# sparring



## samuelpont

I did ninpo ninjitsu for three years and left somewhat dis illusioned with the art.I think the art is beautiful and has the capacity to be great but for one thing, sparring. We never tested our grappling skills in randori such as in judo, or our striking skills in free sparring. I understand that some of the techniques are to dangerous to be performed but a good solid randori and ground session would be envaluable tool for teaching students about real combat and how exhausting it can be. It would also improve students fitness and their capacity to deal with combat. 

I`m sure when ninjitsu was practised in the past it used to be on a sparring basis and has been watered down for western consumption, it is a great shame as i love the culture that goes with ninjitsu something that in my training (vale tudo) is not present.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Unlike ninjutsu, Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is tested daily around the world.

That the sparring part has been downplayed a bit is mainly because of the fact that it was a breeding ground for bad habits. This art is far from watered down.

And as for exhaustion - fights may last a while, combat scenarios and self defense situations are usually over rather quickly.


----------



## Shizen Shigoku

... it is the song that never ends ...

... it goes on and on my friends ...

...


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Yep, still the same old story, sparring for love and glory...:wink2:And nobody seems to be getting any wiser, no?:wavey:


----------



## samuelpont

just wondering how you mean it its tested daily around the world? do you mean you do or you don`t spar?
I`ve been in countless real situations and it is true that if your fighting one person the fight is generally (hopefully!) over in a minute and sometimes much less if your lucky. However that minute of fighting IS exhausting, and not only that if fighting more than one opponent which is fairly comonplace the likely hood of anyone dispatching say three or even two opponents in undewr a minute is most unlikely, some fights that I have been in have lasted well up to the five minute mark at which point I have been exhausted, but my training on the mat has seen me through.
Also how do you mean `bad habits` do judoka learn `bad habits` from sparring I would hazard a guess as no.
 And as for glory, its an empty purse, eat it and go hungry seek it and go mad.


----------



## Bujin

> Also how do you mean `bad habits` do judoka learn `bad habits` from sparring I would hazard a guess as no.


 Many of us traditionalists believe the answer to that question is: yes, they do learn bad habits. 
Ponder this, in modern sports judo striking and kicking is not allowed. What would the consequences be in a real fight!? One punch is sometimes all it takes...

Regards / Bujin


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

samuelpont said:
			
		

> just wondering how you mean it its tested daily around the world? do you mean you do or you don`t spar?


I meant exactly what I said.



			
				samuelpont said:
			
		

> I`ve been in countless real situations and it is true that if your fighting one person the fight is generally (hopefully!) over in a minute and sometimes much less if your lucky.
> However that minute of fighting IS exhausting, and not only that if fighting more than one opponent which is fairly comonplace the likely hood of anyone dispatching say three or even two opponents in undewr a minute is most unlikely, some fights that I have been in have lasted well up to the five minute mark at which point I have been exhausted, but my training on the mat has seen me through.


Exactly, and the key word here is *fighting.* We don't train to fight. We train to end violent confrontations, and, hopefully, prevent them before they ever take place. Good site explaining what I'm talking about:

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/fight_selfdefense.html


----------



## samuelpont

do you think then judoka would be as good if they did not spar, for instance if one who sparred 30% of his training time fought one who never sparred but practised technique and both were of the same stamina levels and heart etc, which one do you believe would win?

Indeed one punch is all it can take unfortunately this is so rarely the case in the heat of combat when things aren`t predestined. I believe you must train in all ranges kicking striking grappling and submission and your own will to win. But this all comes together in the free sparring where you see people put together techniques they have learned and progressively learn to adapt them to fit the situation.


----------



## samuelpont

yes the key is to end the fight. Do you really think anyone wishes a fight to go on longer than it has to! I certainly don`t and try to put an end to any said attacker quickly and if possible (depending on the threat level) with as little harm to them as possible


----------



## samuelpont

Nimravus said:
			
		

> I meant exactly what I said.
> 
> So thats a no then. Your talking about people attempting to use the art in self defence.. not much real documented evidence I think


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

samuelpont said:
			
		

> do you think then judoka would be as good if they did not spar, for instance if one who sparred 30% of his training time fought one who never sparred but practised technique and both were of the same stamina levels and heart etc, which one do you believe would win?


I believe the judoka would win in a judo match. That, after all, is what he had trained for. *hint hint*



			
				samuelpont said:
			
		

> Indeed one punch is all it can take unfortunately this is so rarely the case in the heat of combat when things aren`t predestined. I believe you must train in all ranges kicking striking grappling and submission and your own will to win. But this all comes together in the free sparring where you see people put together techniques they have learned and progressively learn to adapt them to fit the situation.


Thing is, those ranges are much, much different from each other when, for instance:

a) you fight a trained fighter under mutually agreed upon rules

b) your drunken friend is out of control at a party and you need to restrain him without damage

b) you're being assaulted/ambushed by someone genuinely intending to harm you seriously, who by the way probably doesn't know you practice martial arts

c) you're in a combat situation with fear for your life, usually with weapons involved. 

Etc etc.

By the way, "no" wasn't what I said. I said that sparring isn't done to a very large extent, pretty much because there are other things we need to concentrate on that will serve us better in the long run.
And I didn't say "attempted" either. "Do, or do not. There is no try." :asian:


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

samuelpont said:
			
		

> yes the key is to end the fight. Do you really think anyone wishes a fight to go on longer than it has to! I certainly don`t and try to put an end to any said attacker quickly and if possible (depending on the threat level) with as little harm to them as possible


You're still using that f-word...:idunno:


----------



## samuelpont

Nimravus said:
			
		

> You're still using that f-word...:idunno:


yep because thats the ugly truth of it is a fight. if you would prefer to call it a confrontation so be it.


----------



## samuelpont

Nimravus said:
			
		

> I believe the judoka would win in a judo match. That, after all, is what he had trained for. *hint hint*
> yes but which one do you think would win?


----------



## samuelpont

Nimravus said:
			
		

> I believe the judoka would win in a judo match. That, after all, is what he had trained for. *hint hint*
> 
> Thing is, those ranges are much, much different from each other when, for instance:
> 
> a) you fight a trained fighter under mutually agreed upon rules
> 
> b) your drunken friend is out of control at a party and you need to restrain him without damage
> 
> b) you're being assaulted/ambushed by someone genuinely intending to harm you seriously, who by the way probably doesn't know you practice martial arts
> 
> c) you're in a combat situation with fear for your life, usually with weapons involved.
> 
> thats why i prefer to test my metal against other opponents , do you think in the past old ninja schools would have done this, do you think they now these ancestors frown from afar of how soft the art has become?


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

You obviously missed the link to Animal's webpage I wrote down. Fighting, self defense and combat are NOT synonymous. Fighting, like sparring, is a give-and-take situation. 

As for who'd win IRL? I dunno...the one with the largest number of friends, perhaps? No way you could know for sure.

Yes, I do agree that Toda, Takamatsu and the rest of the ol' boys would probably be rotating in their graves if they knew about some of the more embarrassing moments of present-day Bujinkan, same thing probably if you told their predecessors that this is nowadays being taught to westerners.
Of course, you're not suggesting that the training necessary for today is identical with that of the Sengoku Jidai, right? And who said that there is nothing but softness in the Bujinkan? How many people did you train with, again?


----------



## Bujingodai

comparing art to art is useless, it is the combatent that makes the result. To assume that a Judoka would only win in a sparring sense is also assinine.
One would be pretty bold to assume that Ninjutsu or BBT would win in any situation. A fight is a fight, it is not a competition. There is little give and take in a fight. If that fight lasts your screwed if you are not conditioned in the slightest. I would agree that sparring develops some nasty habits and that true combative technique cannot be employed in that way. This is where you see the thrush of Ninjutsu schools with busted up people when someone learns something effective and wishes to teach it like a master.
However it is silly to state that BBT is not watered down. Anyone of the seniors will say that it is softer than it was. At least it is in N America.

As for the statement that BBT is tested everyday but Ninjutsu is not is also making me ponder. What do you mean by that statement other than things that make you go hmmm. Please do not answer with "just that" How is Taijustu tested everyday. Is this is a physical or mental context?


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Bujingodai said:
			
		

> However it is silly to state that BBT is not watered down. Anyone of the seniors will say that it is softer than it was. At least it is in N America.


North America is not representative for the Bujinkan as a whole, if I've understood things correctly (no one ever told me that was the case anyhow). That training is generally isn't as gruesome as it was in Japan in the 70's, doesn't necessarily that the skill the Bujinkan has to impart to its practicioners isn't there anymore, does it?



			
				Bujingodai said:
			
		

> As for the statement that BBT is tested everyday but Ninjutsu is not is also making me ponder. What do you mean by that statement other than things that make you go hmmm. Please do not answer with "just that" How is Taijustu tested everyday. Is this is a physical or mental context?


Well, first off, very few people are knowledgeable about ninjutsu, as opposed to taijutsu and bukiwaza. 
I'm sure I'm not the only person here who has had it verified by others that their taijutsu skills came into use during real life situations?


----------



## samuelpont

Nimravus said:
			
		

> You obviously missed the link to Animal's webpage I wrote down. Fighting, self defense and combat are NOT synonymous. Fighting, like sparring, is a give-and-take situation.
> 
> fighting is not a give and take situation I think you are misinterperating what i`ve said, i`m talking about real situations that occur on the street or for that matter any location.Both parties attempt to impose there will and one wins be it through greater will to win, heart, strength conditioning what ever it may be, i`ve seen it for real countless times and as much as you`d like to think you could end all situations with one blow or choke it doesn`t always pan out that way, and sparring helps develop the will to continue through the exhaustion and mental fatigue to make the likely out come much more favourable.
> Does a kendo practioner only practise  cutting exercises alone.
> Does a judoka only practise technique.
> Do the military in any country teaching unarmed defence not practise armed and unarmed defence in sparring type situations.
> In the past did the samurai only practise techinque
> Did the gung fu practioners in the past days only work on the wooden dummy
> Does the boxer just train on the bag,
> 
> The answer is no my friend
> 
> you can practise your swimming stroke on dry land....... but until you actually get into the water and train you won`t improve and you won`t understand what its really like


----------



## Bujingodai

I get your point about the BBT being tested. I just wanted clarifcation on the point. I appreciate it.
I think that some of the aspects of Ninjutsu are tested each day as well mind you. if think of using elements of strategy in business and such. Just a way of looking at that.
As for the watering down etc etc. OK I see your point there. That is true just because it is less violent doesn't always mean you're learning less.

Thanks


----------



## heretic888

samuelpont said:
			
		

> you can practise your swimming stroke on dry land....... but until you actually get into the water and train you won`t improve and you won`t understand what its really like



Yeah, but here's the kicker...

Sparring ain't the real thing. Not even close.

Sparring is analogous to going into flight simulator and telling everyone you have real-life experience being a fighter pilot. Or, going into an anti-terrorism training camp for survival classes, and claiming you have "tested" your survival skills in "real life".

This is the overarching problem I see so often in those that are really, really, really worried about sparring (as opposed to those who use it in a limited fashion as a sometimes useful training tool) --- they seem to think its the "real thing", and develop this sort of competitive attitude about "beating the other guy", about "being the best". 

In other words, it becomes an ego thing. Bad, bad idea to take to the street.

The only way to "test" your skills in real life is to go out and pick fights with the wrong people. Not particularly _intelligent_ if you ask me, but its the only way to know for sure. Sparring is training, its not the real thing.

Laterz.


----------



## samuelpont

again your missing the point it helps carry you through the exhaustion, and can be the closest thing your going to get to it. if your practising full contact with thumb on eye simulating eye gouging etc much like our animal day in england. i`m not saying its the be all and end all but its an essential learning tool, and not only that it develops proper functional strength that can give you the edge in many a conflict.


----------



## samuelpont

one other point I have worked with many matial artists over the years on the front doors of night clubs and there is a trend to who is actually able to effectively defend themselves, and the vast majority are those who practise full contact in some form or another. I`ve seen  so many people so illusioned with their mystical art and when it comes to practise they fall down with a bump. The art is always only as good as the practioner, but those such as boxers judoka and those in the field of mma seem to always come out ontop whilst i`ve seen many a karate ninjitsu and kung fu practioner been shocked when the opponent didn`t behave like he did in the dojo. Sparring aslo helps you to fight through pain, many a time in the training gym i`ve been tossed on my back and pounded in the face. The first time I went to jelly and was unable to defend myself however with practise I learned to keep my mind and apply technique and escapes. this is invaluable. Especially when in many schools the concept of fighting through pain and keeping your head is a foreign one, sorry guys meditation and practising technique just doesn`t do it.


----------



## samuelpont

I'm sure I'm not the only person here who has had it verified by others that their taijutsu skills came into use during real life situations?[/QUOTE] 
so you`ve got no first hand experience then


----------



## MJS

samuelpont said:
			
		

> again your missing the point it helps carry you through the exhaustion, and can be the closest thing your going to get to it. if your practising full contact with thumb on eye simulating eye gouging etc much like our animal day in england. i`m not saying its the be all and end all but its an essential learning tool, and not only that it develops proper functional strength that can give you the edge in many a conflict.



I think that there is some confusion here.  There is a big difference between sparring and actually doing your techs. in the street or in a life/death situation.  While sparring does help with conditioning, it will not give you that street fight feeling due to the limitations.

It has been stated many times by numerous people on this forum that BBT has in fact helped many people out in real life situations.

Mike


----------



## Cryozombie

Thanks Mike, I concur.


----------



## KyleShort

Samuelpont,

I whole heartedly agree with you.  

All,

If sparring is analgous to learning from a flight simulator then training with out sparring is analagous to learning from a book.  At least in sparring you have an opportunity to apply your skills dynamically.

Fighting, combat, etc...it's all semantics and not worth arguing.  I think we all undertsand the intent here...

You will perform how you train, that is true.  And yes if judoka only ever expose themselves to randori they will not have a lot of experience with punching and kicking.  So what then...if BBT practitioners only expose themselves to stop action scenario training they will only ever peform at that level?

Speaking of bad habits...if sparring teaches bad habits, so does the opposite.  You can easily become habitualized to not handle the stress and adrenaline of a live confrontation.  Similarly, you can easily become accustomed the compliant uke and the ideal situation for technique execution.  How man times have you tried a ganseki nage against a raging drunk, or a take ori against someone flailing a beer bottle at you?  I have and let me tell you, it was WAY different than in the dojo.

The fact is I did experience elements of free sparring in BBT, and it was great.  Generally speaking though it did lack the ammount of dynamic, resistant opponent training that I think is important to MY training.  I am not saying that one form of training is superior to another.  You need to employ both as they both have their benefits and drawbacks.  To willingly ignore this facet of training is to limit yourself.

I also agree that those who have regular exposure to continuous controlled or free sparring (not point...more like randori, boxing, chi sao etc.) tend to fair better in live confrontations.  That has been my life experience and certainly most bouncers etc. would confirm that.


----------



## KyleShort

Just caught the comments about pain.

I also agree with this.  Self defense in a viloent confrontation is all about dammage control.  You will get hit, cut, slapped, hair pulled etc.  Someone who exposes themselves to that regularly will have a mind that is better conditioned to handle that.  That having been said, I encountered plenty of pain in BBT training.  However, it was under known conditions and the pain was expected (joint locks, pinching, nerve tapping etc.) so the element of surprise, fear and adrenaline was removed from the equation.

The first time I sparred full contact with sticks my whole perspective changed.  I knew how to take pain, but when it happened instantly, and when I least expected it I was shocked!  Additionally, my opponent did not stop attacking and I had to gather myself and continue defending my body from harm.  Experience that enough and your dammage control becomes much better...not only do you protect yourself better, but you also are able to move through the pain and injury and continue offense/defense.  

The first heavy shot I took to my unprotected groin dropped me to the ground instantly, but it was psychological.  Groin pain usually takes several seconds to register, plus a person can take a lot of pain before their body physically gives out...the mind almost always quits first.  I have never been dropped from a groin shot since, even though they hurt just as much =)

Needless to say, I now wear a cup whenever I can remember =)


----------



## Shizen Shigoku

I haven't seen enough data to know which method (sparring or no sparring) is best for everone, but in my own personal experience, I believe that you fight (or defend yourself, however you want to call it) how you train.

I don't train with sparring, resisting opponents, or adrenaline stress. And you know what? In the real fights I have been in recently, I was calm and light-hearted (just like in the dojo). My opponents were trying to fight me, but I wasn't fighting back as if we were sparring - I was controlling them with proper technique (just like in the dojo). 

There was no resistance, because I didn't give them anything to resist against. Instead of reacting like I would in a fight/spar scenario (getting excited, trying to beat the other person, etc.), I reacted the same way that I do in the dojo: calmly, fluidly, and laughing at my opponents' frustration.

I think the experience I have gained from a handful of real encounters has taught me much more than weekly sparring sessions could.

Before I trained in the Bujinkan method, I trained in other styles that taught how to fight. I got attacked for real once and managed to block a lot of strikes and deliver a lot of my own, and get a throw of opportunity in, but I wasn't effectively defending myself - I was fighting, and I took a lot of damage by the time it was over.

I know personal anecdotes don't count for much, but when it comes to my own training, I trust the results I have personally experienced.


" . . . it is the song that never ends . . ."


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

samuelpont said:
			
		

> i`m talking about real situations that occur on the street or for that matter any location.Both parties attempt to impose there will and one wins be it through greater will to win, heart, strength conditioning what ever it may be,


And this is exactly the premises of a give-and-take situation!!! Two people just itching to find out who's the better fighter!!



			
				samuelpont said:
			
		

> i`ve seen it for real countless times and as much as you`d like to think you could end all situations with one blow or choke it doesn`t always pan out that way, and sparring helps develop the will to continue through the exhaustion and mental fatigue to make the likely out come much more favourable.


You have yet to say a word about the strategy of knocking down the guy/distracting him for long a period of time that you can run away, instead of staying there and beating him. That's the difference between a fight and a self defense situation.



			
				samuelpont said:
			
		

> you can practise your swimming stroke on dry land....... but until you actually get into the water and train you won`t improve and you won`t understand what its really like


As I've said before, sparring tends to make people confuse their backyard pool with the ocean.



			
				samuelpont said:
			
		

> so you`ve got no first hand experience then


Not what I said. Anyhow, that's not something I'd like to discuss here.



			
				samuelpont said:
			
		

> sorry guys meditation and practising technique just doesn`t do it.


Neither does trying to judge the effectiveness of budo taijutsu with a level of experience with the system and its practitioners and training methods as minimal as yours.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

KyleShort said:
			
		

> Fighting, combat, etc...it's all semantics and not worth arguing. I think we all undertsand the intent here...


No, we do not! Fighting is symmetrical, self defense situations are assymetrical.



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> You can easily become habitualized to not handle the stress and adrenaline of a live confrontation.


You can be familiarized with that through other ways than full contact sparring.



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> How man times have you tried a ganseki nage against a raging drunk, or a take ori against someone flailing a beer bottle at you? I have and let me tell you, it was WAY different than in the dojo.


The former - no, the latter, yes, and with good results. Only it wasn't me he was swinging it at.



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> However, it was under known conditions and the pain was expected (joint locks, pinching, nerve tapping etc.) so the element of surprise, fear and adrenaline was removed from the equation.


Not necessarily. Check out my thread "where do we draw the line?". People are unpredictable even in regular training.


----------



## KyleShort

Nimravus I disagree...that is how you define fighting...it is just a word and no generally accepted meaning can really be applied to it.  I might choose the term fighting  to describe a life and death struggle with blades, or I might call it the "dance of steel"...it does not matter.  What is important is to recognize the intention.  I do believe that he meant fighting as in defending oneself.



> Not necessarily. Check out my thread "where do we draw the line?". People are unpredictable even in regular training.



See the thing is I was not talking about your experience or anyone else in the bujinkan...I was only talking about my own in that instance.  Ie. "not necessarily cannot apply because I am telling you that it is exactly how my training was =)

If you have other ways of training the attributes that sparring develops (note that I do not ONLY mean full contact) then bravo!  At least we recognize the need to develop those attributes.  

Personally I think that sparring is the best way to develop certain attributes that I have already mentioned...outside of real combat of course.


----------



## KyleShort

Shizen Shigoku said:
			
		

> I haven't seen enough data to know which method (sparring or no sparring) is best for everone, but in my own personal experience, I believe that you fight (or defend yourself, however you want to call it) how you train.
> 
> I know personal anecdotes don't count for much, but when it comes to my own training, I trust the results I have personally experienced.



On the contrary Shizen, I think that personal anecdotes are where the gold is!  No one can tell you something that you already know better for yourself.

Also I think that what you learn from actual (real) combat experience is sometimes better than anything else...fortunately most are not morally flexible enough to "train" by picking fights on the street, but learning from the times that you are forced to fight is GREAT.

Oops, I used the term "fight" to denote a self defense situation =)


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

KyleShort said:
			
		

> Nimravus I disagree...that is how you define fighting...it is just a word and no generally accepted meaning can really be applied to it. I might choose the term fighting to describe a life and death struggle with blades, or I might call it the "dance of steel"...it does not matter. What is important is to recognize the intention. I do believe that he meant fighting as in defending oneself.


I'd like to quote mr Marc Animal MacYoung on the subject, because I feel his descriptions of the concepts reflect my own opinions the most. 


"In many ways a duel is a ritualized fight. Much in the same way that the sports of boxing, ring sparring, sumo,  grappling and muay Thai are ritualized and controlled aspects of fighting. A duel, however, is not self-defense, any more that self-defense is fighting, or that a fight is combat. This failure to differentiate between topics, while a bonanza for sleaze bucket instructors, is pure marketing. Odds are against what you are being taught saving your *** against a dedicated attacker. And if you use it on a non-dedicated attacker, then your *** is going to be getting a lot of action in the prison showers.
But let's look at some of the salient points that dueling, fighting and sports contests share. First of all, what they all have in common is choice. By definition, with all of them you choose to be there. And that is an incredibly important point, because by this choice, you approach the event with a different mindset. One that is prepared to engage. Yes, you mentally psyche yourself up  

Second in all of them you have the ability to withdraw before the contest.

Third, you are facing a similarly equipped, trained and/or hostile person. In short, it is theoretically a level playing field.

Fourth, they all have rules. If you object to applying that concept to a "fight" then you better go out and do some reading on A) legal issues B) social hierarchy  process and C) human aggression. Fighting is a social process to achieve dominance and/or a means of acquisition. Whereas a duel, might encompass those elements, but it also includes issues as pride, honor and revenge.

So in light of these, let's look at dueling.  A duel, as a fight, means you choose to be there. This includes the fact that you had the chance to withdraw, usually by means of a public apology and a change in your behavior. If you choose not to, then you are willingly and consensually engaging in conflict against an equally equipped opponent. 

Quite simply, dueling is about pride, revenge and your perceptions of face/honor. In short, it is about maintaining your social position/self-esteem... not about staying alive. Another way of putting it is it is about what you want, not what you need in order to survive. And quite often duels resulted because both parties were being *******s. That same motivation as with less formalized and spontaneous fighting.


Not to put too fine of a point on it, but someone who intends to kill you by any means possible is going to attack differently than someone who is concerned about the damage you can do to him because you are  similarly equipped. There is an world of differences in strategies. 


In case you missed the significance, let me repeat that in clear, concise terms: _You attack and defend differently against an equally armed, equally prepared and equally skilled opponent than you do when you are trying to murder someone before they can defend themselves_. 

This is why I say that an overwhelming majority of the training and drills that is done in Americanized martial arts  is training for the duel. It is *EXACTLY* what you need to do and train for when you opponent is equally armed. And for those _exact circumstances it is pretty damned effective(5)_. It is for when you and your opponent are both very concerned about the damage that each the other can inflict, but not concerned enough to withdraw. 

It is not like combat where you need to kill him quick and move on. It's not like self-defense where getting away safely is your only goal. No, it is more punitive in nature. It  means you are going to stay there and engage, possibly kill him, for other reasons than personal safety. Usually, among hot heads, that is pride, anger or revenge for perceived insults or wrongs.  

*DO NOT* underestimate or dismiss the influence that this punitive aspect has on the strategies and tactics employed in real life and how it influences your training. In most cases, conflict is personal. It is very much about punishment, torture and dominance A duelist and/or fighter wants the person to know who is punishing him; who is doing this to him. It is all about "winning" and he will stay and engage in order to let you know that he won. 

Whereas a professional doesn't care about you knowing that he has won. What matters is the job is done. This comes in many forms: maybe he shoots you from a distance, maybe he steps out of the shadows with a shotgun and shoots you in the back without saying anything, maybe he hires someone else to kill you or, in the case of the criminal, without warning, you're down and out and he has your money. Whether he busted you over the back of the head with a tire iron or just walked up and shot you, it is the both the ferocity and unexpectedness of the attack that makes it effective. 

The absolute last thing any of these are interested in is fighting you. And that mindset is going to drastically effect how such a person attacks. Up to and including, striking with full lethal force, before you have a chance to defend yourself. Sadly enough, this same attitude is common among bullies and violent people. They don't want to fight you, they don't want to fight at all, they just want to attack you and get their way.  In this case their attack strategy  is very much about torture, punishment and dominance, but without the cost of a fight. And to get it, he will attack in many of the same unexpected ways as a professional. This is the non-dueling/fighting mindset. And it is far more common among those who use violence to get what they want than the dueling mindset. Unlike the conditions of dueling, he doesn't want you to be his equal. Therefore odds are he will attack, and attempt to overwhelm you before you have a chance to deploy your weapon and duel with him. Like a duelist, he fears and respects your weapons. Unlike a duelist, his answer instead of fighting accordingly, he's going to do his best to make sure you never get a chance to fight back."


"Simply stated if you are fighting you are part of the problem. Fighting implies that you are not only part of the conflict, but that you assisted in its creation and escalation. This is what we meant when we said your pre-conflict behavior will be carefully reviewed. If you, in any way, were a) instrumental in the creation of the problem that lead to the physical violence, (e.g. if you were threatening him, insulting him or arguing with him), b) continued to attack after he was obviously losing and/or had broken off his offensive actions or c) instead of attempting to escape you stayed there and fought to "win" you are fighting, you are not defending yourself. Straight up, police arrest both combatants of a fight... no matter who started it.
We address the difference between fighting and self-defense more fully elsewhere. In this section we would like to address another critical difference. A difference that is by and large why experienced fighters so often speak of the martial arts failing in "real fights"  And that is the difference between assaultive behavior and a fight.

Unfortunately, when most martial artists dream of fighting, what they are picturing is assaultive behavior. A situation where you charge in and immediately overwhelm your opponent with a flurry of kicks and blows is not a fight, it is far, far closer to the legal definition of assault and battery. Putting it bluntly, charging in and beating the hell out of someone before they can defend themselves is a pretty reliable strategy. That is why it is so commonly used by aggressors.

It is not, however, a fight. If you have seen this strategy, you were not witnessing a fight, what you saw is legally deemed an assault.

Legal issues aside there is another critical component. With an assault you have the confidence of success because you are initiating the violence. In other words, you are pretty safe because you are launching the attacks and by immediately overwhelming your opponent you pretty well assure your safety. As such, even though there is an adrenalin dump and excitement, you're not overly concerned with your personal safety.

Not so in an actual fight. A "fight" is a knock down, drag out, tooth and nail conflict with someone who is just as tough -- if not tougher -- than yourself. And that somebody is as dedicated to getting a piece out of you as you are dedicated to getting him. And that means the only thing keeping from doing unto you before you do unto him is you and your fighting skills. Here's a hint, how to tell if you're in a fight, you fire your best shot and he shakes it off and charges in firing back. 

When you find yourself in a fight, all the confidence of an assault goes out the window. You now have to deal with the fear of getting your *** kicked. And putting it mildly, this can result in performance anxiety, especially when you find your defensive moves crumbling before his attacks. Now you have the extra stress of making him go down before you do.

This happens even in empty handed slug-fests where the fighters are not trying to kill each other, but rather establish dominance, punish one another for misconduct, ego-preservation, revenge,  seeking a "prize" or any of the other sociological/psychological reasons people fight.  If you aren't scared of damage being inflicted on you, you aren't in a fight, you're assaulting someone.

Let me tell you, you know you've done treed yourself a bad one when he takes your best shot, his head whips back and glares at you for a split second before launching himself back at you. When that happens you know you're in a fight and it is a bad, bad sinking feeling. 'Cause win, lose or draw, you know this one is gonna hurt..."


----------



## MJS

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Thanks Mike, I concur.



You're quite welcome!

Mike


----------



## KyleShort

I don't disagree with "the Animal", but still it is not relevant to the discussion.  I was talking about the use of the word "fight" to conote a specific something...and how one could choose, because we often do, to be selective in how they use the term.  You are talking about a specific application of the word...I have no problem with that.  I am simply pointing out that it is not the only use of the word.

Someone could easily say..."I was walking through an ally and I got hit from behind, before I knew it I was on my back and my attacker had sunk his 5 inch blade into my leg for the second time.  I managed to FIGHT him off and get away."  Does this conote a duel or self defense?  Do you see what I mean?  It is just a word, I was not arguing your supplied meaning.


----------



## DWeidman

KyleShort said:
			
		

> Someone could easily say..."I was walking through an ally and I got hit from behind, before I knew it I was on my back and my attacker had sunk his 5 inch blade into my leg for the second time.


So... to bring the discussion around full circle then...

When was the last time you "sparred" with two five inch cuts in your leg and a concussion / skull fracture?

Do you believe that trading punches with your buddy for a couple mins gets you ready for that?

-Daniel


----------



## DWeidman

Also to note:

Here were the benefits to sparring as described by the thread starter:

1. test my metal against other opponents 
2. Both parties attempt to impose there will and one wins 
3. greater will to win, heart, strength conditioning
4. sparring helps develop the will to continue through the exhaustion and mental fatigue to make the likely out come much more favourable
5. it develops proper functional strength.

The word Samuel uses over and over again to describe the favorable outcome to the "fight" is "win". He doesn't use the word *survive*.

The philosophy and strategy around *SURVIVING *are significantly different than the strategy around *WINNING*. There is no bravado or Machismo attached to being a Survivor. There is plenty attached to being a badass - or testing your metal so you can kick ***, etc... 

The funny thing is people get upset that the art is "watered-down" because you aren't taught to stand there like a man and fight fairly. 

Samuel - to put it bluntly - I suspect the forefathers to this art would be rolling over in their graves right now if they knew that someone like you wanted to DUMB-DOWN the art so you could compare the size of your fatty with another drunk bastard outside of a pub. They didn't pass this art along so you could feel like you are the biggest badass on your block... They passed it along to the other guy on your block who poisons you in the middle of the night - and never has to face you "Man to Man"...

Anyway...

-Daniel


----------



## KyleShort

Daniel, you took my scenario out of context.  Again I was simply speaking to the use of a TERM, having nothing to do with the majority of this thread...the efficacy of sparring as a training method.

I am no longer going to post about the use of "fight" and other terms because I feel like I am unable to aptly communicate my thoughts via my words.  Meh...

In any case, I was stabbed when I was 14...I have been hit in the head with a baseball bat twice, and have been in many self defense, and bravado duel types of situations during my teenage years...luckily never as an adult.

Again, I hope that you can see that I never suggested that sparring will train you to deal with multiple stab wounds and skull fratctures.

I see some serious issues with the list you reposted.

First winning and surviving, though not the same, can certainly be interdependent.  If you are pinned on the ground and an attacker is trying to smother you...are you fighting to win or to survive?  I ask because we do train this exact scenario in sparring...are we trainng to win or to survive?  Does it matter?  In sparring we train to triumph...that can mean winning or survival...all depending upon the mindset that you bring to the sparring match.

Generally that list is weak because it ASSUMES that one chooses only to train dueling attributes, but that is a matter of choice, not cannon.  The fact is sparring does a lot more than that.

I think the problem here is that a general presumption is being made as to what sparring is...two people squaring off equidistant and then engaging in combat.  That is one way, bot not the only way.  I like to define sparring as live training against an uncoopertaive opponent.  This can mean many things. Considered in this light sparring can:

1. Build tactile sensitivity (chi sao, tapi tapi, hubud hubud etc.)
2. Develop a will to survive, to fight with every ounce of your spirit
3. To drive your attack relentlessly
4. To understand how moves need to be adjusted dynamically
5. To understand the danger of certain grips
6. To experience technique execution under the influence of fear, adrenaline and fatigue
7. To deal with the totally unexpected
8. To go to the ground with someone when you did not want to or expect to (ie. you throw and they hold on to you)
9. To understand what moves just plain do not work

...the list goes on.  Sparring is not the be all end all, but it is a great (IMO needed) part of regular training that includes drills and scenarios.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Someone just dinged me a bad rep point again for quoting too large a text. Well, had the link I put in to Animal's webpage been read, that might not have been necessary.



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> Generally that list is weak because it ASSUMES that one chooses only to train dueling attributes, but that is a matter of choice, not cannon. The fact is sparring does a lot more than that.


True, but not everyone has the ability to differentiate between fighting, combat and self defense.



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> 1. Build tactile sensitivity (chi sao, tapi tapi, hubud hubud etc.)
> 2. Develop a will to survive, to fight with every ounce of your spirit
> 3. To drive your attack relentlessly
> 4. To understand how moves need to be adjusted dynamically
> 5. To understand the danger of certain grips
> 6. To experience technique execution under the influence of fear, adrenaline and fatigue
> 7. To deal with the totally unexpected
> 8. To go to the ground with someone when you did not want to or expect to (ie. you throw and they hold on to you)
> 9. To understand what moves just plain do not work


1 - comes through regular (Bujinkan) training as well. Don't ask me how, because I honestly don't know. 

2 - good but fails to take into the account that one might be opted to stay behind and fight when escape actually might be an option. As Tim Bathurst said once: "as long as HE does not kill ME, I can come back tomorrow and shoot him or run him over with my 4WD."

3 - good, but at the same time, this can be practiced by utilizing attacks with genuine intent, a skill that, sadly, is in many places quite lacking in the Bujinkan nowadays.

4 - see point 1.

5 - good.

6 - good, but that's already been given quite a bit of consideration when one looks at the design of many koryu kata.

7 - is good but fails to take into account that one can easily fool oneself into thinking that the sparring is much less controlled than it actually is.

8 - good, but if you assume that's going to happen all the time you might neglect practicing your throws correctly to begin with (as Animal would say, things can go south two ways, by him countering and yourself screwing up. The former is much easier to deal with, given that you have sufficient technical expertise).

9 - is my main reason for skepticism againt sparring. The ONLY thing you know from that is what works in sparring against a training partner who knows who you are and what you're capable of.


----------



## KyleShort

Awesome post Nimvarus!

Sadly I agree that many people dupe themselves into thinking that they are training in one thing, but really training in something completely different.

1. I agree that regular BBT training builds sensitivity, however in my experience it was mostly sensitivity to long energy and full body motion.  there seems to be limited attention paid to short, fast energy like you would encounter in boxing, wing chun etc.  What do you think?  The opposite is also true which is why I loved moving from WC to BBT, I got solid exposure to both types of sensitivity.

2. I don't believe that is fails in the way you describe at all.  Not all excercises can train all skills.  I would never expect live training (sparring) to teach me how to avoid conflict, or walk away from it.  That is trained in other ways.  Sparring trains for when you are already in it. Why would you even expect sparring to teach the latter?  Seems rhetorical and moot?  Also note that I do not advocate sparring as your sole means of training.

3. True enough and in actuality a good heavy bag workout can teach that too...same with scenarios...I am not saying that sparring has this exclusively, just that it is a benefit.

4. Kinda...if you are saying that regular BBT training includes, spontaneous, un-rehearsed responses against an uncooperative uke then I agree.  This was almost never the case in my training.  It is the dynamic, uncooperative part the forces both gross & subtle adjustments...because you are adjusting to something that uke does unexpectedly...you just don't get this if you don't expose yourself to it.

5. -

6. Also, true enough.  You would think that the technique would not be there if it had not been proven to work =)  However, that having been said, everyone expresses the arts in their own way and so what may work for some may not work well for others.  This is where dynamic application can teach you alot about what the traditional kata mean to you.

7. Very true!  Look at MMA events for example...highly controlled, but they don't like to admit it.  Again though, we need to be intelligent about our approach to sparring.  What are we trying to gain from it.  If you are looking for true "no rules" experience...well you need to become a criminal for that

Also, the limits can actually be beneficial in ways.  In escrima sparring (WEKAF style) you fight weapon to weapon.  In doing so your targets are limited to areas that will be effective, but hopefully not land you in prison in a real situation.  So sparring can also teach you the right kind of restraint.

8. Right, assumption being the key.  Never assume.  This is part of why I advocate sparring, as scenario training tends to do a lot of assuming.  Important for skill building, not so good for applied experience.  In my Sambo training, when we execute a throw it always works...which is good because I need to know how to do it.  When we sparr, it does not always work which is good because I need to learn to adjust it or compensate.

9. Only true to an extent.  First off we always advocate sparring with people you don't know...better experience that way.  Second, there are certain things that you learn VERY well through sparring.  Example, being hit in the groin will not always double someone over.  A boshiken to the ribs may not actually hurt at all etc. etc. You learn to weed out, or modify a lot of stuff because it simply does not work against 200lbs. of raging flesh and bone.  This trancends that fact that it is learned through sparing because it is more basic than that.  So no, what you learn in sparring is not limited to only sparing applicable techniques.

Again, that having been said, sparring can teach you bad habits and stuff that would only work in sparring...like sacrificing your head in order to give a shot to the body...bad form! =)  You just have to be intelligent about your training.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

And again...

1. All about who you train with and for how long. We tend to start out at long range and utilize smaller movements as we progress. Why, just look at Hatsumi sensei...

2. My point was that it can teach you to be an active, willing participant of a fight. If so, you are part of the problem.

4. Why do you think Hatsumi sensei is unable to teach a technique exactly the same way over and over again?

6. To apply the kata, you have to be able to perform them well to begin with. 

7. I'd say we need to be more intelligent about Bujinkan training overall. Secondly, if you're speaking about bio-mechanical cutting, I think it's based on a legal misunderstanding. If it's bad enough to use a bladed weapon, it's bad enough to warrant killing. And if you're involved in a fight with an equally armed and prepared opponent, well...see above.

8. So you don't think that there is a lot of assuming how a real opponent might behave in sparring training? 

9. The knowledge you speak of is already available in the Bujinkan. "The blood is still on the katana", to paraphrase Mike Inay.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

KyleShort said:
			
		

> You just have to be intelligent about your training.


You know, if more people said that about Bujinkan training, we might not even have had this discussion.


----------



## KyleShort

Yeah but in my mind, being intelligent about your training includes semi-regular sparring, so I guess we would not have avoided this.

The whole premise behind my side of this discussion has been that sparring it in fact an intelligent addition to BBT training.  Not better than what is already there, but rather that it fills gaps.  Of course, I don't think I have convinced anyone that this is true, but that's ok too =)


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

So how do we deal with the issue of techniques that are too dangerous to use in sparring safely? After all, battlefield jujutsu is meant for killing people...


----------



## KyleShort

I have thought about that at length and I believe that "live" training helps with all of your techniques.  You don't use them in sparring, but you build up tons of skills that support you when you need to use them.  

But again, sparring is not meant to train you in eye gouging or neck breaking per se, but you will get better at it because of all the support skills...it's all about getting as much experience, in as many different ways as you can.

How do wind sprints make you a better basketball player?  They trains crucial supporting attributes...and does not require you to stop practicing your jump shot at other times too.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Ponder a bit what Hatsumi sensei means by "enveloping" your opponent.

By going faster and adding pressure, you program yourself into a behavioural pattern. If you therefore only rely on your sparring practice, you seriously limit yourself.


----------



## KyleShort

I thought we were getting somewhere Nim =)

If you look at any of my previous posts you will see that I EXPLICITLY stated that you need to do other training as well and specifically stated many times that one should not only rely on sparring.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

The bottom line is we're generally not as good as we need to be before using sparring to any large extent.

One other thing we haven't touched on before is that in real situations, unlike sparring, if you screw up you don't always get many chances to fix it.


----------



## r erman

I have one extended question.  Why did Takamatsu participate, accept, and engage in challenge matches in Japan and while in China?  Was it to compare the size of his 'fatty'?  Was it to see if he was the baddest *** on the block?  Was it to develop bad habits?  Was it to fool himself about the efficacy of his technique?  Was it for reasons as petty as machismo and ego?


----------



## Fool Wolf

r erman brings up a good point.  Hatsumi also practiced judo as well as other martial arts.  Many of the well known Bujinkan practitioners trained in styles that involved sparring, ran dori, or shiai.  I think it is a pretty common characteristic of warriors accross cultures to engage in less than lethal fighting, whether to hone their skill or for some sort of ego gratification, I do not know.  Musashi did alot of fighting, not always to the death.  I do not believe that his competitive boughts made him less deadly or taught him too many bad habits.

FW


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

r erman said:
			
		

> I have one extended question. Why did Takamatsu participate, accept, and engage in challenge matches in Japan and while in China? ...Was it to see if he was the baddest *** on the block?


Well...why not? He did after all become a priest when he came back to Japan. He also states in his autobiography that he regrets his youthful recklessness.



			
				r erman said:
			
		

> Was it to develop bad habits?


You're not suggesting he would have had the self-confidence to do what he did in China without his extensive training behind him, do you? 
And I REALLY hope you aren't suggesting that the environment Takamatsu lived and fought in, as well as his training experience, is comparable to that of the average kyu ranking student in the western hemisphere nowadays?



			
				r erman said:
			
		

> Was it to fool himself about the efficacy of his technique?


Well, someone did manage to bust up his eardrum and break his elbow.:idunno: 
Also, he had the possibility to bust up his opponents as badly as he deemed necessary in the matches he fought - that's hardly an option these days in regular training.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> r erman brings up a good point. Hatsumi also practiced judo as well as other martial arts. Many of the well known Bujinkan practitioners trained in styles that involved sparring, ran dori, or shiai. I think it is a pretty common characteristic of warriors accross cultures to engage in less than lethal fighting, whether to hone their skill or for some sort of ego gratification, I do not know. Musashi did alot of fighting, not always to the death. I do not believe that his competitive boughts made him less deadly or taught him too many bad habits.
> 
> FW


He killed his first opponent when he was 13 years old. That, if anything, is what I think you can call a bad habit.


----------



## r erman

Takamatsu had a lot of training under his belt when he went China, yes, but he also fought matches before then in Japan.

I mentioned this only to point out that this kind of training had some value to Takamatsu.  Is it not true that he fought western boxers and wrestlers?  Seems to me he was trying to test himself and what he knew--which is part of shugyo.

FWIW, I would say that the enivonment in which Takamatsu lived(not to mention the environs of the sengoku and edo periods) is not comparable to anyone in the booj that I know of--including Hatsumi and the japanese shihan.  That doesn't mean, however, that people move all that different or that there should be a large dychotomy between training methodologies between then and now...


----------



## Shizen Shigoku

_bushi shugyo _is not the same as _dojo keiko._

I'll have to find the source material later, but paraphrasing quotes I've read by Hatsumi and Takamatsu:

I know better in my old age after my "youthful recklessness" and I say to you, do not engage in the hard training that I did as it is not necessary.

It's kind of like a 'learn from my mistakes' - people have been sparring / challenge matches for a long time. Over that long time, kata practice has evolved based on those matches as well as on fields of battle and in personal protection situations.

Others have done that hard work for us, so we can practice really good stuff, safely, effectively, and efficiently - in the dojo.

For your own shugyo, fight all you want, prove to yourself you're a badass, you'll feel better. 

[note: the above line is *not* to be taken with any sarcasm, i.e. I'm serious - it's your life.]

In the dojo, follow the training methods that your instructor provides.
"sensei" means old-wise-one. . . he knows better.


I can understand some arguments for the responsibility of instructor and school to provide what their student needs, but some things are the students' responsibility (testing their mettle, etc.)

p.s. from my understanding of Musashi's writings, I don't think he really advocated to the reader to engage in the practice of dueling as he did.
The basic thesis I gathered from the bulk of the book was:

Picking up a sword is for the purpose of killing. The sword is in your hands, now kill the other guy - or at least don't die with your sword undrawn.


----------



## Fool Wolf

It is interesting that people point out that Takamatsu, Hatsumi, Musashi, etc... say in effect "do what I say, not what I did."  Does anyone believe that they would have been who they were without the "rough training" of their past.  I would point out that a standard barrier motif to the hero's journey is the archetype of the old wise man trying to turn away or discourage the hero from advancing in order to test dedication and perserverance.  The safe and easy way is always more comfortable.

I am not advocating dueling or sparring.  Just do not think you will be the next Musashi or Takamatsu because you train in a dojo 3 or 4 days a week.  Most of us do not have that desire, we just want to learn skills to protect our families and ourselves.  

I believe that although sparring or ran dori is not exactly like a real fight situation, real value is obtained from them.  In the military, we train constantly in "force on force" exersices.  It is not lethal, but it teaches many lessons that cannot be taught any other way and is the reason we have military superiority.  Sparring can be equated to this on the micro scale.

FW


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

r erman said:
			
		

> Takamatsu had a lot of training under his belt when he went China, yes, but he also fought matches before then in Japan.


How was it again that you related the battles he fought about a century ago, in which no regard had to be taken to the participants's safety, to safe and beneficial sparring practice nowadays?

There's always the possibility to test each student for rank by letting them participate in actual life-endangering combat. Thing is, how many would survive to be granted another rank some other time?



			
				r erman said:
			
		

> I mentioned this only to point out that this kind of training had some value to Takamatsu. Is it not true that he fought western boxers and wrestlers? Seems to me he was trying to test himself and what he knew--which is part of shugyo.


See above.



			
				r erman said:
			
		

> FWIW, I would say that the enivonment in which Takamatsu lived(not to mention the environs of the sengoku and edo periods) is not comparable to anyone in the booj that I know of--including Hatsumi and the japanese shihan.


You'd be surprised to hear about the "war stories" Bujinkan practitioners sometimes have to offer.



			
				r erman said:
			
		

> That doesn't mean, however, that people move all that different or that there should be a large dychotomy between training methodologies between then and now...


No, I'm sure they put on their cups, mouthguards and Slayer gloves and went at it back then as well. :uhyeah:


----------



## KyleShort

Thought it was worth noting that though a shinai is a relativley new invention, the boken has been used for hundreds of years for "safe" sparring.


----------



## r erman

Nimravus,

Don't know that I tried to relate Takamatsu's matches to safe and beneficial sparring directly.  I asked why he did it if it is so detrimental.  And btw, any of us making assumptions about how 'deadly' his matches were are just...making assumptions. I also said that Takamatsu must have seen some benefit to this kind of training.  He also found benefit in toughening exercises that he has later chided against--which I believe is where the quote about recklessness came from.

I would relax the stance that you seem to be taking thinking that everyone is trying to discredit your position.  If you don't enjoy or believe there is benefit in randori then so be it.  Good for you.  You can learn many beneficial things from training without it.  

All of us have different life experiences.  Some of us have come to the conlusion that without some sort of--and I hate using this word as it is often mis-interpreted as forcing a technique(which I don't agree with)--'resistance' base to our training there is something lacking.  I've seen _some_ shihan display this lacking when attempting randori...

FWIW, I know the benefit of relaxed and supple movement.  I spend a lot of time training this way.  I wouldn't have near the understanding of movement and concepts that I do without that kind of training.  

BTW, to others who have posted.  There is a lot of 'rough' training in the bujinkan--just not always a lot of randori.


----------



## r erman

Almost forgot to add this:



			
				Nimravus said:
			
		

> No, I'm sure they put on their cups, mouthguards and Slayer gloves and went at it back then as well. :uhyeah:



No I'm sure 'they' wouldn't have done that.  Nor, I'm sure, would it be an accepted training paradigm in those times.  Which is strange since we have quotes from texts like Heiho Zakki by Yamada Heizaemon(1639-1716) in which he states:



> in order to really reach an understanding of mortal combat it is necessary for both adepts to don men, kote, and other pieces of protective equipment and forge oneself through the confusion encountered by engaging in daring unrestricted training.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

r erman said:
			
		

> Don't know that I tried to relate Takamatsu's matches to safe and beneficial sparring directly. I asked why he did it if it is so detrimental.


It isn't, but you're trying to compare apples with wolverines. You need to have a good technical expertise first, and we all know how hard that can be to attain within the Bujinkan.



			
				r erman said:
			
		

> And btw, any of us making assumptions about how 'deadly' his matches were are just...making assumptions. I also said that Takamatsu must have seen some benefit to this kind of training. He also found benefit in toughening exercises that he has later chided against--which I believe is where the quote about recklessness came from.


Not if you take into account the factor that he reportedly became a priest "to pray for the souls of the men he killed".
He had all the technical skill possible already when he engaged in those matches. Most in the Bujinkan who would spar do not. Get my point?



			
				r erman said:
			
		

> I would relax the stance that you seem to be taking thinking that everyone is trying to discredit your position. If you don't enjoy or believe there is benefit in randori then so be it. Good for you. You can learn many beneficial things from training without it.


I think randori is fun as hell. You just have to know how to use it in a good manner.


----------



## samuelpont

any time sweet heart!


----------



## Tenjin

If you want to really spar to reflect real fighting I have some drills for you.

First pick five random sparring partners that you see on at least a weekly basis and give them permission to attack you at any time with any weapon out of the blue with no warning. It would still sadly be artificial, but actually in the line with a real fight. Who stands up and lets you know they are going to attack you if they really want to do you harm? 

Squaring up with someone one on one and exchanging pulled blows is just MA masturbation. As some have stated there are other ways to increase the difficulty and get similar results from drills and free response (the closest thing we have to sparring).

I've sparred with guys from other martial arts, both buddies and in fight nights that a local school used to have and its just fake. It might make you feel good, might give you a warm fuzzy but its just fake. I carry a knife around me all the time, ditto for a really nice metal ink pen and in a "real conflict/fight/confrontation" I will not hesitate to use whatever I can weapon wise and terrain wise to make sure I go home and the other guy doesn't. 

From my experience sparring, as we are talking about here, rarely takes into account vital factors for combat such as multiple attackers, suprise, weapons, or strategy.

In the end, if Hatsumi tells us to spar I'll spar, until then you have either have to trust your teacher and your teacher's teacher or just find another martial art to do.  To paraphrase Sensei, we are training for real combat not for sport.


----------



## r erman

> First pick five random sparring partners that you see on at least a weekly basis and give them permission to attack you at any time with any weapon out of the blue with no warning. It would still sadly be artificial, but actually in the line with a real fight. Who stands up and lets you know they are going to attack you if they really want to do you harm?



I do this and variations thereof all the time...


----------



## Tenjin

> I do this and variations thereof all the time...


Must be hell on your furniture and your office space.  Personally if I were one of your five people for this I would get you while you were taking a piss or sitting on the toilet.


----------



## r erman

> I would get you while you were taking a piss or sitting on the toilet.



Urine in the eye is a hell of a deterent:wink:

Ok, all the time is an exageration.  But I do enjoy this kind of scenario training, and fwiw, I think it more important than facing off and 'sparring'--as long as it is treated seriously and the attacker fights back.


----------



## Shogun

Is defending yourself while you are on the toilet common practice in the Booj? lol.

Honestly, several of the people that have posted about how a fight goes, obviously, dont know how a fight goes. people dont try and assassinate you unexpectedly on a regular basis (not in Washington anyway
Out of the fights that I have been in, (varying degrees of violence) none have been even close to the same thing.


----------



## r erman

The types of attacks you will face sometimes depend on your line of work...  Also, unless you take things very personal or have an attitude yourself, most 'fights' rarely start from two people facing off.  

In the handful of fights I've been in only one actually started with me squaring off with the other guy--and that was the one fight I got into becuase of ego more than anything else.


----------



## KyleShort

What's funny to me is that in all of my posts I argue that sparring trains attributes.  I never claim that it trains for real world scenarios.  In truth there is no way to train for them...you can only train attributes and skills that can be dynamically applied when the occasion arises.

Most of the counter posts seem to argue that sparring does not train for violent, suprise attacks etc...and you know what...I don't care.  Stop action, scenario training does not train that fully either.  The point is that both types of training develop critical attributes and neither should be ignored IMO.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Shogun said:
			
		

> Is defending yourself while you are on the toilet common practice in the Booj? lol.
> 
> Honestly, several of the people that have posted about how a fight goes, obviously, dont know how a fight goes. people dont try and assassinate you unexpectedly on a regular basis (not in Washington anyway


I don't think anyone has said otherwise, but ambushes of all kinds do still regularly occur around the world. It's the same if a guy comes up to you and asks for a cigarette, you reply that you haven't got any and he swings at you. If your will to end the confrontation and/or get away is stronger than your will to slug it out with the guy, it's a self defense situation, not a fight.


----------



## Dale Seago

Shogun said:
			
		

> people dont try and assassinate you unexpectedly on a regular basis. . .



They do in the work I & my wife do for a living. . . or more accurately, they may try to hit the people the company we work for is engaged to protect.


----------



## DWeidman

Dale Seago said:
			
		

> They do in the work I & my wife do for a living. . . or more accurately, they may try to hit the people the company we work for is engaged to protect.


Let's face some reality here... 

If someone has time and patience - skill and determination -- AND wants to kill you... They almost ALWAYS kill you... And it is SenSenNoSen - you never even know they are there until you are dead.

So - how do you train for that scenario? You don't. You train to trust your instincts - you learn to be more observant than your average bear -- you learn to be careful when you move... etc etc etc. And at what price??? Lets be honest here... Unless you are in Dale's line of work - how many of you walk outside with body armor on? Isn't it safer to be wearing Kevlar everyday? Even with that said - how often does Dale wear body armor? 

Does anyone think their training emcompasses being _"ready"_ for a Marc "the animal" MacYoung style street attack? 

So - what are you learning in class - and what is the level that you train to defend against? _THAT IS THE SALIENT QUESTION..._

I train to deal with a known attack - from known attackers (not that I know exactly what is coming - but just that I am _somehow_ prompted that something is about to start...). I don't assume I will have the entire situation under control before it starts - just that training for an UNKNOWN attack from UNKNOWN attackers - leaves so much detail out that the scenarios are useless. I rely on my instincts to guide me - as there isn't ANYTHING I can do proactively in that situation. As such - I can't (by definition of the work UNKNOWN) _train for_ such an event.

That is the level I train for. My "sparring" and free response deals with that scenario. I am VERY honest, however, with MYSELF -- that the "sparring" style training is a LEARNING tool only - and that I make no correlation between it and the real thing. 

I suspect the vast majority of us who train in the art use "free response" drills - but we all have a theoretical disagreement with anyone who claims that those drills _"PREPARE" _you for the real deal (which is what this thread was started about). They are a training aid - plain and simple. They MAY prepare you for something - or they may HINDER you.  The "dueling / sparring" mindset is ultimately about ego - which has a whole series of negative effects as well...

For those of you who spar - how many of you actively think about what BAD habits (including mental frames of reference) you accumulate along the way? The vast majority of guys who spar who I talk to claim the exact opposite. Sparring lets them know what "really" works - it is the proving grounds for their techniques. 

And that - in essence - is myopic with rather terminal consequences...

-Daniel Weidman


----------



## Dale Seago

DWeidman said:
			
		

> Let's face some reality here...
> 
> If someone has time and patience - skill and determination -- AND wants to kill you... They almost ALWAYS kill you... And it is SenSenNoSen - you never even know they are there until you are dead.
> 
> So - how do you train for that scenario? You don't. You train to trust your instincts - you learn to be more observant than your average bear -- you learn to be careful when you move... etc etc etc. And at what price???



Yep. The main focus of EP training, and the operational planning and execution of the job, are primarily on making it difficult for the Bad Guys to find or create a good opportunity to attempt the Bad Thing. Attack On Principal (AOP) drills and tactics are important, but they're something you truly hope you never have to execute.



> I suspect the vast majority of us who train in the art use "free response" drills - but we all have a theoretical disagreement with anyone who claims that those drills _"PREPARE" _you for the real deal (which is what this thread was started about). They are a training aid - plain and simple. They MAY prepare you for something - or they may HINDER you.  The "dueling / sparring" mindset is ultimately about ego - which has a whole series of negative effects as well...



Yep again. I incorporate a lot of "free response" stuff in the context of kata training. So does Hatsumi sensei. When he calls a senior instructor up on stage (or wherever) to demonstrate something, for example, if he wants to see the "base" form he'll say so. Otherwise, in my experience what he wants to see is a spontaneous application of the principles/concepts of the form -- the lessons the kata is actually "about" -- as a way of evaluating whether you actually grasp what he's showing. He does not want to see you try to mimic something he just did.

Since this year's Booj focus has to do with Gyokko ryu, let's take a look at its first kata, _Koku_. Someone with little or no training would look at it and say, "Okay, so uke punches at tori; tori evades/receives the punch and then wallops hell out of uke's arm; uke follows up with a skipping-in front kick, tori evades it and kicks his leg and then nails him with a _boshi ken_ thrust. Simple enough, cool, I got that."

From my perspective there's a little more there.

First of all, this one is explicitly about use of space  thats even implicit in its name.

It also is NOT about self-defense, though thats not to say its movement and concepts cant be used that way. Theres no surprise assault occurring: This is a case of two warriors engaged in mutual combat, who both already know its on.

You could also consider it sort of an intelligence gathering kata. First, uke punched when and where he did _because of the information tori feeds him through his distance, positioning, etc_. After receiving ukes punch, tori performs ken-kudaki and smashes the hell out of ukes arm, but does not immediately move in to exploit the opening which _may have_ been created. Instead he tries to determine what hes really facing -- what the opponents further intentions, hidden weapons, etc. may be  by continuing to move in a way that also narrows down uke's logical range of choices. Tori moves at an angle and distance which makes a skipping-in kick with the leading leg the best (easiest) choice if he wants to continue his attack  the space looks right for it from his perspective. Uke doesnt HAVE to do that, of course; he could just go home and nurse his possibly-broken arm and listen to his buddies laugh about what a wuss he is. He also COULD do something other than that kick. However, tori is already moving in such a way as to easily deal with the kick if it comes; and any other attack will be from a less optimal position and be even easier for tori to observe and deal with.

So you move in such a way as to invite the kick, and deal with it (or whatever else) in a way which will create a condition enabling you to _in some way_ deal with the attacker decisively. 

This, to me, is the essence of the kata, and the specific way any or all of this manifests after the initial punch is launched is infinitely variable.

And that's what we work up to dealing with. And so far I'm only talking about the unarmed taijutsu kata; this year we're doing all kinds of applications with rokushakubo and tachi as well.

It's still _Koku_, but there's room for all kinds of wild free-response stuff within that space.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Dale Seago said:
			
		

> It also is NOT about self-defense, though thats not to say its movement and concepts cant be used that way. Theres no surprise assault occurring: This is a case of two warriors engaged in mutual combat, who both already know its on.


Absolutely, the key word here is "combat".


----------



## Tenjin

> Is defending yourself while you are on the toilet common practice in the Booj? lol.


No, I was trying (poorly I guess) to counterpoint the idea that sparring somehow prepares you for "combat" despite the fact its pretty much always two guys squaring up in a dojo.  

Many people think that you can not learn to fight/defend yourself/whatever, without sparring.  I simply disagree.

Again sparring rarely takes into account weapons, does not have the "feel" of a life and death struggle, and does not take into account realistic variables such as weapons, suprise attacks, multiple opponents, terrain, type of clothing worn, etc.  Outside of scratching your ego, and occasionally getting or giving a bloody nose I still don't see the point.  

Please keep in mind I'm not comparing sparring to any other type of training, I'm just stating why I don't feel its needed in the Bujinkan, or "ninjutsu" if you will.

If I wanted to spar I would join a sport art.


----------



## DWeidman

Tenjin said:
			
		

> Outside of scratching your ego, and occasionally getting or giving a bloody nose I still don't see the point.


Before I reply - let me first ask you to define "sparring".

If your version is like my version - free response drills at realistic speeds with full intent - then it is best that you don't train in them.  In fact - the fewer the better overall.  

...Makes me feel better about what I train for...

-Daniel


----------



## KyleShort

Hi Daniel,

I think that is at the heart of the matter.

Semantics.

The opponents of sparring on this thread seem to all define sparring as two people squarinng off under sporting conditions/rules.

However I (a proponent) and others would define sparing as dynamic attack & defense with one or more aggressive & resisting opponents.

This would include sparring with weapons, sparring multiple opponents (3,4...), sparring in the dark, attacked from a blindside etc...


----------



## Cryozombie

DWeidman said:
			
		

> Let's face some reality here... how many of you walk outside with body armor on? Isn't it safer to be wearing Kevlar everyday? Even with that said - how often does Dale wear body armor?
> -Daniel Weidman


I ALWAYS wear my Kevlar when I am doing Repo work.  While to this day I have only been shot at by a farmer using a bow and arrow, and that has only happened once, I still wont work without it.

I also wear it if I am out and about _on occasion_... but no, not everyday.


----------



## Tenjin

> If your version is like my version - free response drills at realistic speeds with full intent - then it is best that you don't train in them. In fact - the fewer the better overall.


So in what you are talking about is their an uke and a tori, or is it everyman for himself? If its every man for himself and its at "realistic speeds" with "full intent" I'm just curious how many guys you have lost due to being seriously hurt.



> ...Makes me feel better about what I train for...


Which is what exactly?



> However I (a proponent) and others would define sparing as dynamic attack & defense with one or more aggressive & resisting opponents.


If you resist certain things, and you are working with "realistic speed" and intent things are going to get broken.  Some joints only go so far, or one way and when you get people all junked up on adrenaline people are going to be sloppy and are going to get hurt or hurt someone else.

Again if you like sparring, do it.  If I wanted to spar I would go join my local TKD school, from what I hear they do allot of it.


----------



## Kreth

Tenjin said:
			
		

> If you resist certain things, and you are working with "realistic speed" and intent things are going to get broken.  Some joints only go so far, or one way and when you get people all junked up on adrenaline people are going to be sloppy and are going to get hurt or hurt someone else.


I don't think Daniel is advocating full-on combat as sparring. Obviously, some sort of constraints need to be in place, especially with beginning students. But, I believe senior students can effectively spar with little to no injury, as they will develop a sense of how far to take things.
As an aside, I have been uke for some of the Japanese shihan, and I have a habit of giving "real" attacks (as I don't feel someone skilled should need the sterotypical attack, ie. I punch, and just wait for them to complete their technique), and they have had me convinced that my elbow (for example) was about to be broken, yet no injury was done...

Jeff


----------



## Tenjin

> and I have a habit of giving "real" attacks (as I don't feel someone skilled should need the sterotypical attack, ie. I punch, and just wait for them to complete their technique), and they have had me convinced that my elbow (for example) was about to be broken, yet no injury was done...


I agree with this, but you are still talking about one person being uke here I'm talking about two people going at it, resisting and trying to each apply techniques to one another at "realistic speed."  I don't see how someone does not get hurt when the techniques are designed to hurt someone when you are going full blast with both people as tori.


----------



## KyleShort

Why does sparring have to be "realistic speed"?  Look at the Russian martial arts...plenty of slow sparring.  In escrima we have controlled sparring that works at varying speeds.

Why does sparring have to include the techniques that would break bones?  You can limit techniques and still spar...again, the point here is that you are clearly not trying to train the techniques that you do not allow =)  You may only be trying to practice evasion, movement, stance changes etc...

But on the point of full speed sparring with joint locks etc.  You can certainly avoid injury...judoka, samboists etc. do it all the time.  In anycase the risk of injury is no greater than most sports like basketball, baseball etc. Also, as noted in another post, there is plenty of control even at realistic speeds amongst higher level practitioners.  

The key is that begining students need to be limited in what they can do, so as to avoid injury.  This actually serves a duel purpose of having the students focus on fundamentals of movement prior to going into advanced techniques.

For example look at chi sao, a form of controlled sparring in Wing Chun.  Beginning students focus on motion, as skill builds you add on unexpected motions, probing, push, pulling and eventually controlled striking, locking and takedowns.  The hubud hubud drill in Escrima works in similar ways.

Now if you still limit the concept of sparring to 2 "fighters" squarred off engaging in full contact slap and play guided by sporting rules...then sure


----------



## Don Roley

Can I just intrude here and try to clarify things a bit?

If I see what is going on correctly, I think that the people that say they don't like sparring are mainly talking about *competition.* By that, I mean when you get two guys on equal ground going at it for one of them to "win" over the other.

But the guys that seem to be advocating "sparring" mainly seem to be talking merely about a situation where things are not predetermined in advance. KyleShort has talked about things like non- full speed sparring, multiple opponents and the like and never mentioned anything about taking note of who "wins".

I think that some of the kata training that I have engaged in here in Japan would qualify as sparring under the loosest definitions. Go see the "where do we draw the line" thread in the traditional section to see a whole conversation about that.

As for myself, I oppose the idea of competition. I dislike even the idea that there may be a _possiblity_ that people take note on how well they did in such situations instead of merely using it as a learning tool. With all the egoism that martial arts has in it, it is only a very short step to people developing habits for sparring and not combat. In other words, training for sparring instead of sparring for training. And that leads to bad habits.

At the same time, if used in moderation and in the right way, I do believe that some drils where the end result and the like are not predetermined are a valuable part of training.

But the second anyone starts talking about how they can or have beat someone on the mat I think they have been lost forever from the path of true budo.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

KyleShort said:
			
		

> Why does sparring have to be "realistic speed"? Look at the Russian martial arts...plenty of slow sparring. In escrima we have controlled sparring that works at varying speeds.


One drill that we have employed at times that we learned from a Kuntao seminar was that someone performs a technique on his partner and stops just short of securing control definitely, so that the other guy has the opportunity to counter and set up his own technique...etc etc.



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> Why does sparring have to include the techniques that would break bones? You can limit techniques and still spar...again, the point here is that you are clearly not trying to train the techniques that you do not allow =) You may only be trying to practice evasion, movement, stance changes etc...


Thing is, you need to actually KNOW those things before you start sparring to any serious extent. Otherwise you'll limit yourself to what you've done in sparring.



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> But on the point of full speed sparring with joint locks etc. You can certainly avoid injury...judoka, samboists etc. do it all the time.


At the expense of countless techniques and strategies, yes.



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> Also, as noted in another post, there is plenty of control even at realistic speeds amongst higher level practitioners.


Which brings us to what I perceive to be the problem at hand. As I've said before, it is a well known fact that the average Bujinkan practitioner has an understanting of kihon worse than crap. Before we've solved that issue, whether or not we're going to be using sparring as a training form doesn't really matter. 



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> The key is that begining students need to be limited in what they can do, so as to avoid injury. This actually serves a duel purpose of having the students focus on fundamentals of movement prior to going into advanced techniques.


Normally, I'd say that "doing so in full speed when you're a beginner leads to sloppiness and bad habits". To which you'd probably reply "who said we had to go fast?" as stated above.

And after that we'd both come to the conclusion that what we were talking about was a training form not much different from regular kata practice. You still following me?:ultracool 



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> For example look at chi sao, a form of controlled sparring in Wing Chun. Beginning students focus on motion, as skill builds you add on unexpected motions, probing, push, pulling and eventually controlled striking, locking and takedowns. The hubud hubud drill in Escrima works in similar ways.


I've seen this, as well as what could most accurately be described as "knife tapping" in regular Bujinkan practice as well.


----------



## DWeidman

Tenjin said:
			
		

> So in what you are talking about is their an uke and a tori, or is it everyman for himself? If its every man for himself and its at "realistic speeds" with "full intent" I'm just curious how many guys you have lost due to being seriously hurt.


What I am talking about is a tori and a tori. And to this date - a strained wrist (me) is the most serious injury. No one has been lost due to being seriously hurt.



			
				Tenjin said:
			
		

> If you resist certain things, and you are working with "realistic speed" and intent things are going to get broken. Some joints only go so far, or one way and when you get people all junked up on adrenaline people are going to be sloppy and are going to get hurt or hurt someone else.


Really? You sure about that?

Perhaps you should let us know what your sparring experience is... If it is little to none - then you need to preface your comments with that disclaimer.

I will answer this last question after I get a reply to your experience with full intent, realistic speed free response....

-Daniel

PS.  Anyone that wants to discuss this with me - please keep my answers and Kyle's separate.  I am not sure Kyle and I are on the same page here...


----------



## Dale Seago

By the way, folks, I just posted something on the "Booj sparring" thread that might be germane to the discussion:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=347019#post347019


----------



## KyleShort

Daniel,

You are right in that I am discussing a different point related to sparring.

However, I do agree with what you are saying as well, that's just not really what I am talking about =)

Thanks for posting the distinction to keep things clear for everyone.


----------



## DWeidman

Tenjin said:
			
		

> I agree with this, but you are still talking about one person being uke here I'm talking about two people going at it, resisting and trying to each apply techniques to one another at "realistic speed." I don't see how someone does not get hurt when the techniques are designed to hurt someone when you are going full blast with both people as tori.


Lance - 

Since you were on the board this morning and still haven't posted your free-response experience - I will assume it is rather limited and you are speaking from the "theory" level.  If I am incorrect - please remedy that.

With that said...

Here is the crux of the issue from my vantage -- 

Does everyone remember the 4 stages of learning taijutsu?

1.  Unconscious Incompentence
2.  Conscious Incompentence
3.  Conscious Compentence
4.  Unconscious Compentence

If you aren't at #4 - then you have no business attempting to apply taijutsu in a "free-response" manner as a learning aid.  You have to have your basics down well enough to NOT have to think about them as you apply them.  (I believe this is at the heart of Nimravus' issue as well).

Once you have those skills subconsciously - you can put a group of people together that can apply them at realistic speeds (NOT FULL SPEED) and still have the control to not break and smash everything they hit.  We are VERY honest about being struck - and what it would do.  There are times I have applied counters and in he middle of the counter stopped and admitted the shot I would have taken to get in wouldn't have let me continue...  

It isn't an ego contest - it is a learning tool.

When you move the speed to about 85% of reality - the moves you can get away with at half speed are cut significantly.  And without the pausing that is common among Buj dojos - the attacker is not where you are used to him being.   Joint locks which work soooooo great in class are PRETTY HARD to get on at realistic speeds...  

On to the second part - which is people getting hurt.  Until you have trained this way - you won't understand how hard it is to "hurt" an accomplished fighter.  This requires no more explanation - as you either understand this or you don't.  If you don't - rest easy - it is probably easier to sleep at night thinking your techniques are soooo deadly that no one can take them.

I am open to any discussion about how this all works...

-Daniel Weidman


----------



## KyleShort

DWeidman said:
			
		

> And without the pausing that is common among Buj dojos - the attacker is not where you are used to him being.   Joint locks which work soooooo great in class are PRETTY HARD to get on at realistic speeds...



AMEN! Thanks for putting this point so succinctly.  Indeed this is what I mean by getting experience with dynamically adjusting...the attacker is not where you expect them to be...the technique does not quite seem to work the way you trained it.  You can make it work but it takes repeated exposure to understand...IMO



			
				DWeidman said:
			
		

> On to the second part - which is people getting hurt.  Until you have trained this way - you won't understand how hard it is to "hurt" an accomplished fighter.  This requires no more explanation - as you either understand this or you don't.  If you don't - rest easy - it is probably easier to sleep at night thinking your techniques are soooo deadly that no one can take them.



*Bows* Many people believe that a few hits with a club will take someone out...possible, sure some percentage of the time, but if you have sparred full contact with sticks (alla esrcima) you see that you can take several heavy blows before your body even tells you that it needs to fail.  Similar with groin strikes...in dojo kata training we are conditioned that the attacker will buckle over when you hit them in the groin...but I can say that this only happens a percentage of the time, as it can take up to ~20 seconds to even register the pain.

Along the same lines, a boshiken to the ribs hurts like hell in 2 person kata at 50% speed...in 85% speed or so, where everyone is hopped up on adrenaline, you barely feel it.  

If you can't make a technique work in "realistic speed" sparring as Daniel mentioned it, you probably can't make it work at all.  If it is simply difficult to make it work under said sparring conditions, then you can bet that it would be difficult to make work in a self defense situation.

Just a note for all, I firmly believe in kata skill training.  I also believe that it is worthless if you are simply taking it at face value.  You need to not train to be a template of those that came before you, but leverage what they have given you to understand what you already have.  Internalize it and discover what works for you because not everything you learn in kata will work for you, even though it may work for another.  Sparring is not the only way to learn this, but it helps.


----------



## Kreth

KyleShort said:
			
		

> Just a note for all, I firmly believe in kata skill training.  I also believe that it is worthless if you are simply taking it at face value.  You need to not train to be a template of those that came before you, but leverage what they have given you to understand what you already have.  Internalize it and discover what works for you because not everything you learn in kata will work for you, even though it may work for another.  Sparring is not the only way to learn this, but it helps.


Good point. I think eventually you need to look deeper than the exchange itself in any given kata, and look for the strategy:why things are being done as they are...

Jeff


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Which can prove to be somewhat difficult if you lack the technical expertise/experience required.:asian:


----------



## Tenjin

DWeidman said:
			
		

> What I am talking about is a tori and a tori. And to this date - a strained wrist (me) is the most serious injury. No one has been lost due to being seriously hurt.
> 
> Really? You sure about that?
> 
> Perhaps you should let us know what your sparring experience is... If it is little to none - then you need to preface your comments with that disclaimer.
> 
> I will answer this last question after I get a reply to your experience with full intent, realistic speed free response....
> qUOTE]
> 
> I have done free response with both bare hands and weapons, with multiple attackers, and with muto dori. Im not saying Im an expert, Im not saying Im completely unskilled. Like most of us I fall somewhere in between.
> 
> We did some free response with padded swords after a seminar this weekend one on one, then two on one. Lending substance to my "sparring is fake and leads to bad habits idea" were the both higher and no ranked people jumping in to try to hit you even though you were holding what should have been viewed as a three foot razor blade.
> 
> People wont ever treat a padded sword or a shinai as a real weapon. Its fake, its been fake every time Ive seen it, and if you do it with bokken or metal blades people are going to get hurt.
> 
> Same with free response. If you take two guys and sit them on the mat to do free response you dont get any semblance of a real fight. You get usually two guys staying far away from each other stalking around, or an uncontrolled melee where you wonder if the people actually trained at all.
> 
> What is this supposed to be teaching them?
> 
> I am glad no one has ever gotten hurt seriously, but in watching some of Sokes videos, and remembering him talking in person he talks about breaking ukes molars, fingers, ribs, etc just in regular training. None of us are Soke, and being of lesser skill can lead to mistakes being made in free response/sparring = people injured
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lance -
> 
> Since you were on the board this morning and still haven't posted your free-response experience - I will assume it is rather limited and you are speaking from the "theory" level. If I am incorrect - please remedy that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I didn't answer you in an amout of time you wanted me to, but I went to a seminar to actually train, not just talk about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On to the second part - which is people getting hurt. Until you have trained this way - you won't understand how hard it is to "hurt" an accomplished fighter. This requires no more explanation - as you either understand this or you don't. If you don't - rest easy - it is probably easier to sleep at night thinking your techniques are soooo deadly that no one can take them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is hard to hurt, no one is hard to kill.  We all eat, breathe and crap the same.  If you think otherwise I hope for your own sake your teacher knocks your ego a few notches before someone proves my theory.  Skilled fighters in the military can get blown up just like anyone else, can catch a bullet, a knife in the back, or even a boot to the head.  Someone who is a very skilled fighter can still suffer from a condition or disease (sometimes that they dont' even know about) that could make them collapse suddenly when a conflict comes on, even if they have been involved in multiple conflicts before.  Blunt force trauma to the skull, or a knife in the ribs pretty much gets everyone.
> 
> No one here is superman, hell even superman wasn't superman cause he's dead.
> 
> I don't think my techniques are deadly this or to good to be countered that.  I just train and try to get a little bit better and learn a little bit more every day, nothing more nothing less.  Just because I disagree with your idea of a training point, and have my own opinions does not mean that I have an ego problem, or that you should start the internet trend of beginning to bellitle someone just because they disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you were on the board this morning and still haven't posted your free-response experience - I will assume it is rather limited and you are speaking from the "theory" level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just wanted to comment, and forgive me for saying so because its out of character for me, that this is the stupidest thing I have ever seen posted on a martial arts forum.  Just because I didn't post when I logged on means I must have limited experience in what we are discussing?
> 
> Perhaps another way of thinking about it is maybe I didn't have time to post and was planning on posting later, or logged on and got busy.  Might need to open your mind to other ways of thinking bro, that was just sad and pathetic.
> 
> While I disagree with your ideas of sparring here, I wont' become involved in an e-budo style flame vs. flame about it.  At my current level of experience I feel its not a valuable tool for our arts for the reasons I have stated.  Disagreeing with you should not be viewed as a personal attack, and I've said all I wish to on the issue.
Click to expand...


----------



## DWeidman

Tenjin said:
			
		

> Same with free response. If you take two guys and sit them on the mat to do free response you dont get any semblance of a real fight. You get usually two guys staying far away from each other stalking around, or an uncontrolled melee where you wonder if the people actually trained at all.
> 
> What is this supposed to be teaching them?


You see - the problem I have with the tone of your posts is how "authoritative" it sounds.  Re-read the paragraph above for case in point.

I have seen what you are talking about - and I have seen really impressive free-response (which -- according to your statement doesn't happen)...

I posted the 4 stages of learning and said when I think you should be starting free-response.  Would you say the people you have watched were at the 4th stage?



			
				Tenjin said:
			
		

> Sorry I didn't answer you in an amout of time you wanted me to, but I went to a seminar to actually train, not just talk about it.


 No problem.  I am glad you were at a seminar instead of just avoiding an online discussion...  



			
				Tenjin said:
			
		

> No one is hard to hurt, no one is hard to kill. We all eat, breathe and crap the same. If you think otherwise I hope for your own sake your teacher knocks your ego a few notches before someone proves my theory. Skilled fighters in the military can get blown up just like anyone else, can catch a bullet, a knife in the back, or even a boot to the head. Someone who is a very skilled fighter can still suffer from a condition or disease (sometimes that they dont' even know about) that could make them collapse suddenly when a conflict comes on, even if they have been involved in multiple conflicts before. Blunt force trauma to the skull, or a knife in the ribs pretty much gets everyone.


Perhaps you would like to try this paragraph again.  It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  And yes - contrary to popular belief - some people are harder to hurt then you expect them to be.  

I say this from my own experience and my own misconceptions...



			
				Tenjin said:
			
		

> Just because I disagree with your idea of a training point, and have my own opinions does not mean that I have an ego problem, or that you should start the internet trend of beginning to bellitle someone just because they disagree with you.


I wouldn't say ego - I would say blissful ignorance.  Sorry if you feel like I am trending here...



			
				Tenjin said:
			
		

> DWeidman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you were on the board this morning and still haven't posted your free-response experience - I will assume it is rather limited and you are speaking from the "theory" level.
> 
> 
> 
> I just wanted to comment, and forgive me for saying so because its out of character for me, that this is the stupidest thing I have ever seen posted on a martial arts forum. Just because I didn't post when I logged on means I must have limited experience in what we are discussing?
> 
> Perhaps another way of thinking about it is maybe I didn't have time to post and was planning on posting later, or logged on and got busy. Might need to open your mind to other ways of thinking bro, that was just sad and pathetic.
Click to expand...

No offense taken (although I assume offense was meant)...  I left you a nice, easy way out with the rest of the quote that you conveniently chose to NOT quote.   "If I am incorrect - please remedy that."

I openly used the word "assume"...  as opposed to your comments of "...the stupidest thing I have ever seen posted...".  

My question was asked to lay foundation to the discussion.  If you had considerable experience with this - and had salient points - the discussion would be different now.  Since you don't - there is little to discuss as you.  

Sorry for the reality check.



			
				Tenjin said:
			
		

> At my current level of experience I feel its not a valuable tool for our arts for the reasons I have stated. Disagreeing with you should not be viewed as a personal attack, and I've said all I wish to on the issue.


Why didn't you say, "At my current level of experience - I feel its not a valuable tool FOR ME for the reasons I have stated?"  Why are you making a judgement for the art???

I rarely take any discussion personally.  Even discussions / comments that are meant to be personally insulting....

-Daniel


----------



## rutherford

KyleShort said:
			
		

> 1. Build tactile sensitivity (chi sao, tapi tapi, hubud hubud etc.)





			
				Nimravus said:
			
		

> 1 - comes through regular (Bujinkan) training as well. Don't ask me how, because I honestly don't know.


 As somebody who used to train within JKD (from the PFS side), took a decade off, and then recently began training with Bujinkan folks; I feel compelled to share my obviously neophyte opinions on the matter.

 First, I don't think the energy drills mentioned are anywhere close to my definition of sparring.  Sure, Uke (to use Japanese terms) freely chooses when to attack and by what method.  And Tori responds freely.  But the intensity level is still at drill speeds and are really aimed at training specific attributes.

 The beauty of these drills is that after showing one to somebody and training with them for 5 minutes, you can have them close their eyes and they can instantly feel when Uke changes the energy by throwing in a free response.  The sensitivity is certainly there.

 Good taijutsu practice breeds the same sensitivity because you should always be able to say, "Hey, I've been here before."  The experience seems to have much more depth, if perhaps it is not as quickly realized.


----------



## KyleShort

And with my post I was not asking you or anyone else what your definition of sparring was, I was simply stating mine   

That having been said, I consider sparring just about anything that allows free attack & response (even if it is constrained to a certain speed and selection of techniques).  Our definitions differ, no argument there.  

The primary point that I was making was that in my experience training in the bujinkan there was very little free (sparring) training.  Sure much of the time you are shown something and told to respond to the same attack in your own way (free for you)...or perhaps the same depending upon the intent of the exercise.  BUT the keystone here is the initial attack(s).  They are almost always known prior to the attack, so it is not really free.  Your mind and body already knows what is comming.  But again, I am not saying what is better or worse.  IMO I like to have a blend of both types of training.


----------



## rutherford

KyleShort said:
			
		

> And with my post I was not asking you or anyone else what your definition of sparring was, I was simply stating mine
> 
> That having been said, I consider sparring just about anything that allows free attack & response (even if it is constrained to a certain speed and selection of techniques).  Our definitions differ, no argument there.
> 
> The primary point that I was making was that in my experience training in the bujinkan there was very little free (sparring) training.



And I hope that you were not unhappy to have me share my own definitions.  I certainly would not demand that you use them. 

. . . Huh.

Using your definition, I would say that the *all* of the training I've done has been sparring.

In my training group, we always change things slightly between repetitions.  We'll decide what type of movement we're going to train, and then try to explore the ways that the movement is applicable.

I'm a new student, so I like to have Uke say, "Hey, I'm gonna throw this type of attack for a while."  In fact, I need those right now to stay within the parameters of the training because if I respond freely I'm going to go back to what I know and not what I'm trying to learn.


----------



## DWeidman

KyleShort said:
			
		

> The primary point that I was making was that in my experience training in the bujinkan there was very little free (sparring) training.


Just so we understand more about this - how long were you in the Bujinkan?  What was your rank when you left?

Thanks,

-Daniel


----------



## shinbushi

Since at my dojo, we spar a lot, I thought I would give my 2 sen.

And there you have it. It seems ludicrous to me that having rules in place for competition or randori (or even partner drills in the dojo) somehow implies the watering down or ineffectiveness of an art.

 All MA training has rules. Nobody goes around slamming on an Omote Gyaku with the intention of breaking uke's wrist. No one goes around altering the angle of their throws with the express intention of dumping uke on their head. Nobody actually trains eye-gouging or throat-ripping or joint dislocation - at least nowhere near at full intensity.

 Having a randori element to an art creates an environment in which core principles (maai, kuzushi, positional strategy on the ground) can be applied full force against fully resisting opponents, with a limited number of relatively safe techniques to ensure no-one gets badly hurt. All the nasty stuff can be drilled separately, with compliant partners or at low intensity. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

 But I would argue very strongly that the best way to learn how to apply core principles is through randori. The Bujinkan has tons of ground submissions. So how come when I started BJJ (at a purely sport-oriented school) I got tapped like a typewriter? Because BJJ (like all combat sports) has strategies and principles to deal with live opponents that were lacking in my previous training.

 Though Sparring and drills against progressively resistant opponents is not the end all be all of training. IMHO it should be included to some degree from day 1. I know some people think this engrains bad habits but form my experience. When you start kata training (cooperative waza and format kata) students use too many attributes (Speed, strength, athleticism). When people start sparring they do the same thing. I have found that even if someone has trained for decades without sparring, the 1st time they spar the will use attributes.

Sparring may not be like real life but neither is training slowly with cooperative training partners. You need IMHO to have both. There are of course other ways of pressure testing your skills, but for me and my dojo it is sparring. *Just to clarify We do kata, henka drill in addition to sparring.*
Also From Noted Koryu pratictioner, Ellis Amdur


> The genius of judo (continued in offshoots like sambo, BJJ, etc.) is the ability to chain and link techniques. "Modern classical jujutsu," having lost the randori component, lacks the wherewithal to foster this. There is no doubt that sets of kata that focus on use of a weapon while pinning and stabbing are more directly applicable to close combat with edged weapons than judo (et al), as far as the techniques go. BUT - speaking as a practitioner of classical methods who has also studied some level of judo (not enough, sadly) - without a randori component, which most "modern classical jujutsu" now lacks, the classicist is not prepared for the wiggling, thrashing chaos that is, so I am told, real combat - not fights - combat to the death. A combat veteran discusses this in the Winter, 2002 issue of Hoplite, where he describes, among other things, stabbing himself in the process of killing an enemy.


 From shenwu.com



> This is a very interesting topic, the sparring vs. too deadly to spar dichotomy. My students also get into this discussion with practitioners of other arts that believe they are too lethal to spar. I suppose their is no 'answer' short of no holds barred death matches, but it is important to look at the evidence we do have so that students can make an informed decision, especially students that want to prepare themselves for a real and violent confrontation.
> 
> I'll preface my comments by saying I have trained all different ways. I've studied traditional styles of martial arts in which all techniques were supposed to be potentially lethal, and which forbade sparring, as well as traditional arts which allowed contact sparring. I've also practiced several combat 'sports.'
> 
> One of the most, if not the most important aspect of success in a fight is mindset, next is experience, then physicality, finally specific technique. Without the will to fight, the greatest fighter in the world will lose to the most mediocre fighter. This is a common sense observation. It is extremely difficult (although probably not impossible) to develop a fighting mindset without some experience approximating a real fight. Like the boxers say, everyone has a plan until they get hit. If you have never been hit hard, crushed under someone's weight or been on the receiving end of a painful and unrelenting attack, how do you know how you will react? You may imagine you will respond appropriately and fight back, but you will never know for sure. Sparring will never be as intense as a real fight, but it is the closest approximation you will find within the bounds of relative safety (although you will be injured on occasion, it's an inevitability of learning to fight).
> 
> Getting hit, strangled and thrown hard by a determined and resisting opponent will condition your mind and body for the realities of a fight. Taking out your opponent with the initial attack is obviously the ultimate goal of a fight (and learning how to sucker punch is something I believe should be practiced often), but the reality is one punch knockouts almost never occur. When they do, the fighter doing the knocking out is usually always much bigger and stronger than his opponent. Despite the popular 'deadly martial arts' idea that a fight will be over in seconds with the opponent lying unconscious and broken on the floor, fights often go on for minutes, with both fighters injured as third parties pull the fighters apart.
> 
> Contact sparring and grappling are also a 'laboratory' for you to experiment with which techniques YOU can actually apply against a resisting opponent. Just because your teacher or classmates can smash bones with a blow doesn't mean you necessarily can. You will never know what you can really do unless you have really done it. You must also practice sparring in all ranges and situations (striking and wrestling both standing and on the ground).


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

shinbushi said:
			
		

> And there you have it. It seems ludicrous to me that having rules in place for competition or randori (or even partner drills in the dojo) somehow implies the watering down or ineffectiveness of an art.
> All MA training has rules. Nobody goes around slamming on an Omote Gyaku with the intention of breaking uke's wrist. No one goes around altering the angle of their throws with the express intention of dumping uke on their head. Nobody actually trains eye-gouging or throat-ripping or joint dislocation - at least nowhere near at full intensity.


 
You have a point, but that problem gets worse if you don't have to worry about these things while sparring. You can't utilize the same strategy in a submission match as in reality, because you don't know if your opponent has an unexpected backup, be it a pushdagger, a lady with a gun or friends with steeltoed boots.



			
				shinbushi said:
			
		

> Having a randori element to an art creates an environment in which core principles (maai, kuzushi, positional strategy on the ground) can be applied full force against fully resisting opponents, with a limited number of relatively safe techniques to ensure no-one gets badly hurt. All the nasty stuff can be drilled separately, with compliant partners or at low intensity. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.


If your opponent is resisting, you should be doing something else.



			
				shinbushi said:
			
		

> But I would argue very strongly that the best way to learn how to apply core principles is through randori. The Bujinkan has tons of ground submissions. So how come when I started BJJ (at a purely sport-oriented school) I got tapped like a typewriter? Because BJJ (like all combat sports) has strategies and principles to deal with live opponents that were lacking in my previous training.


Lacking, or difficult to get to?



			
				shinbushi said:
			
		

> When you start kata training (cooperative waza and format kata) students use too many attributes (Speed, strength, athleticism). When people start sparring they do the same thing. I have found that even if someone has trained for decades without sparring, the 1st time they spar the will use attributes.


I don't know who said it first, but "don't judge the world by your own ****** standards". For god's sake, one can fix this problem without admitting defeat!! It just takes time and hard work!!
I've had the opportunity to attack my current instructor freely with a knife, using whatever attacks I felt like using. This was at a regular training seminar right in the middle of regular training. He took me out in less than 10 seconds without any life-threatening injuries on his part. And here comes the best part - I have no clue whatsoever as to how strong he is. Nor do I know how strong Nagato sensei is, even though I've been his uke. Get my point?

Real, real, REAL good taijutsu has you down for the count without you ever having the slightest clue as to what happened. This type of ability exists, I've had it demonstrated to me myself and I don't care if someone says otherwise. Up until around september 2003 I will admit I had my doubts about budo taijutsu in several contexts. Now, I doubt myself and my own ability instead.


----------



## shinbushi

Nimravus said:
			
		

> If your opponent is resisting, you should be doing something else.
> 
> [/font]


 By resisting it means non-compliant, active opponent, not that you are forcing a technique against resistance.


			
				Nimravus said:
			
		

> Real, real, REAL good taijutsu has you down for the count without you ever having the slightest clue as to what happened. This type of ability exists, I've had it demonstrated to me myself and I don't care if someone says otherwise. Up until around September 2003 I will admit I had my doubts about budo taijutsu in several contexts. Now, I doubt myself and my own ability instead.[/font]


 I lived and trained for 7 year in Japan with Soke and Nagato Sensei. I am at my 20 yr mark , I think I know good taijutsu.  We are not talking about waza or principals or even theory but training methods.


----------



## DWeidman

shinbushi said:
			
		

> Since at my dojo, we spar a lot, I thought I would give my 2 sen.
> 
> Though Sparring and drills against progressively resistant opponents is not the end all be all of training. IMHO it should be included to some degree from day 1.


Please explain what the advantage is of putting a student under pressure (sparring) who can't do most basics properly by themselves.  Do you think they are learning ANY good habits?  If so - what?

-Daniel Weidman


----------



## r erman

David,

Good post--and good to see you posting, too.  Reminiscent of Buyu Club...

You bring an interesting perspective as someone who lived and trained in Japan _and_ translated for some japanese shihan for a number of years.

I enjoyed the quotes form Ellis Amdur and Tim Cartmell.

Thanks Again,


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

shinbushi said:
			
		

> I lived and trained for 7 year in Japan with Soke and Nagato Sensei. I am at my 20 yr mark , I think I know good taijutsu.


You've just admitted the fact that you don't, if you don't think there's any way to get around the strength issue.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/muscle.html


----------



## shinbushi

DWeidman said:
			
		

> Please explain what the advantage is of putting a student under pressure (sparring) who can't do most basics properly by themselves. Do you think they are learning ANY good habits? If so - what?
> 
> -Daniel Weidman


 You train one or 2 simple techniques like uke tsuki or osoto gake then training it in an alive environment.  I am not talking full sparring from day one but, some aspects can be trained against progressive pressure(As in 10% pressure and build from there). BJJ, Boxing, Muay Thai, Sambo, Judo, kali, Wrestling, etc does it very well.


----------



## shinbushi

Nimravus said:
			
		

> You've just admitted the fact that you don't, if you don't think there's any way to get around the strength issue.
> 
> http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/muscle.html


 I never said that there is no way around it I just said beginners whether kata, waza or sparring *mistakenly* use muscle at the beginning and eventually as their technique, gets better they use less and less.  As an instructor that this the main thing I always have to harp on(Even when I taught cooperative training only) is to not use muscle.


----------



## Shogun

the only issue I have had with sparring, muscle, resistance etc when it comes to Taijutsu movement, is if someone Barrels you to the ground, especially if the someone has trained in Sambo, wrestling, BJJ, or Shooto. The response may come too late. The arguement is that "well....we could gouge eyes and bite and stuff". when someone is on the ground, in control, it is very hard to do that stuff. plus, there is nothing stopping them from doing the same to you. I think "free resonse" training, "active resistance", sparring, randori, etc can fix the reaction time to a response so you dont have to worry about ground fighting. groundfighting is the most popular martial art range in the world right now,,.....and they are not all good people.......


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

You can pin someone's arms and legs to the ground, but you won't be able to stop him from moving his hips just as easily. As long as he can move those, there's the possibility of escape. Classic BJJ principle, classic aikido principle, classic taijutsu principle.


----------



## Cryozombie

Shogun said:
			
		

> Barrels you to the ground, on the ground,  worry about ground fighting. groundfighting is the most popular


 Yack Yack.

 I hear so much about how "Elite" Groundfighting is... Unbeatable...

 (Not from you, Shogun, but you did say groundfighting 4 times in that post) 

 I dont buy it.  Is it THAT EASY for a guy to Pin Both Arms, Both Legs, the head, and the hips, and still have a weapon to fight you with?

 :idunno:


----------



## KyleShort

Yes it is that easy, sort of...

The problem is that you can rarely take someone out with one, two or perhaps a few more hits.  As such, it is a lot easier for a grappler to get you into a clinch, than for a striker to keep himself out of it (assuming they both want to achieve their respecitve goals).  In a grappler's clinch it is very hard to deal traumatic blows....arms are wrapped and neck is controlled or visa versa, head is along side of neck and midsection is concaved to manage knee strikes...from there it is easy to go to the ground.  Once on the ground a trained grappler can make it almost impossible for you to strike with any sufficient force, while still able to use their weapons on you...it's all about positioning and locks.  In Sambo we train to cause your lungs to sieze up by specific, deliberate application of our weight on our opponent's chest and midsection.  That alone WILL render all of your limbs useless while your body and mind automatocally struggle not only for breath, but also to simply regain control of it's respiratory functions.

Of course BBT contains both striking and grappling, in all ranges.  The techniques are there, so it goes back to a question of training methodology...hence the purpose of this thread.

Side note, my personal martial arts focus is training for battlefield scenarios.  If I were confident that I would only ever fight against one person, with no available weapons and no friends on either side, I would probably focus my training on grappling.  But since multiple opponents, guns and knives are a reality, I think good footwork and striking skills are more important.


----------



## KyleShort

Daniel,

I think I posted it previously in this thread...2 years BBT 5th kyu (maybe 6th?)...it has been a while and I never really pay attention to rank.

In any case if you think that my limited experience makes my either unqualified to comment on BBT, or at least means that I don't yet understand what BBT really is...well...I can't argue that  I have tried to be very clear that my comments apply only the training I recieved and may be appropriate for those that train in a similar manner.  Reading through this thread, and the rest of the threadson this board, it seems as though my dojo was very well representative of BBT dojos around the the US.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

A while ago I had a conversation with a guy who'd been training for about a year and a half, who complained about not having seen defenses against hook punches and round kicks. When I hear things like these I actually get a wee bit scared. Such things have been a natural part of my training for as long as I can remember. I was going to turn this into a long rant about how there are too many people teaching nowadays who still have much training to do before they're ready for that, but I think I'm going to skip that part for now.  My point is, that your answers CAN be found within the Bujinkan if you're prepared to look for it. It may even require you to move to another city or even country, but the knowledge IS out there.


----------



## Shogun

You guys are right, pinning someone, AND having tools to fight with at the same time is pretty much impossible. But I was refering to someone taking you to the ground, into there world, and not having the reflex time (which can be improved by sparring) to stop a takedown, or at least roll it. Sweeping is also a good skill to have. a few of those "elite groundfighting" skills would come in handy. especially if you dont want to maim the person. 

BTW, I said "ground" twice, and "groundfighting" twice.

I love Taijutsu, but, like any martial art, there is things missing that could come in handy, like sparring, and sweeping.

Also, there is a ground (wrestling) technique called saturday night ride in which both legs are hooked, the arms are hooked, and the head is, naturally, close to the ground. headbutting from the bottom on a hard surface could be dangerous, and the person on top could headbutt and bite easily.


----------



## Cryozombie

I dunno.  I still think most people have too much "fear" of being taken to the ground.

Does it change the fight?  Sure.  Does it mean you are beat?  No.  

Will "sparring" teach you to fight a BJJ guy?

Doubtful.


----------



## r erman

> I love Taijutsu, but, like any martial art, there is things missing that could come in handy, like sparring, and sweeping.



I think it's already been established that sparring is not necessarily exluded from taijutsu--some do and some don't.

What do you mean by 'sweeping'?



> I still think most people have too much "fear" of being taken to the ground.



Most people fear it because they are not used to it, or have no skill in dealing with attacks on or from the ground.

Most people who are not afraid of newaza are harder to knock off of their feet.


----------



## Cryozombie

r erman said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Most people who are not afraid of newaza are harder to knock off of their feet.


Erm... Newaza?  Sorry... I dont know the term, could you dumb that down for me?

Thanks!


----------



## r erman

ne waza has become a general term for groundfighting--although I believe in it's original context it was similar to kime waza...


----------



## Cryozombie

r erman said:
			
		

> ne waza has become a general term for groundfighting--although I believe in it's original context it was similar to kime waza...


Ah, ok, thanks!

:asian:


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Shogun said:
			
		

> I love Taijutsu, but, like any martial art, there is things missing that could come in handy, like sparring, and sweeping.


Yeah right. If you haven't seen it, then it must be missing, no:uhyeah: ?


----------



## Shogun

Sweeping is term used in BJJ. used for "sweeping" the opponent into another position, usually off the top of you.

Another complaint about Taijutsu I have, is that everything may exist in it, but it takes like 40 years to get to that one technique. I at least want to be exposed to it, even if by video.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Go train with someone else. It'll all be fine once you feel at home.


----------



## r erman

Ahh _that_ kind of sweeping.  I thought you were talking about standing sweeps and reaps like osoto or kosoto--which are in the booj.

If you had mentioned the helicopter sweep(or some other positional change), or shrimping, I would have known to what you were referring.

Thanks,


----------



## DWeidman

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I dunno. I still think most people have too much "fear" of being taken to the ground.
> 
> Does it change the fight? Sure. Does it mean you are beat? No.
> 
> Will "sparring" teach you to fight a BJJ guy?
> 
> Doubtful.


Well - Cowboy up, sign the waiver, and pay your $20 for a matt fee at a good BJJ school.  Then ask them to show you what a good groundfighter does when he is in his element.  

You **SHOULD** be afraid of the ground if you aren't already somewhat skilled in that area.

With that said - groundfighting is in the Buj.  Either find a teacher who teaches it - or suppliment.  Or don't (I guess)...

Some people have made it sound like you are doomed if you are fighting a ground fighter in a "duel".  This is hardly the case - but you do have to train specifically to stay clear of them.

Anywho - this is an interesting turn for the conversation...

-Daniel


----------



## KyleShort

"Rolling" aka sparring is a critical part of grappling training as well.  My booj dojo taught some groundfighing, and certainly the techniques can be found in the larger body of knowledge of BBT.

Along the same lines as the original sparring discussion, do many of you that actually practice groundwork in the bujinkan "roll" aka spar?  In my dojo I did not  see any of this.  

I think you could make an even stronger case to say that technique and principle training will not make you a good ground fighter, you must roll free with oponents and rack up the experience.  Groundfighting is all about positioning and moving yourself into submissions and strikes...that is so dynamic that the only way to train it is to experience it.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

If one person's will to get up and/or away is stronger than his will to put his opponent into submission, which usually is the case in self defense situations, a test of skills in groundfighting is a pretty pointless endeavour.


----------



## r erman

> If one person's will to get up and/or away is stronger than his will to put his opponent into submission, which usually is the case in self defense situations, a test of skills in groundfighting is a pretty pointless endeavour.



This is somewhat myopic.  Anyone can be taken or knocked to the ground.  If you do not have the ability to escape someone who has you in a dominant position, you...will...not...get...away.  

Screw submission, have a good judoka or bjj'er get a positional control--like the mount or cross-body--and try to get up and away.  Sorry, but unless you have worked on this in a field of resistance--there's that nasty 'r' word again--you may be in for a world of a surprise.  You might be surprised how hard it is to access weapons as well.  

This stuff has to be isolated and drilled(& sparred) to be effective.  Any good grappler will tell you that positional control and positional escapes are far more important than any submission...


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

r erman said:
			
		

> If you do not have the ability to escape someone who has you in a dominant position, you...will...not...get...away.


Nor will you if the person you're up (or down ) against is more skilled than yourself.



			
				r erman said:
			
		

> You might be surprised how hard it is to access weapons as well.


Funny, my experience is just the opposite, depending of course on how the weapon is carried. (hint: www.shivworks.com )


----------



## KyleShort

Nimravus said:
			
		

> If one person's will to get up and/or away is stronger than his will to put his opponent into submission, which usually is the case in self defense situations, a test of skills in groundfighting is a pretty pointless endeavour.



I can't say that agree with you here.  While it is true that if you are more concerned about getting up and away, you will have a better chance at being able to do it.  However, as noted by someone else, just the simple act of escaping from a skilled ground fighter can be very hard...requires good training.  

Of course, no one should assume that a striker is totally out of his game when on the ground.  Sure in MMA, Judo etc. matches strikers do not fair well on the ground...BUT a BBT guy in self defense is not limited in the same way, making striking very valid...like elbows, eye gouges accompanied with small joint breaks etc.

But Nimravus...to your original quote, I actually think that there are times that you may not want to get up in a self defense situation.  Primarily, when the opponent has a gun or knife, your primary opbejctive should be controlling them and the weapon....grappling skills are crucial here.  If you try to get up before the weapon is neutralized you can invite an attack of opporunity.

So, generally speaking a striker on the ground can still strike very well (along with other tricks) and get up...however when I weapon is in play he may need to take on the role of a grappler for a bit.

IMO


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Of course, you have to go through some trouble first before you encounter a skilled groundfighter determined to pin you to the ground...:asian: 

Quite frankly, I think the idea that knives and guns are more easily held in check while on the ground is pure ********. Especially if you don't know about them beforehand.


----------



## r erman

> Funny, my experience is just the opposite, depending of course on how the weapon is carried.



Also depending on the skill of the person keeping you from it.  

I drill weapon retention and deployment as often as possible, I hope you do too.  Unless you carry a neck knife or have a shoulder harness it is hard to deploy against someone who has you mounted.  Not impossible, but hard.


----------



## rutherford

Nimravus said:
			
		

> Of course, you have to go through some trouble first before you encounter a skilled groundfighter determined to pin you to the ground...:asian:



Nimravus, I'm not quite clear on your point through the last several posts.  Is this an accurate summary?

I don't need to roll / spar groundfighting because:

1. There is effective groundfighting within Bujinkan training the does not include rolling / sparring
2. rolling / sparring groundfighting is pointless
3. Knowing a little bit of groundfighting through cross training could lead you to being overconfident and get you into trouble if you've encountered a more skilled individual
4. Getting into a groundfight is unlikely, and your primary means of self defense should be escape
5. Control of a knife / gun / or other weapon is not easier on the ground
6. If you do find yourself stuck, hope to be able to reach a backup shiv

I have issues with some of these statements, but don't want to attack strawmen or tilt at windmills.  

I will point out that I'm of the opinion that women especially should know how to deal with an attacker armed with a knife who is interested in a ground "fight".  This is an all too common self defense situation.


----------



## rutherford

r erman said:
			
		

> I drill weapon retention and deployment as often as possible, I hope you do too.  Unless you carry a neck knife or have a shoulder harness it is hard to deploy against someone who has you mounted.  Not impossible, but hard.




Damn hard, to the point where I'd say it's totally impossible if you don't understand defensive control from this position.

I think it's really instructional to wear a motorcycle helmet and let a ground and pound fighter mount you.  Once the first blow bounces off your helmet, you understand.


----------



## Cryozombie

DWeidman said:
			
		

> Well - Cowboy up, sign the waiver, and pay your $20 for a matt fee at a good BJJ school. Then ask them to show you what a good groundfighter does when he is in his element.
> 
> You **SHOULD** be afraid of the ground if you aren't already somewhat skilled in that area.
> 
> With that said - groundfighting is in the Buj.  Either find a teacher who teaches it - or suppliment.  Or don't (I guess)...
> 
> Some people have made it sound like you are doomed if you are fighting a ground fighter in a "duel". This is hardly the case - but you do have to train specifically to stay clear of them.
> 
> Anywho - this is an interesting turn for the conversation...
> 
> -Daniel


  We do groundfighting in my Buj School.

 And I still dont see where BJJ is the "end all be all" ultimate martial art.  Yes, I have had exposure to it.

 Also, I would like to point out that my earlier comment using the term "weapons" did not refer to knives, etc... by weapons I meant Feet, Hands, KNees, Elbows, head, teeth, etc...


----------



## rutherford

Technopunk said:
			
		

> We do groundfighting in my Buj School.




We do as well.


----------



## KyleShort

Nimravus said:
			
		

> Of course, you have to go through some trouble first before you encounter a skilled groundfighter determined to pin you to the ground...:asian:
> 
> Quite frankly, I think the idea that knives and guns are more easily held in check while on the ground is pure ********. Especially if you don't know about them beforehand.



I agree that in all likelyhood, you will not have to defend yourself against someone trained in Judo, Sambo, BJJ, Catch etc. in a self defense situation.  However I for one do not train with the intention of dueling another grappler.  As an escrimador, I am primarily focused on the application of weapons.

To me self defense on the ground must give primary concern to weapons.  At such a close range it is VERY difficult to avoid being stabbed or shot.  If your primary concern is to get up and away then I believe that you will invite attacks of opportunity.  Rather, your first order of business should be to neutralize the weapon through controlling strikes and joint breaks (aka grappling).  After that is done, feel free to escape.

I do however agree with you that knives and guns are not easier to control while on the ground....they are harder because you have less control over space/range.  Further adding to the importance of being trained to grapple on the ground.

I would like to hear *Steve LeFebvre's* input on this as he is both a high level practioner of BBT and Sayoc Kali.


----------



## rutherford

KyleShort said:
			
		

> I agree that in all likelyhood, you will not have to defend yourself against someone trained in Judo, Sambo, BJJ, Catch etc. in a self defense situation..


Why?  Judo is hugely popular and BJJ is The Big Thing.  In the US, if you bump into somebody with training, I'd say that the chances are fairly good.  



> However I for one do not train with the intention of dueling another grappler.  As an escrimador, I am primarily focused on the application of weapons.
> 
> To me self defense on the ground must give primary concern to weapons.  At such a close range it is VERY difficult to avoid being stabbed or shot.  If your primary concern is to get up and away then I believe that you will invite
> attacks of opportunity.


Up and Away would not be good taijutsu.  If your primary concern is to get away, you have a lot of tools at your disposal to do so that don't have up involved until you're away.



> Rather, your first order of business should be to neutralize the weapon through controlling strikes and joint breaks (aka grappling).  After that is done, feel free to escape.


 I just get images of some poor guy trying to armbar somebody holding a knife.  What you describe isn't a submission fight.  This is going to be over quickly, and decisively.

To go back to the discussion on sparring, I'm not sure how rolling / sparring is applicable here.  In fact, I think you've given a good example of a place where it's not applicable - even if the attacker is wearing FIST gear or similar protective measures.


----------



## DWeidman

Technopunk said:
			
		

> We do groundfighting in my Buj School.
> 
> And I still dont see where BJJ is the "end all be all" ultimate martial art. Yes, I have had exposure to it.
> 
> Also, I would like to point out that my earlier comment using the term "weapons" did not refer to knives, etc... by weapons I meant Feet, Hands, KNees, Elbows, head, teeth, etc...


Hmmmm...

There is an old saying, "Jack of all trades, master of none..." -- which I feel appropriately addresses the Bujinkan Method.

99% of us lose a duel with a boxer (if we play by boxing rules) - and 99% of us lose to a BJJ Groundfighter (if we play by their rules).  Same with weapons (99% of us lose to escrima guys with sticks).  

The strength of what Hatsumi Sensei teaches is in the application of single principles across broad spectrums of skills (happo biken).  This means that we are never held to playing by ANYONE's rules in combat - which gives us an overall advantage as long as the "rules" aren't preset.

With that said - it is relatively simple to imagine scenarios where the battleground is preset by the actions of the aggressors (self defense - as defined by nononsenseselfdefense).  You don't get to set up anything - just react to what is coming (or what just happened).  As such - being comfortable in all of the elements is more important than training for specific scenarios.  

I still train in the Bujinkan because I believe it is the best path to travel - and the one that widely applicable to life even beyond martial conflict.  This doesn't mean that I **assume** my skills are at par to handle anything -- I test my *realtime* reactions with free-response / rolling as a TOOL to judge how much of my toolbox is really useable under some kind of stressor.  Again - from nononsenseselfdefense - in the real thing you undergo what Marc calls "Performance Anxiety."  Free-response has some of the elements of that - although not to the extreme you MAY see on the street (but, conversely, your "sparring" in class may be more intense then what you meet on the street (pub?) as well).

Anywho - this thread is drifting from free-reponse to groundfighting...

-Daniel


----------



## Cryozombie

DWeidman said:
			
		

> 99% of us lose a duel with a boxer (if we play by boxing rules) - and 99% of us lose to a BJJ Groundfighter (if we play by their rules). Same with weapons (99% of us lose to escrima guys with sticks).


Ahh... and THAT is an important lesson - Never fight your enemy's fight.


----------



## rutherford

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Ahh... and THAT is an important lesson - Never fight your enemy's fight.



Sure.  Nagato-sensei is quoted as saying much the same here on this page on groundfighting: http://uk.geocities.com/bcdojo/nagato.htm

I fail to see the relevance to this thread, except as reasons against sparring / rolling.

I also find the cliche "master of none" to be inappropriate.  The principles that apply across broad spectrums of skills are exactly what's mastered, and arguably what's most important.


----------



## DWeidman

rutherford said:
			
		

> I also find the cliche "master of none" to be inappropriate. The principles that apply across broad spectrums of skills are exactly what's mastered, and arguably what's most important.


So.... pick the element we are Masters of. What are we the best in?

-Daniel

BTW - being broad spectrum means "not the best in any specific band", neh?


----------



## Shogun

A popular strategy among MMA enthusiasts is to "take the fight". meaning, you dont have to be fighting, and they will still be doing so.


----------



## Cryozombie

DWeidman said:
			
		

> So.... pick the element we are Masters of. What are we the best in?


Deceptive fighting?


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Shogun said:
			
		

> A popular strategy among MMA enthusiasts is to "take the fight". meaning, you dont have to be fighting, and they will still be doing so.


http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/knifelies.html#bladefighting


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

I carried a Keen Edge Pukulan trainer in a "clinch pick" or boot style carry and as able to get to it more often than I had thought.
Oh, you want to know WHEN I practiced this? During the grappling sparring sessions at my dojo, of course.

3, 4 and 5 is what I agree most with. To be frank, I have no clue as to what you're getting at with number 6.



			
				rutherford said:
			
		

> I will point out that I'm of the opinion that women especially should know how to deal with an attacker armed with a knife who is interested in a ground "fight". This is an all too common self defense situation.


From what I've read, weapons are extremely uncommon in rape attacks, and when used the perpetrator more often than not has no intention of actually using them.


----------



## rutherford

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Deceptive fighting?




Survival of combat situations?


----------



## rutherford

Nimravus said:
			
		

> I carried a Keen Edge Pukulan trainer in a "clinch pick" or boot style carry and as able to get to it more often than I had thought.
> Oh, you want to know WHEN I practiced this? During the grappling sparring sessions at my dojo, of course.



Nice.  The aluminum blade, right?  Did you most often end up with it in a forward grip edge up?  By "clinch pick" style carry, do you mean on the weak side, just above your pocket?

Now, how are you using the word Sparring?



			
				Nimravus said:
			
		

> 3, 4 and 5 is what I agree most with. To be frank, I have no clue as to what you're getting at with number 6.


 
3 is where I disagree most, although I think the word "could" is deceptive.  I think it's important to expose yourself to lots of situations.  Trying to rely on methods that you don't know well is folly, as DWeidman points out recently.  So, while I wouldn't try to fight like a boxer, especially against a boxer, I think it's still important to train with a boxer and understand what tools they use. 

(I didn't use grappler in my last example, because that's actually where I'm most skilled.  I came back into the thread because I really enjoy the clinch and will roll with anybody anywhere.)

For number 6, I was getting at the fact that you might not have a knife, or there might not be one available.  If there is - great.  I know it's probably almost insulting for me to say "don't count on it" to you, but it might be helpful to somebody reading the thread.  Please take my "you" as the general you and not the particular.

If you're in an open guard, or similar position you should be able to draw a bootknife.  But there are lots of positions where you're not going to have time or the ability.

I wouldn't get caught up on the idea "pull my knife" in a grappling situation.  Take the oppertunity if presented, and train to know when there's an oppertunity and when you're in serious trouble.  And when the best option is just to scoop up a handful of gravel or rock as Nagato-sensei suggests.

And, yes, I recognize that this is a strength of our training.  



			
				Nimravus said:
			
		

> From what I've read, weapons are extremely uncommon in rape attacks, and when used the perpetrator more often than not has no intention of actually using them.



2000 "Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics," published by the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ)

A personal weapon (hands, feet, or fists) was used in 77% of cases. No weapon was noted in 14% of assaults; other weapons (knifes, clubs, etc.) were used in 6% of cases. Firearms were involved in only 2% of assaults.

Anecdotally, I've personally listened to several first-hand victims' accounts that involved knives.  So, maybe I stress on that issue.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Not going to argue with you on the rape thing because I admit I haven't done my homework on that matter. Just what I've heard. Still, I doubt most rapists are so persistent so as to actually use lethal force.



			
				rutherford said:
			
		

> Nice. The aluminum blade, right? Did you most often end up with it in a forward grip edge up?


Forward grip edge down, since the Pukulan is sharpened on the "right" side, while being similar in shape to the clinch pick.



			
				rutherford said:
			
		

> By "clinch pick" style carry, do you mean on the weak side, just above your pocket?


If my gi pants had had pockets, yes.



			
				rutherford said:
			
		

> Now, how are you using the word Sparring?


Come again?



			
				rutherford said:
			
		

> So, while I wouldn't try to fight like a boxer, especially against a boxer, I think it's still important to train with a boxer and understand what tools they use.


There is a difference between understanding the tactics of others and trying to compensate for what one *perceives* is lacking in the Bujinkan.



			
				rutherford said:
			
		

> For number 6, I was getting at the fact that you might not have a knife, or there might not be one available.


So? If you've looked down a little on the Animal page I posted, he writes "never try to anticipate your opponents based on what you are and aren't capable of". The problem with knives is that you rarely know whom it is who has them until it's too late...



			
				rutherford said:
			
		

> I wouldn't get caught up on the idea "pull my knife" in a grappling situation.


I wouldn't either, but there are people who would.



			
				rutherford said:
			
		

> Take the oppertunity if presented, and train to know when there's an oppertunity and when you're in serious trouble. And when the best option is just to scoop up a handful of gravel or rock as Nagato-sensei suggests.


You know it's funny that he and the rest of the ol' boys never seem to complain about this or that lacking within the Bujinkan...


----------



## rutherford

Nimravus said:
			
		

> Come again?



Well, it's the most relevant section of our discussion.  You were doing grappling sparring with a training knife.  What was the intensity level like?  Were you "training hard" or "testing your skills"?  



> There is a difference between understanding the tactics of others and trying to compensate for what one *perceives* is lacking in the Bujinkan.
> 
> . . .
> 
> You know it's funny that he and the rest of the ol' boys never seem to complain about this or that lacking within the Bujinkan...


 
You sure won't here me talking about things missing.  I expect that Bujinkan training is going to be like drinking from a firehose for a long time for me.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

rutherford said:
			
		

> You were doing grappling sparring with a training knife. What was the intensity level like? Were you "training hard" or "testing your skills"?


As our instructor likes to say, "if you're given a headbutt, eye gouge or groin shot, give one in return"...:asian: 
We do that from time to time before or after training. Same thing with putting on gloves and going at it, sometimes with shinai as well. But we always take it for what it is. No closer to reality than anything else.
And I didn't tell anyone about me packing a knife either...




			
				rutherford said:
			
		

> You sure won't here me talking about things missing. I expect that Bujinkan training is going to be like drinking from a firehose for a long time for me.


Oookay, I think I have misunderstood something here, because I was under the impression that you feel there is something lacking with Bujinkan training in general...?


----------



## rutherford

Nimravus said:
			
		

> Oookay, I think I have misunderstood something here, because I was under the impression that you feel there is something lacking with Bujinkan training in general...?



Not in the least.

I really enjoy Bujinkan training, or at least the little I've seen of it.  

As for whether it's the best possible way to train, I have no opinion.  In this thread, I've tried to stick to topics where I have at least a good understanding and I freely admit that I know little about how Bujinkan dojos train, and I get the strong feeling that there's a wide variety.


----------



## DWeidman

rutherford said:
			
		

> ...about how Bujinkan dojos train, and I get the strong feeling that there's a wide variety.


Yeah.  Like Grand Canyon wide...

-Daniel


----------



## Cryozombie

Nagato Sensei on Groundfighting:

http://www.budotech.com/jvm/nagato2.shtml


----------



## KyleShort

I almost feel like that article reincforces what I was saying...

"ten minutes of having them roll around tiring themselves out with strength"

I hate this sterotype...that may be what those students were doing but I hope that is not what most people believe.  Remember jujutsu, judo, taijutsu...these are all yielding arts...if you are muscling around on the ground then you are not groundfighting in the style of the "ju" arts, or Sambo for that matter.  It seems that Nagato assocaites ground fighting with exhausting yourself?  The funny thing is that he goes on to show that you can do other things on the ground...but that is still ground fighting, just a different style of it...

Now an interesting observation is that Nagato was demonstrating this to some senior students...the idea that you can still be in kamae on the ground, that you can still kick, pinch and grab...this was news to them?  Why?  I thought they were senior students in japan?  Perhaps they have limited experience abstracting their kata training to ground work?  Randori, including ground work (even at 10% of speed and power for safety), would give them experience they need to understand how techniques can be dynamically applied and adjusted wherever you are.

Nagato also states that you will never out grapple a ground fighter if he has more training experience than you (read sparring).  But he also makes the very valid assertion that you you should take people out of their game, don't play into their strengths...

...I 100% agree.  However there are still two problems with that logic.  First, sometimes you have to play their game because they are simply better than you.  As much as you might want to play your game, they shut you down.

Second, and this will be a sore point of contention for most involved, grappling is primarily designed to negate your striking.  By continuing to play your game on the ground, your are actually playing into their game.  A good grappler is trained in both 'riding' and 'submitting'.  The goal of these two skills is to imobolize or limit the use of your attacking limbs, while affording the grappler the opportunity strike or break you.  BBT does not specialize in applying striking and grappling skills on the ground, and in fact spends the majority of training time standing up (and taking down).  To be successful on the ground you must practice on the ground, and not just your game, but theirs too.


----------



## DWeidman

KyleShort said:
			
		

> ...I 100% agree. However there are still two problems with that logic. First, sometimes you have to play their game because they are simply better than you. As much as you might want to play your game, they shut you down.


Do you realize how inane this sounds?  So you are advocating sparring and groundfighting so if you meet a much better fighter than you who has specific skills on the ground (and trains thousands of hours on the ground) - - - you can do what?  

If he is better than you are - and he can force you to play his game....  well - then you lose.  Or die.  

And no amount of "rolling" or "sparring" is going to fix that.

-Daniel Weidman


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

KyleShort said:
			
		

> I hate this sterotype...that may be what those students were doing but I hope that is not what most people believe. Remember jujutsu, judo, taijutsu...these are all yielding arts...if you are muscling around on the ground then you are not groundfighting in the style of the "ju" arts, or Sambo for that matter.


Don't know about sambo, but I lost my faith in judo and most modern jujutsu styles as pertaining to this matter a long time ago...



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> It seems that Nagato assocaites ground fighting with exhausting yourself?


Don't tell me you don't find grappling to be a physically demanding endeavour...?



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> The funny thing is that he goes on to show that you can do other things on the ground...but that is still ground fighting, just a different style of it...


http://www.shivworks.com/PSP/psp%20-%20gun%20grappling.pdf



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> Now an interesting observation is that Nagato was demonstrating this to some senior students...the idea that you can still be in kamae on the ground, that you can still kick, pinch and grab...this was news to them? Why? I thought they were senior students in japan? Perhaps they have limited experience abstracting their kata training to ground work?


Probably, but that's another discussion.



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> Randori, including ground work (even at 10% of speed and power for safety), would give them experience they need to understand how techniques can be dynamically applied and adjusted wherever you are.


Nope, not without sufficient technical expertise.



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> Nagato also states that you will never out grapple a ground fighter if he has more training experience than you (read sparring). But he also makes the very valid assertion that you you should take people out of their game, don't play into their strengths...
> ...I 100% agree. However there are still two problems with that logic. First, sometimes you have to play their game because they are simply better than you. As much as you might want to play your game, they shut you down.


This is a type of defeatism that assumes you aren't able to make the best out of your existing skills and possibilities.



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> Second, and this will be a sore point of contention for most involved, grappling is primarily designed to negate your striking.


True, but this isn't as easily done with something that only has to touch you to cause damage...



			
				KyleShort said:
			
		

> BBT does not specialize in applying striking and grappling skills on the ground, and in fact spends the majority of training time standing up (and taking down). To be successful on the ground you must practice on the ground, and not just your game, but theirs too.


We simply make a choice. And a pretty damn good one, if you ask me - to prevent that scenario from ever occurring as good as we can. You're still trying to get around the fact that you can't beat someone in a game in which he's the more skilled player.


----------



## Cryozombie

Nimravus said:
			
		

> True, but this isn't as easily done with something that only has to touch you to cause damage...


 Explain please?  What do you mean here?


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Well, since I've already brought up ShivWorks, this should give you an idea...

http://www.shivworks.com/clinchpick.asp


----------



## Cryozombie

Ah, I see what you are saying now.


----------



## KyleShort

Daniel, all I can say is wow.

Nim,

I understand what you are saying about "ju".  Sadly yes, most practitioners to do not adhere to the original tenants of their arts.  Hell it was ground ground training in the bujinkan that showed me what yielding in ground work really meant.  But alass I would argue that modern groundfighters rely too much on strength...being good doesn't mean being technically skilled at ground fighting for them.

All forms of fighting are physically demmanding.  The full contact weapon fighting that I do in escrima is just as demmanding...but Nagato's description implied that all they did was roll around and exhaust themselves...there is more too it than that...so though it may be true of those fighters, I am leary of that sterotype in general,

Yeah, blades are very dangerous on the ground =)

I am not sure how I am trying to get around anything...I am a stand up fighter too...I train in Sambo only as a semi-occasional supliment to my regular training.  Actually the whole point that I was making is that you cannot expect yourself to be good on the ground without training on the ground, and I argue that no ammount of ground training is complete without randori of some form...but of course that is simply my opinion =)


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

KyleShort said:
			
		

> ...but Nagato's description implied that all they did was roll around and exhaust themselves...there is more too it than that...so though it may be true of those fighters, I am leary of that sterotype in general,


I still see a clear problem in incorporating types of training in the Bujinkan that are built around the issue of weight classes...


----------



## DWeidman

KyleShort said:
			
		

> Daniel, all I can say is wow.


Wow?  Do you disagree with what I wrote and if so - how?

-Daniel


----------



## Troy Ostapiw/Canada

Ninjutsu is about survival/winning the engagement.  The concepts relate to combat psychology and tactics.  We do not need to fight our way physically out of ever situation.  

It would be best to collect intelligence and expose your opponents weakness.  Don't fight a boxer in boxing range, don't grapple with a grappler.  These are good solid strategies.  

By beccomming competent in the 9 schools or Ryu, offered in Nin-po-Tai-jutsu, we develop not only physical skills, but learn stealth and avoidance of interpersonal-aggression.  

In the martial arts we need to check our ego's at the door, as there are many egotistical people with in the Martial arts community.  If your perspective is ego based, you will not be able to see the value other systems have to offer, there is also a good chance someone will hurt you!

When I studying Ninpo in 1994, we would fight kumite (full contact) We would apply the lethal concepts like , grabbing the groing, or throat, but not full speed it was gradual and safe.  We would start standing and then fight.  Everything in between was full out.  There were some injuries, but for the most part it was fairly safe as we had a good group of individuals. 

role play is also important to prepare a person for real life encounters, it is mental preparation for reality, you simply need to be able to take a hit, role with the punches, and adapted to the person or situation in front of you. 
Many Ninjutsu practioners I know cross train, and implement concepts that allow a person to become more proficient.  I currently also train in BJJ/JKD/Modern Arnis/Kickboxing and others.

I see the arts as a way to develop a better understanding of combative movement, avoidance of conflict, and the ablity to keep my self and others safe.

 Troy


----------



## iwingchun

Some videos with sparring!!
http://www.wing-chun.ws/index.php?o...w=article&id=198-in-pairs-sparring-&Itemid=58


----------



## Kreth

iwingchun said:


> Some videos with sparring!!
> http://www.wing-chun.ws/index.php?o...w=article&id=198-in-pairs-sparring-&Itemid=58


This has absolutely nothing to do with ninjutsu.


----------



## Bodhisattva

samuelpont said:


> I did ninpo ninjitsu for three years and left somewhat dis illusioned with the art.I think the art is beautiful and has the capacity to be great but for one thing, sparring. We never tested our grappling skills in randori such as in judo, or our striking skills in free sparring. I understand that some of the techniques are to dangerous to be performed but a good solid randori and ground session would be envaluable tool for teaching students about real combat and how exhausting it can be. It would also improve students fitness and their capacity to deal with combat.
> 
> I`m sure when ninjitsu was practised in the past it used to be on a sparring basis and has been watered down for western consumption, it is a great shame as i love the culture that goes with ninjitsu something that in my training (vale tudo) is not present.



Vale Tudo for combat training ! Congratulations - you chose well.


----------



## Bodhisattva

KyleShort said:


> Actually the whole point that I was making is that you cannot expect yourself to be good on the ground without training on the ground, and I argue that no ammount of ground training is complete without randori of some form...but of course that is simply my opinion =)



that's not an opinion - that's a fact.


----------



## Tez3

Kreth said:


> This has absolutely nothing to do with ninjutsu.


 

And three years late lol!


----------



## bljohnson

If you were not training in randori do not blame the art blame the dojo. My students do randori against alot of different scenarios that includes standing and ground fighting. When I test someone for a dan level the biggest part of the test is the randori. The student gets in a circle and I say go and they don't stop until I think they are out of gas. If it goes to the ground then they have to escape and get up. They have to repeat this with a second randori session against common weapons like knives and sticks. Not all Bujinkan schools do this but each place is a little different.


----------



## Haikuguy

Randori is a very important part of the training in Akban, where I trained.
We had one rule only- stay friends at the end of the fight.

Usually the sparring were round- which means it's all from striking through throws and ground work.
To sparr for many years in a somewhat realistic way and yet to avoid injuries takes professional guidance and a healthy attitude. 

Not so common commodities I'm afraid.


Personally, and that's the approach in AKBAN as well, I don't believe in learning a martial art without sparring.
We have black belts sparring with beginners all the time- it's the perfect way to learn, and to be safe.
Most injuries were when beginners sparred - they were not aware of their own strength and lacked the sensitivity and experience.

That veterans' experience and sensitivity allowed me to learn when I started while not being so afraid that I might get injured- again, a healthy and rare balance.


----------



## Indagator

In my dojo our entire approach avoids a "sparring" mentality, and rather focuses on ending situations as quickly as possible. Sparring has a tendency to degrade into a tit for tat drawn out game.

My previous background was in Muay Thai and certain other sport arts, so I can also personally testify to having experienced this as being truth!


----------



## Chris Parker

Haikuguy said:


> Randori is a very important part of the training in Akban, where I trained.
> We had one rule only- stay friends at the end of the fight.
> 
> Usually the sparring were round- which means it's all from striking through throws and ground work.
> To sparr for many years in a somewhat realistic way and yet to avoid injuries takes professional guidance and a healthy attitude.
> 
> Not so common commodities I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> Personally, and that's the approach in AKBAN as well, I don't believe in learning a martial art without sparring.
> We have black belts sparring with beginners all the time- it's the perfect way to learn, and to be safe.
> Most injuries were when beginners sparred - they were not aware of their own strength and lacked the sensitivity and experience.
> 
> That veterans' experience and sensitivity allowed me to learn when I started while not being so afraid that I might get injured- again, a healthy and rare balance.



To be honest, I'm really not a fan of sparring in our arts as well. The main reason is that it encourages tactics, strategies, and habits that have nothing to do with the system itself, so actually slows your progression in learning the art. If you just want to learn to fight, maybe (although even then I have issues with the context), but to learn the art? Nope, it's just a bad idea. And, frankly, the Akban organisation is one of the places I see suffer from this the most.

Take this video for example:





Now, what I'd like to focus on isn't Yossi himself, but the groups of students behind him. They are all sparring, but not one of them is doing anything like what is found in the systems that are taught. There is a lot of bouncing, there are a lot of Western Hands actions, the postures are more kickboxing/TKD/boxing influenced, the kicks are from none of the Ryu whatsoever (I've actually been banned from commenting on Akban videos on youtube after I was pointing out that their version of Itsutsu no Tachi from Katori Shinto Ryu was terribly done, missing sections, showed no understanding of the methods and kata, and so on, so when I went to comment on their video of "how to use a Ninjutsu Crescent Kick in sparring", asking where the kick came from in the Ninjutsu traditions [it doesn't], it couldn't go through. Hmm), and more. What I find fascinating is that the techniques being drilled (in this case Oni Kudaki, in many other videos, classical kata from the various Ryu) might be described as "how to use in sparring", but when the sparring is shown, nothing even remotely resembling that is seen. So what is happening is that completely different ideas, techniques, methods, mechanics, skills, distancing, timing, targeting, and more are being pressure tested, rather than what is actually taught.

So, if you want to learn this art, and get good at it, sparring isn't the way to do so.



KyleShort said:


> Thought it was worth noting that though a shinai is a relativley new invention, the boken has been used for hundreds of years for "safe" sparring.



Okay, this is a really old quote (hey, the threads from 2005, another one of bljohnson's necro's....), but this is so far wrong that I'm a little shocked no-one picked it up in the first place! Shinai, including Fukuro Shinai, have been used by a number of systems from at least the early 17th Century. Okay, feel better now.


----------



## Haikuguy

Hi Chris

In Akban we practice Katas almost every class, but we try to keep a dialogue going between the ancient Katas and modern implementations.

Here's a good example of my instructor Yossi talking about Bobi no kamae
[video=youtube_share;jyjYSB-e0BQ]http://youtu.be/jyjYSB-e0BQ[/video]
The classic ninjutsu which means using any method to end the fight (going for the eyes, groin, pressure points, any object that's handy becomes a weapon, etc) is very hard to practice in a safe environment even though it happens in Akban too (mainly with the veterans- it takes a lot of experience to do it safely)


And you know what, you hit a good point there "What I find fascinating is that the techniques being drilled (in this case Oni Kudaki, in many other videos, classical kata from the various Ryu) might be described as "how to use in sparring", but when the sparring is shown, nothing even remotely resembling that is seen"- the trick is, again, how to implement this drill safely in a sparring situation- where the opponent is not moving according to the "plan".

I think this is where magic happens- when you see how very ancient techniques can be implemented in modern day situations.
(for example Jumonji no kamea can be interpreted as just standing casually with hands crossed on your chest in a very natural position, like a bouncer maybe).


In any case, we believe that randori is an integral part of training and the Akban's practice.

More about randori in akban
http://www.akban.org/wiki/index.php/Randori


----------



## Chris Parker

To be honest, that just showed more of the same issues. What Yossi showed in the first place (not actually the Moto Gata for Bobi no Kamae, for the record, that involves Yoko Aruki, not angling off to the side, and a different deflective action, amongst other things) was what I would call semi-traditional (the kamae was good, the fudo ken were correct, but the footwork and movement don't match any Ryu methodologies, particularly not Koto Ryu. If anything, it was slightly closer to Kukishinden Ryu, at a higher level). The rest, however, was nothing to do with anything involved in the Ninjutsu traditions at all. The body movement was from boxing, as were the hands and the footwork, the kicks were from karate/kickboxing, and the posture (again more of a boxing one) showed none of the traits of Bobi itself.

When it comes to my comment about what is seen in the sparring being completely removed from the martial art being taught itself, that's further shown in the video on the Akban wiki page you linked as well, with the beginning showing kata (I saw some Koto Ryu, some Gyokko Ryu, what could have been Koto or Shinden Fudo, the kata is very similar) and traditional drilling, particularly of nage waza, using X-kan/Takamatsuden movement, kamae, methods, footwork, and so on. Then, the sparring footage basically turned into kickboxing with grabs. In other words, nothing like what was being drilled first. The power source was completely different, the postural concepts were completely different, the weapons (strikes, kicks etc) were completely different, the movement was completely different, the timing was completely different, the angling was completely different, the distancing was completely different, and so on. Really, it was like watching two completely different martial arts training clips... because it really was.

And, to clarify, the classical Ninjutsu method isn't to "use any method to end the fight", it's to apply the strategies, tactics, lessons, and movement as expressed within the art. Which is shown in a decent way in your kata performance, but is completely missing in the sparring clips.

Now, there are ways to train what is taught in a free-form way, but sparring (in this form) tends to make everything into a generic kickboxing mix, which, to my mind, really defeats the purpose of training in a particular art in the first place, if you are training that, once a random element is brought in, it all gets thrown out the window in favour of something completely different. Oh, and, while popular as a thought, I'd argue against the idea of standing on the wall with your arms crossed being a form of Jumonji, because it's completely missing the strategy that Jumonji represents.

But, all in all, this is really just more confirmation that sparring doesn't work for these arts, as you need to drop what the art teaches, even in regard to posture and footwork, just to start sparring in the first place with it. I recognise that sparring is a big part of the Akban approach, and I'm not saying that sparring itself is necessarily a bad thing, but if it means that you're testing things that aren't in what you're training in the first place, I'd question it's validity, usage, and purpose in what you're doing.


----------



## Haikuguy

Hi Chris

Different systems teach differently and that's a good thing.

Maybe because most of the Akban practitioners have military backgrounds (myself included) we prefer the "down to earth" approach.
I think again, the main reason is our attempt not to remove Ninjutsu totally from everyday life but to incorporate it, and one of the ways we do it is through realistic (yet safe- sometimes an oxymoron) randori.

When I trained with Akban in Israel we sparred in the Desert Gatherings with fully loaded backpacks (which demonstrates a lot of the Kamaes' logic) and on un-even ground (which demonstrated a lot of the tai sabaki's logic).

I also remember when I just started training there, more than 10 years ago, we even had one class where we all sparred in the bathrooms of the dojo (about 35 people in a very confined space...), haha...
Anyway, those sessions teach us a lot about fighting, sensitivity (in the sense of "sensing", not in the sense of crying while watching "Titanic"...), and about ourselves.

We find it useful and essential, and just imagine a tsuki actually working in sparring...such beauty.


But if sparring doesn't work for you, don't spar! 
I think that a differences of interpretations and of schools of thought is a good thing.


----------



## Chris Parker

Haikuguy said:


> Hi Chris



Hi Oded (great to know your name, by the way! Thanks for that!)



Haikuguy said:


> Different systems teach differently and that's a good thing.



Absolutely agreed. The question might be how much two groups teaching the same art are teaching different systems, though....



Haikuguy said:


> Maybe because most of the Akban practitioners have military backgrounds (myself included) we prefer the "down to earth" approach.
> I think again, the main reason is our attempt not to remove Ninjutsu totally from everyday life but to incorporate it, and one of the ways we do it is through realistic (yet safe- sometimes an oxymoron) randori.



Realistic randori, scenario training, and the like are all very good, down-to-earth realistic training methods, and can (and should) be done as a method of pressure testing and training the material that the art teaches.... however the sparring clips show a completely different approach to combat and martial arts. There isn't any element of the art that's actually left in the sparring, so it's not a matter of "not remove Ninjutsu totally", it's a matter of whether any is present at all.

Akban have always been known as being solid, serious practitioners with their kata and traditional training, making sure that everything is trained solidly and properly, coming from Doron Navon down. What I don't understand is the solid, serious training in such forms seems to be completely thrown out the window when you get into free-form training (sparring). It honestly doesn't have anything to do with being down to earth, or having a military background, it's a complete negation of the majority of the training for the image of realism.



Haikuguy said:


> When I trained with Akban in Israel we sparred in the Desert Gatherings with fully loaded backpacks (which demonstrates a lot of the Kamaes' logic) and on un-even ground (which demonstrated a lot of the tai sabaki's logic).



Sounds interesting, and a very good idea.... but what was being used in the sparring? Was it actually the Ninjutsu methodologies, or was it the same kickboxing-style sparring that are seen in all of the Akban videos? If the former, why isn't that used in the rest of the sparring? And if the latter, how does that show anything about the kamae or tai sabaki when it isn't present at all?



Haikuguy said:


> I also remember when I just started training there, more than 10 years ago, we even had one class where we all sparred in the bathrooms of the dojo (about 35 people in a very confined space...), haha...
> Anyway, those sessions teach us a lot about fighting, sensitivity (in the sense of "sensing", not in the sense of crying while watching "Titanic"...), and about ourselves.
> 
> We find it useful and essential, and just imagine a tsuki actually working in sparring...such beauty.



(Ha, love the Titanic line....) Again, what was the form of sparring used?



Haikuguy said:


> But if sparring doesn't work for you, don't spar!
> I think that a differences of interpretations and of schools of thought is a good thing.



Sparring is a great way to test what you're doing, but it needs to be in the context of the art itself. What I see in the Akban videos is not in the context of the Ninjutsu traditions.... in fact, it was completely opposite to it.


----------



## Haikuguy

Sparring is so ingrained within the Akban's DNA that I'm having trouble imagining training without it...


Chris, if you have a minute, read what my teacher Yossi wrote long ago about the "Methodical Pyramid"- there he explains how sparring is so essential to our practice.


I think what you're saying is that you want to see "Ninjutsu punches" and "Ninjutsu kicks" if we bother to sparr, correct?
Well, it's the right place to state, then, that in Akban we are big believers in Convergent evolution in martial arts.
(which is natural when you have all over the world people with two hands and two legs fighting within the same constraints of gravity...)

Or, like I like to say "When a tribesman in Africa kicks another tribesman in the balls, he's not thinking "oh I might just do a Kinteki Sokushi geri on this guy!"...

Oh, and by the way, if you don't like the sparring we do, you'd HATE our 24 hour sparring!


----------



## Aiki Lee

Hi Oded, I'm Lee, and welcome to Martialtalk!

I think the idea of pressure testing randori is good, but when I think of "sparring" I think of an aimless game of a back and forth tag. Sparring to me lacks the urgency that a self-defense or combat situation would realistically have. In pressure testing, there is still the idea of an attacker and defender or sometimes two attackers where the winner has not yet been predetermined. There is always a goal of continuous attack in a randori setting. Sparring doesn't have this and so doesn't allow for the correct execution of ninjutsu tactics or strategies. So in actuality I agree with the ideas you have present, it just doesn't look like it is being done properly by the people in the background of the clip Chris posted.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hi Oded,



Haikuguy said:


> Sparring is so ingrained within the Akban's DNA that I'm having trouble imagining training without it...



Oh, I get that, absolutely. What I'm getting at is the reason and benefits (or flaws) in the form that the sparring is taking, as it seems to have little reason for the way it's done, no benefits (as pertains to the art that is being taught), and quite a number of flaws. If the sparring was a way of testing what was being taught, great. If it's not, there's little point in going through it, really.

Tell you what, here's some old footage of Hatsumi, including some sparring using the lessons and methods of the art itself. Compare this form with the way of sparring shown in the Akban clips:






You may even note Doron getting thrown around by his hair... at least Yossi wouldn't have that problem, ha! 



Haikuguy said:


> Chris, if you have a minute, read what my teacher Yossi wrote long ago about the "Methodical Pyramid"- there he explains how sparring is so essential to our practice.



Actually, that doesn't say anything about why sparring (in the fashion shown) is essential. Sparring is mentioned once only, and not said to be anything other than one aspect of the training earlier in Yossi's development. The closest to that argument is in the last paragraph, which states:



			
				Akban said:
			
		

> In this atmosphere, there is the need to update and re-adjust traditional techniques to contemporary combat situations. Several instructors have found themselves in inner conflict: on the one hand, they feel the need to preserve the traditional knowledge with which we have been entrusted, and on the other hand, the obligation to accommodate their knowledge to combat situations that have transformed since this knowledge was sealed in Japan. Japan has entered a time of peace and its need to develop warfare has died out. Israeli reality is tough and ever-changing, and peace still seen merely as a hopeful dream.​



And that's part of the issue. I completely agree that, if you're teaching and training a traditional art, and you expect it to be designed for modern conflict, you should take a deeper look at things. However, if you're teaching a particular art, with a particular approach to combat and conflict, it can be "modernised" without grabbing completely incongruent outside methods to fill perceived gaps. 



Haikuguy said:


> I think what you're saying is that you want to see "Ninjutsu punches" and "Ninjutsu kicks" if we bother to sparr, correct?



Half, really. The reason I'd want to see "ninjutsu punches and kicks" is because the ones being used are not in any way compatible with the actual principles of the art being taught. And it's those principles that I'm actually wanting to see. Otherwise it's like learning to play golf, and testing your ability by playing tennis. It just doesn't make any sense. There really is no reason to have a sparring format that is so alien to every aspect of the actual martial art being taught itself.



Haikuguy said:


> Well, it's the right place to state, then, that in Akban we are big believers in Convergent evolution in martial arts.
> (which is natural when you have all over the world people with two hands and two legs fighting within the same constraints of gravity...)



The problem is that convergent evolution just doesn't work, or apply in martial arts. At all. If it did, we'd all be training in the same one, and doing things the same way, which is not the reality. Yossi even says as much in the article you linked, talking about changes in different environments and so on. The argument of "two hands, two legs" is firstly flawed, and secondly, negates the actual influences on martial arts development. I mean, the very fact that you have two completely distinct and removed ways of moving (the sparring form and the traditional form) shows that there are huge differences in the structure, methodology, and development of martial arts. Convergent evolution has no part in this.



Haikuguy said:


> Or, like I like to say "When a tribesman in Africa kicks another tribesman in the balls, he's not thinking "oh I might just do a Kinteki Sokushi geri on this guy!"...



Nor are you thinking such things when using martial traditions, or other methodology. You simply kick them the way you know (believe) to be powerful, whether based on previous experience, cultural conditioning, martial training, or watching movies. Ideally, if you are trained, you will respond (kick) with the way the training has taught you to kick, using the kicking surface taught, the power source taught, and so on. If you have trained more than one way (meaning from two or more different sources with different ideas of power source and so forth, rather than just different forms of, say, front kicks from the one art, which would all have the same concepts, power source, angling, etc), then you would pick the one that you (unconsciously) feel is the most powerful. And that means that whatever else you've trained will be largely wasted effort. If you've trained one method as a sparring form, and you feel good at it, that might be given preference in your values, which means there's little point in you having trained the traditional side of things. If you don't feel that the sparring is something you're good at, you may go more to the traditional... but, then again, if you haven't tested it in sparring, but have tested other things, you just may feel that you have nothing powerful enough to actually rely on... which would make all the training rather wasted effort.

That's the biggest issue, really. It's not that sparring (testing in a random, free-form way) is a bad thing, it's that it would need to reinforce the other training, not contradict it. By contradicting it, you're just telling yourself that what you're training in isn't powerful, and can't be relied on. Training, to get the most out of it, and have the greatest chance of success, needs to be congruent. And that is not present in the Akban forms of sparring.



Haikuguy said:


> Oh, and by the way, if you don't like the sparring we do, you'd HATE our 24 hour sparring!



Nah, that looks like fun. It's not really 24 hour sparring, it's 24 hour training, which includes some sparring, from the video provided there.


----------



## Haikuguy

Hi Lee! Thanks!



Himura Kenshin said:


> Sparring doesn't have this and so doesn't allow for the correct execution of ninjutsu tactics or strategies. So in actuality I agree with the ideas you have present, it just doesn't look like it is being done properly by the people in the background of the clip Chris posted.





The correct execution of ninjutsu tactics and strategies will result in injuries or death. That's what it's meant for.
Before I came to Akban (late 90'), they were sparring quite hard, and many students and veterans were injured regularly.
From what I understand, Yossi understood that instead of making the students tough and hard from doing "realistic randori", they got fat and chubby from sitting on the couch eating potato chips in front of the TV while recovering from their injuries...
So the intensity was lowered.

As someone who comes from a military background and working in security in ridiculously dangerous places in Israel I can say that very few things can prepare you for a life threatening situation, but one of those few things is getting as close as you can to realistic sparring without injuring yourself or others.
I have never had security training without sparring in some way- it's like learning to shoot in a classroom and not in the gun range- it just won't work.
And regarding self defence, there is a story about it in one of Yossi's articles here.

And regarding the sparring in the background of the video, I don't really think it represents anything in particular- some veterans are sparring while using the belt of their Gi, or using the walls of the dojo etc, there is a lot you don't see in that video...

Sparring against multiple opponents is done regularly in Akban but you don't see that in this video also....


----------



## Haikuguy

Hi Chris

I LOVE that video and know it well.

You see, I think you and I mainly disagree about the amount of difference between the martial arts, or the fighting techniques.

Hatsumi grabbing Doron by the hair in the video, although it's what I call "classic ninjutsu" is not JUST ninjutsu, you know?
It's grabbing the hair.
People do that all the time, and it make total sense, even without learning ninjutsu.

I remember when first starting in Akban the first few years I got to sparr mainly in ground fighting (Ne waza) for some reason, and then the group I was at moved to round sparring (strikes were allowed as well in the Ne waza) and wow- I was blown away- such a difference between just waiting in the guard for the opponent to make a mistake (Bjj style) and realizing you are being exposed to strikes!

And then, some of the sparring were done as "classical ninjutsu" and I was blown away again!
I thought I had the strikes and Ne Waza under control, and now all of a sudden eye gouging is allowed, groin attacks, small joint manipulation (all with care and compassion of course), and wow, what a difference again!
Now it's not just strikes, if the opponent has his hand on your face during a struggle on the ground, you and him know that he could have just as easily pulled one of your eyes out!



And I loved that. That feeling of sudden vulnerability just opens up the horizons.
Those layers of understanding can only come from sparring, I believe.
You learn something, get good at it, and then realize it's useless in some situations- a wonderful disillusion.

Look at the video, how they sparr in a downhill, we do that too- and (like the iPhone) it changes everything, again!


oh and in the 24 hour sparring (it was sparring- in one of them we had representatives from the guinness book of world records...) , I was there, twice- in the video you can see us perform a kata (I think Jumonji no kata) right at the end of one of the 24 hour sessions - a thousand times.

Haha, it sounds crazy when I write about it like that.
well it WAS crazy.
damn I miss it.


And here are some more thoughts that might interest you on this subject from an Akban veteran.


----------



## Chris Parker

Haikuguy said:


> Hi Lee! Thanks!



Hi Oded,

I know you addressed this part at Lee, but if you don't mind, I'll add some thoughts from my side as well. Thanks.



Haikuguy said:


> The correct execution of ninjutsu tactics and strategies will result in injuries or death. That's what it's meant for.
> Before I came to Akban (late 90'), they were sparring quite hard, and many students and veterans were injured regularly.
> From what I understand, Yossi understood that instead of making the students tough and hard from doing "realistic randori", they got fat and chubby from sitting on the couch eating potato chips in front of the TV while recovering from their injuries...
> So the intensity was lowered.



I'll be blunt here and say that the correct execution of the techniques/tactics/methods of the various Ryu-ha taught in Ninjutsu schools don't allow for sparring at all. In fact, a lot of them are designed to avoid any type of lengthened encounter at all. That said, it is possible to do free-form randori with them with a fair degree of safety, so the idea of "it'll result in injury or death" is not accurate. That only happens when the instructor doesn't know how to structure the randori properly, or pushes people into it too early. If the guys were going too hard, and getting hurt? That's the instructor not having control or understanding of what was going on in the sessions. Not that it's "too deadly to spar".



Haikuguy said:


> As someone who comes from a military background and working in security in ridiculously dangerous places in Israel I can say that very few things can prepare you for a life threatening situation, but one of those few things is getting as close as you can to realistic sparring without injuring yourself or others.
> I have never had security training without sparring in some way- it's like learning to shoot in a classroom and not in the gun range- it just won't work.
> And regarding self defence, there is a story about it in one of Yossi's articles here.



Completely agreed with your sentiment here (few things can prepare you for genuinely life-threatening encounters), but I will argue with the idea that "sparring" is the closest you can get. To my mind, scenario training is far closer, as it doesn't have the restrictions that sparring has, and it is designed, specifically, to replicate a real encounter as much as possible. In all the security training we've done, scenario training is always there (after the skills have been drilled seriously), but not sparring. It's just unrealistic.

With the "learning to shoot" metaphor, I hear that a lot, but it's really not accurate either (it's come up in the other 'sparring' thread as well). In fact, I'd consider shooting at the range to be more like sparring, as it's a known environment, with safety measures, no movement of the target, and an unrealistic environment to use a gun in. There are, however, tactical shooting ranges, which you move through, and have targets pop up, some you have to shoot, some you have to protect, moving targets, and the like. The FBI have used such training villages for many years, and my instructor used to go to one semi-regularly (mainly for fun, to be honest!).

As far as the story in Yossi's article, there wasn't much mentioned other than what the other guys had... although you might want to mention to Yossi that there isn't such a thing as "Kukishin Ryu Ichimonji". There's a Hira Ichimonji, but that'd be rather inadvisable to adopt when being approached by a group with impact weapons. Ichimonji is from Gyokko Ryu.



Haikuguy said:


> And regarding the sparring in the background of the video, I don't really think it represents anything in particular- some veterans are sparring while using the belt of their Gi, or using the walls of the dojo etc, there is a lot you don't see in that video...
> 
> Sparring against multiple opponents is done regularly in Akban but you don't see that in this video also....



The issue isn't the conditions that are put upon the students (use a belt, stay on the wall, stay on the ground etc), it's that there is no trace of Ninjutsu methodologies present at all. If there are any videos showing actual Ninjutsu being sparred, can you show them? So far the only clips we've seen are nothing to do with the art itself.



Haikuguy said:


> Hi Chris
> 
> I LOVE that video and know it well.



It's certainly a good one to show what training used to be like.... kids today, huh?



Haikuguy said:


> You see, I think you and I mainly disagree about the amount of difference between the martial arts, or the fighting techniques.



I'll put it this way, then.

When you are training, you are conditioning yourself to respond in a certain way. What you are conditioning is less your body than most think, and more your mind, specifically, your unconscious mind. You see, when it all comes down to it, it's your unconscious mind that's in charge. So you need to ensure that what you train in is solid and strong.

The reason the unconscious is in charge (well, it always is, but in this specific case where it comes to the fore) is that, under the stress and adrenaline of a real, sudden, dangerous encounter, the conscious mind shuts down. This is a survival trait, as the conscious mind is too slow to act, it gets removed from the equation.

Thing is, though, the unconscious can only give you one option to use at any one time. So what it'll do under that stress is look inside itself for anything that can be used in the circumstances.... something that has been put in a box labelled "Strong, Survival, Powerful, etc". If you've trained one thing, and trained it in a way that you have put it in that "Strong, Survival" box, you'll have one choice, and you'll go with that. That's the idea of training in a martial art, you give yourself the single approach (one thing in the box), and put everything behind that. However, if you have two different ideas trained, especially if they don't "fit" with each other (such as the two different methods found in the Akban clips, having completely different ideas of power, distance, angling, posture, striking, kicking, grappling, and more), one of a couple of things will occur.

First, you may believe (unconsciously) that they are both powerful, so you have an unconscious choice. Okay, but whichever is chosen (which would be the one believed to be more powerful, more successful, the "better" choice), the other is discarded. It doesn't matter if you've spent 13 years training one, and 2 months training the other, if the 2 month one is believed to be the more powerful option, that 13 years is frankly just wasted time and effort, because it won't be there to be called upon. Similarly, you may have only had an unconscious belief about one of the two training methods when training them, so half the training is wasted (which could be from anywhere, by the way... having success in sparring with the more kickboxing approach could feel more powerful for you, so the ninjutsu training doesn't get a look in, being believed to be less powerful... or the Ninjutsu could be believed more powerful, as you have felt the locks and throws, maybe got the wind knocked out of you by a throw early on, so the kickboxing side of things, even though it's the "tested" aspect, amounts to nothing as well). Bear in mind that the belief can really have no logical reason for it... it could be that one side looks more like the movies you saw as a kid, so that's considered (unconsciously) to be more powerful, even if you're not as good at that as opposed to the other side.

The worse scenario is that the two counteract each other. You may have doubts about your Ninjutsu ability (and it's reliability) as your sparring has shown you no success with it... while at the same time not trusting the sparred (kickboxing) training as it doesn't have the same impact as the Ninjutsu side of your training. The end result is that when you go to look in that little "Strong, Survival" box... there's nothing there, as you haven't considered anything you do strong, or suited to survival. This is where "Freeze" happens (from "Fight, Flight, or Freeze").

When learning a martial art, you're not learning (conditioning into yourself) techniques, you're learning a particular approach to combat, with a particular way of achieving things like power and success. Giving yourself more than one way of achieving that is not a good idea, and is a conscious mind attempt to give yourself an illusion of control and ability. You need a single, coherent, congruent approach, otherwise you have nothing. Take the example of your guy in Yossi's story, he was approached, he immediately adopted Ichimonji no Kamae. Why? Because he unconsciously believed that was powerful. It might not be the best option for him, it might not strategically be a good idea, but he unconsciously believed it was the most powerful responce he could give. And, from the sounds of things, it worked for him. Great. But if he then started using the kickboxing strikes and kicks from that posture, they would have been rather lacking in power, as the kamae is in no way set-up to deliver power in that way. So hopefully he didn't.



Haikuguy said:


> Hatsumi grabbing Doron by the hair in the video, although it's what I call "classic ninjutsu" is not JUST ninjutsu, you know?
> It's grabbing the hair.
> People do that all the time, and it make total sense, even without learning ninjutsu.



Actually, there's some specific approaches to pulling hair that exist in our traditions, but that's by the by. More realistically, you're still looking at "techniques", which isn't the reality. What is trained is the approach, underscored by beliefs. The approach being trained needs to be the one being tested, not a completely different one.



Haikuguy said:


> I remember when first starting in Akban the first few years I got to sparr mainly in ground fighting (Ne waza) for some reason, and then the group I was at moved to round sparring (strikes were allowed as well in the Ne waza) and wow- I was blown away- such a difference between just waiting in the guard for the opponent to make a mistake (Bjj style) and realizing you are being exposed to strikes!



Yeah, staggered introductions, gradually increasing the scope, is great. But if none of it was from what you were training in (the Ninjutsu side of things), it's all still rather pointless.



Haikuguy said:


> And then, some of the sparring were done as "classical ninjutsu" and I was blown away again!
> I thought I had the strikes and Ne Waza under control, and now all of a sudden eye gouging is allowed, groin attacks, small joint manipulation (all with care and compassion of course), and wow, what a difference again!
> Now it's not just strikes, if the opponent has his hand on your face during a struggle on the ground, you and him know that he could have just as easily pulled one of your eyes out!



Eye-gouging, groin attacks, and small joint manipulation doesn't make it any more Ninjutsu than not having them, you realize. It's just a slightly wider range of offensive and defensive actions available to you. 



Haikuguy said:


> And I loved that. That feeling of sudden vulnerability just opens up the horizons.
> Those layers of understanding can only come from sparring, I believe.
> You learn something, get good at it, and then realize it's useless in some situations- a wonderful disillusion.



I get that, I really do. And I agree wholeheartedly. However the question still remains what is being tested?



Haikuguy said:


> Look at the video, how they sparr in a downhill, we do that too- and (like the iPhone) it changes everything, again!



Again, change of environment as a training device, fantastic. But what was being tested? Ninjutsu? Or something completely different? 



Haikuguy said:


> oh and in the 24 hour sparring (it was sparring- in one of them we had representatives from the guinness book of world records...) , I was there, twice- in the video you can see us perform a kata (I think Jumonji no kata) right at the end of one of the 24 hour sessions - a thousand times.
> 
> Haha, it sounds crazy when I write about it like that.
> well it WAS crazy.
> damn I miss it.



Yeah, it did look fun... 



Haikuguy said:


> And here are some more thoughts that might interest you on this subject from an Akban veteran.



Honestly, that entire article basically agreed with me. You're not using what is taught in the Ninjutsu Ryu-ha when sparring, as you're going for a "sports martial art" approach, while agreeing that it's not Ninjutsu, and not suited to Ninjutsu usage, application, or training at all. There are a few major issues with the article, though (such as the "all fights go to ground" myth, which is far from accurate, being used as a reason for some of the training), but it does highlight that, if you want to get good at the Ninjutsu side of things, the sparring isn't where it happens, and if you want to get good at the sporting approach (which is what the sparring there is), then the Ninjutsu teachings aren't of much value. 

So why have them presented as the same art?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Most self defense systems have some form of sparring within them.  It can be used as a part of training that is designed to benefit the practitioner by getting them used to real time and contact!  In the Takamatsuden arts I personally believe you can have some forms of sparring and should.  I would agree with Chris though that you will find it hard to spar unless in a limited manner only using Takamatsuden technique.  Hence why when you see off shoots or sparring within the Takamatsuden arts you will see them incorporate techniques more commonly found with heavy sparring or rolling arts like Muay Thai, Tae Kwon Do, Karate, Boxing, Brazilian Jiujitsu, etc.  Why?  Because when working in the sparring context those systems skill sets work very, very well!  I would also agree with Chris that the Takamatsuden systems totally being geared towards a self preservation method with the idea of quick limited engagement do not necessarily parlay into a great sparring mentality and or technical execution with that goal in mind.  Having said the above though I think anyone who studies within the Takamatsuden arts should spar and incorporate what is useful there.  Yet, you have to have the understanding that sparring is not the same as fighting for your life on the street or in a war zone.  Yet, sparring can make you mentally and physically tough and has it's place as an effective training tool!


----------



## Haikuguy

Chris, sorry, but after all this I still don't understand what's wrong with sparring in ninjutsu...

So you don't spar, we spar. 
Isn't it all good?


Different approaches and different interpretations by different people- what's wrong with that?


----------



## Aiki Lee

Chris pretty much sumed up any coherent point I could have made but I'll try to word it differently in case its just not coming across in an understandable way. I'm going to break up what you said by numbers and adress each one individually as I see it.



Haikuguy said:


> *1. *The correct execution of ninjutsu tactics and strategies will result in injuries or death. That's what it's meant for.
> Before I came to Akban (late 90'), they were sparring quite hard, and many students and veterans were injured regularly.
> 
> 
> *2. *As someone who comes from a military background and working in security in ridiculously dangerous places in Israel I can say that very few things can prepare you for a life threatening situation, but one of those few things is getting as close as you can to realistic sparring without injuring yourself or others.
> 
> *3. *And regarding the sparring in the background of the video, I don't really think it represents anything in particular- some veterans are sparring while using the belt of their Gi, or using the walls of the dojo etc, there is a lot you don't see in that video...
> 
> Sparring against multiple opponents is done regularly in Akban but you don't see that in this video also....



1. While techniques can be dangerous when applied the strategies and principles are not necessarily the techniques themselves but the "how, why, and when" you apply those techniques. After all, proper execution of any martial arts technique can result in serious injury if the practitioner wills it. With control, application of the arts can be done in a live but safe fashion. In regards to injury, no one should be injured during training and when people are being careless they should be told to slow down and work more on form than speed, which is what your teacher did if I am understanding you correctly.

2. I think you and I may have the same agendas. Realistic pressure testing is essential to anyone who is seriously interested in learning how to apply their art in a real combat or self-defense scenario. However, I believe pressure testing and randori are not the same as sparring which I equate more with a sport context in which the goal is not to move in and take control of the situation as soon as possible but rather more of a game in which partners exchange techniques without any particular commitment to come and do harm to the other person.


This is where I feel the difference lies. In randori (or pressure testing) one or both parties must have the intent of doing real harm to the other, but still be in control to not actually go through with it at the last minute. That means when I walk tup to my partner I must have the intent of wanting to squeeze the life out of him when I choke him, or knock him flat on his *** when I hit him. Likewise my partner must have the intent of "I must do what must be done to escape (or take control of) this situation". In sparring no such idea seems to be present and is replaced with the thought of "I'm going to hit you, you're going to hit me and eventually we stop." There is no sense of urgency in sparring as there is in pressure testing and the scenario based training Chris is advocating.

3.  So the reason the sparring doesn't look right is really a combination of the first two responses I had. The tactics of ninjutsu do not appear to be present, and there is no sense of urgency (live or die). When it comes to the tactics there didn't appear to be much angular movement, changing of timing or rythym, set ups for techniques, or realistic feinting or misdirection of the opponent's attention. People may be having fun, but they are not exploring the concepts of the kata they are shown in a realistic setting.

What i would recommend is when having opponents train to pressure test, I would suggest starting with a specified uke and tori just like a kata starts, but uke's attacks are random and continuous. Tori's goal should be to put on a technique (say oni kudaki) while uke bull rushes them, swings punches at them, kicks at them, or does whatever. This will show studnets why it is important to set up their techniques with strategy and why the specific angling in the kata needs to be accounted for during the pressure testing. Uke's job should not be to thwart tori's technique but to apply realistic attacking energy. After this has been done for numerous techniques then both training partners can can practice in a randori situation where there is no specified uke and tori and whoever gets the technique , gets it and  they counter each other when possible but don't go over board and risk serious injury.


----------



## Indagator

One point regarding the "shooting in class" comment, there. You could compare shooting at the range to sparring, and I would agree. However I would then go on to compare scenario training or proper randori to tactical training with simunition marking rounds (which I have done, as well as put in many hours at the range).

In the case of the shooting example, does that now make slightly more sense, the Takamatsu-den side of this argument, if I utilise your own metaphor and extend it's principle like that?

Hope so - only trying to help!


----------



## Chris Parker

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Most self defense systems have some form of sparring within them.  It can be used as a part of training that is designed to benefit the practitioner by getting them used to real time and contact!


 
Actually, most self defence systems (such as RBSD groups) don't use sparring at all. They use scenario-based free-response drills, but not sparring (although, confusingly, some use the term "sparring" as it's easier to give people the idea....) The difference between the two (sparring and scenario-based free-response training) will be covered in a little bit.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> In the Takamatsuden arts I personally believe you can have some forms of sparring and should.  I would agree with Chris though that you will find it hard to spar unless in a limited manner only using Takamatsuden technique.


 
Actually, I don't think limiting is really the issue, it's a matter of what you're actually testing.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hence why when you see off shoots or sparring within the Takamatsuden arts you will see them incorporate techniques more commonly found with heavy sparring or rolling arts like Muay Thai, Tae Kwon Do, Karate, Boxing, Brazilian Jiujitsu, etc.  Why?  Because when working in the sparring context those systems skill sets work very, very well!


 
Honestly, I think that when you see such things, it means that the practitioners themselves either don't understand their own system, or don't have faith in it. As a result, they go to what they see as being successful in sparring, which is a TKD/kickboxing approach for standing, and BJJ for ground. More on this later... 



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I would also agree with Chris that the Takamatsuden systems totally being geared towards a self preservation method with the idea of quick limited engagement do not necessarily parlay into a great sparring mentality and or technical execution with that goal in mind.


 
Yep. That's the thing, really, the training methods have to be congruent with the ideas of the art itself.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Having said the above though I think anyone who studies within the Takamatsuden arts should spar and incorporate what is useful there.  Yet, you have to have the understanding that sparring is not the same as fighting for your life on the street or in a war zone.  Yet, sparring can make you mentally and physically tough and has it's place as an effective training tool!



Oh, sparring absolutely has benefits, but the form needs to compliment the rest of the training. When it is done congruently, it's great, and I highly recommend it. It's when it isn't that there are issues. Speaking of that.... 



Haikuguy said:


> Chris, sorry, but after all this I still don't understand what's wrong with sparring in ninjutsu...
> 
> So you don't spar, we spar.
> Isn't it all good?
> 
> 
> Different approaches and different interpretations by different people- what's wrong with that?



I'll see if I can state it one more time then. The big clue was in my last post where I discussed how martial training actually works (programming your unconscious response).

To be effective, training has to be congruent. There is no two ways around that. If you have two incongruent methods, the only way to get them to work is to abandon one, or change them both to make them fit with each other. And that just isn't possible when the two methods are diametrically opposed. 

The issue isn't that you're sparring, it's the way you do it. There are forms of free-form training (which some may label as "sparring") that can absolutely be used to train the Takamatsuden arts, but the way you're doing it just doesn't work. You may get good at the sparring approach you use, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the Ninjutsu skills or if you're any good at that. And you may be fantastic at the Ninjutsu skills and techniques, but not so good at the sparring, and feel that you're not able to "fight" properly, when you haven't even tested anything you're actually good at.

When I'm talking about sparring here, I'm referring to two people squaring off, and trying to outclass/outperform each other. Both are trying to press forward with offense, and handle incoming attacks with defense. It is a contest, even when it's claimed not to be ("The only competition is with yourself... There are no winners..."), due to the structure of the testing method. And, as such, it is not really representative of reality at all.

Real encounters have an aggressor (or a number of them), and a defender. There is often no preparation time, or very little, the attacks are unfamiliar (as opposed to being similar to what you yourself are responding with), and the encounters tend to be fairly quick, rather than drawn out exchanges. As a result, if you're after a realistic way of testing your skills and abilities, look to methods that mimic that as closely as possible. Sparring just doesn't do it.

Reality Based Self Defense uses scenario-based response training, and that's really the way to go. Scenario based training is exactly as it sounds... you set up a scenario, where there is an attacker and a defender. To begin with, the attacks are nominated, but by the end, it becomes completely free form. The defender has an aim to accomplish, rather than just "fight", which might be to subdue, to escape, to prevent a takedown, or anything similar. This way skills are genuinely tested, rather than just "fighting". 

The "just fight" approach leads to tactics of staying 'in' the fight, when the tactics of the art tell you to escape. The "just fight" approach leads to an unrealistic expectation of combat, with the reality of attack and defense compromised simply by being aware that you're in a fight already. That changes the effect of the attack, whether or not the attacker is also prepared, or ready to defend themselves, and so on.

Put it another way, sparring is highly unrealistic for anything other than preparation for sporting systems and their competitive environment. Scenario based training gives all the benefits of sparring, but none of the drawbacks.

As said, training needs to be congruent, without that, it's just exercise and wasting time. And that's the biggest problem with the sparring clips that I've seen, and as have been put forth from the Akban organisation. The reason that TKD, kickboxing, karate etc have their sparring methods is that it is congruent with their art. In TKD sparring, you see TKD kicks, postural concepts, distancing, power source, and so on. In BJJ rolling, you see BJJ postural concepts, tactics, techniques, and so on. In Akban Ninjutsu sparring, you see kickboxing/TKD/Karate, Judo, and BJJ, but no Ninjutsu. That's the biggest problem. You're sparring as a way of testing your art, but not actually testing your art in any way whatsoever. Sparring itself isn't the problem, but sparring without using your art in order to show how you can use your art is just pointless.

I really don't know any way to say it clearer than that, honestly.


----------



## Cyriacus

Hi.



Chris Parker said:


> Actually, most self defence systems (such as RBSD groups) don't use sparring at all. They use scenario-based free-response drills, but not sparring (although, confusingly, some use the term "sparring" as it's easier to give people the idea....) The difference between the two (sparring and scenario-based free-response training) will be covered in a little bit.
> 
> *And both, if used in conjunction, can be as beneficial, so long as they are both done properly.*
> 
> Actually, I don't think limiting is really the issue, it's a matter of what you're actually testing.
> 
> *And so stems the issue of Focus.*
> 
> Honestly, I think that when you see such things, it means that the practitioners themselves either don't understand their own system, or don't have faith in it. As a result, they go to what they see as being successful in sparring, which is a TKD/kickboxing approach for standing, and BJJ for ground. More on this later...
> 
> *Tis the Focus and the Faith. They assume that theyre not learning what they should literally think, and instead replace it with preconceived notions theyve developed.*
> 
> Yep. That's the thing, really, the training methods have to be congruent with the ideas of the art itself.
> 
> **nods**
> 
> Oh, sparring absolutely has benefits, but the form needs to compliment the rest of the training. When it is done congruently, it's great, and I highly recommend it. It's when it isn't that there are issues. Speaking of that....
> 
> *And this is where I start to come in. Sparring has come to mean something a bit disambiguous of its definition and idealogy. It must be a test of Skill as a Practitioner of Your System. Sparring is not Fighting, even if it can come damn close to it sometimes.*
> 
> I'll see if I can state it one more time then. The big clue was in my last post where I discussed how martial training actually works (programming your unconscious response).
> 
> **Nods*
> *
> To be effective, training has to be congruent. There is no two ways around that. If you have two incongruent methods, the only way to get them to work is to abandon one, or change them both to make them fit with each other. And that just isn't possible when the two methods are diametrically opposed.
> 
> *This can also lead into self deception, causing bad habits. Such as, thinking that something works in Sparring, and will therefore work in Fighting, when the Sparring Idealogy is flawed to begin with, causing a void which You are filling in, which would not otherwise exist.*
> 
> The issue isn't that you're sparring, it's the way you do it. There are forms of free-form training (which some may label as "sparring") that can absolutely be used to train the Takamatsuden arts, but the way you're doing it just doesn't work. You may get good at the sparring approach you use, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the Ninjutsu skills or if you're any good at that. And you may be fantastic at the Ninjutsu skills and techniques, but not so good at the sparring, and feel that you're not able to "fight" properly, when you haven't even tested anything you're actually good at.
> 
> *And this is where Im replying primarily. Sparring is not Fighting. Sparring is controlled exchanges of applications. It can benefit Fighting, but it is not fighting. It can be very close to fighting, but it is still, not fighting. The problem that arises, is that if someone continuously loses in Sparring without realising this, it can diminish their confidence in both their System, and themselves. And that is dangerous.*
> 
> When I'm talking about sparring here, I'm referring to two people squaring off, and trying to outclass/outperform each other. Both are trying to press forward with offense, and handle incoming attacks with defense. It is a contest, even when it's claimed not to be ("The only competition is with yourself... There are no winners..."), due to the structure of the testing method. And, as such, it is not really representative of reality at all.
> 
> *Aye. It is representative of only one small aspect, and even then, it is but an element of it. Sparring is subjective, and if it is taken out of its relevant subject context, it becomes skewed, and unusual.*
> 
> Real encounters have an aggressor (or a number of them), and a defender. There is often no preparation time, or very little, the attacks are unfamiliar (as opposed to being similar to what you yourself are responding with), and the encounters tend to be fairly quick, rather than drawn out exchanges. As a result, if you're after a realistic way of testing your skills and abilities, look to methods that mimic that as closely as possible. Sparring just doesn't do it.
> 
> *Aye again. Sparring can help Your Mindset, and Your Movement, and probably Positioning, and so forth, but as Im saying in support, Sparring aint Fighting.*
> 
> Reality Based Self Defense uses scenario-based response training, and that's really the way to go. Scenario based training is exactly as it sounds... you set up a scenario, where there is an attacker and a defender. To begin with, the attacks are nominated, but by the end, it becomes completely free form. The defender has an aim to accomplish, rather than just "fight", which might be to subdue, to escape, to prevent a takedown, or anything similar. This way skills are genuinely tested, rather than just "fighting".
> 
> *Technically, that is Fighting, in its proper context. Much like how Sparring is such a vague term.*
> 
> The "just fight" approach leads to tactics of staying 'in' the fight, when the tactics of the art tell you to escape. The "just fight" approach leads to an unrealistic expectation of combat, with the reality of attack and defense compromised simply by being aware that you're in a fight already. That changes the effect of the attack, whether or not the attacker is also prepared, or ready to defend themselves, and so on.
> *
> Which cannot be simulated in Sparring. *
> 
> Put it another way, sparring is highly unrealistic for anything other than preparation for sporting systems and their competitive environment. Scenario based training gives all the benefits of sparring, but none of the drawbacks.
> 
> *Again, Ill say that it can benefit Your Mindset, but it is not representative of Your Actions and Responses, so much as various less pertinent elements.*
> 
> As said, training needs to be congruent, without that, it's just exercise and wasting time. And that's the biggest problem with the sparring clips that I've seen, and as have been put forth from the Akban organisation. The reason that TKD, kickboxing, karate etc have their sparring methods is that it is congruent with their art. In TKD sparring, you see TKD kicks, postural concepts, distancing, power source, and so on. In BJJ rolling, you see BJJ postural concepts, tactics, techniques, and so on. In Akban Ninjutsu sparring, you see kickboxing/TKD/Karate, Judo, and BJJ, but no Ninjutsu. That's the biggest problem. You're sparring as a way of testing your art, but not actually testing your art in any way whatsoever. Sparring itself isn't the problem, but sparring without using your art in order to show how you can use your art is just pointless.
> 
> *Optionally, Misinterpriting or 'adding' to Your Art is a bigger problem. The real question should be, that when they Spar, where the hell are they getting all their non-Ninjutsu from? Where did it come from, and what gave them the idea and mindset that it was the right thing to do? If they were freely choosing to use different approaches, that wouldnt be as bad. The fact that when theyre put in that situation and immediately dump their proper System, I cant help but be on the same boat as You are. Which is the second reason Im replying. *
> 
> I really don't know any way to say it clearer than that, honestly.
> 
> *You cant. Im voicing agreement to put forward My Views on the matter, albeit the Issue seems pretty clear. They are Sparring, but it is not Ninjutsu as it should be being applied. Its Sparring with a Ninjutsu Label.*



Just My Contribution.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hi Chris,

Most of the RBSD guy's I have personally worked with have sparring in their curriculum in some form as well as scenario training.  Both used in conjunction together are very effective!


----------



## Aiki Lee

I think Chris pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Brian when you refer to sparring are you thinking about the term the way Chris and I were using the term or do you use to refer to more of a stress test with specified aggressor defender situations?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

[SUP]Okay long post dumped.  How frustrating!!! 

I believe that limited sparring such as scenario training is very important!  It is also important to have some sparring within a curriculum.
I do believe like Chris that the empty hand skill sets within the Takamatsuden arts do not lend themselves well to sparring.  They are more
conducive to ambush and reactive style counter attacks.  However, having said that does not mean that you should not spar.  You see I am
a strong believer in cross training even if it is just so you understand how another system works to have a chance to defend against it.  You see
no amount of Taijutsu training in the Takamatsuden arts will give you a feel for dealing with a resisting Brazilian Jiujitsu exponent or a Muay
Thai specialist, etc.  It does not mean you will be ineffective as the Takamatsuden arts are effective in a self defense situation at what they do  
just that every practitioner needs that experience.    If we look at the Human Weapon episode we experienced watching Doug Wilson actually 
dismantle his opponent while he kept his Fukuro Shinai in his hands.  He only had a major issue when he decided to go empty handed.  We also
observed Bruce Appleby (whom I have met and is a really nice person) be out athleticed and lose closely by a much superior athlete who was a former pro football
player.  Now Doug and Bruce I imagine rarely if ever had participated in sparring in that fashion much like their opponents.  Yet one won and one of 
them lost.  Doug other than the empty handed part looked great and won.  Bruce lost but it was close.  Sparring helps ensure that not
only due practitioners have strong mental will but that the system also maintains some athleticism amongst its practitioners.  I imagine that if they
had recruited some of the even more athletic practitioners that I know the results would have been better.  Why is this important?  The future
of a system I feel is carried on better when the practitioners at the top are athletic, have strong mental will and an understanding in the "real
time" application of their system.  Unfortunately, to many people in systems that do not spar have no idea of application in "real time" against
a resisting opponent!  This creates a situation where people can theorize but that theory is never tested.  It also creates a situation where 
people can dismiss some thing because the technique did not look sharp when anyone who has sparred, fought in real life or been in a 
combative situation will tell you that rarely if ever will the technique in such a situatioin be perfect.   I woiuld not advocate mass scale sparring
in the Takamatsuden arts but instead at least some.  Hope that helps![/SUP]


----------



## Cryozombie

Chris Parker said:


> Real encounters have an aggressor (or a number of them), and a defender. There is often no preparation time, or very little, the attacks are unfamiliar (as opposed to being similar to what you yourself are responding with), and the encounters tend to be fairly quick, rather than drawn out exchanges. As a result, if you're after a realistic way of testing your skills and abilities, look to methods that mimic that as closely as possible. Sparring just doesn't do it.
> 
> Reality Based Self Defense uses scenario-based response training, and that's really the way to go. Scenario based training is exactly as it sounds... you set up a scenario, where there is an attacker and a defender. To begin with, the attacks are nominated, but by the end, it becomes completely free form. The defender has an aim to accomplish, rather than just "fight", which might be to subdue, to escape, to prevent a takedown, or anything similar. This way skills are genuinely tested, rather than just "fighting".



This sounds pretty much exactly how we structure our Randori.


----------



## Haikuguy

Here are another few seconds of akban's randori to ponder about

[video=youtube_share;GsbG-XUCGps]http://youtu.be/GsbG-XUCGps[/video]


----------



## Aiki Lee

There's not that much randori in this clip, and the camera changes to fast for me to determine if it is what I would call sparring or actual randori. For the most part once the testing of techniques begins towards the end of the clip I see peopl "defending" against edged weapon attacks, but not taking control with the possible exception of the guy at 3:25. I'd say the rest looked more like sparring because the defenders were swatting at the arms and hands of the attacker without moving in to take control. If the drill was to practice counter striking thats fine, but I honestly don't see enough of the randori to give you much of an opinion on it. 

Brian,

If I understand you correctly, I think that what you are reffering to as sparring is what I would refer to as "true" randori. During what I call tru randori, there is no designated uke or tori and both students have the goal to subdue the other. The difference between this and sparring to me is that during this kind of randori the students have about 4 seconds to "win" the fight. Anything longer is immediately stopped as we find that it is going longer because people's egos are preventing them from accepting a "loss" (as if there could be such a thing in a learning situation), or the studnets do not know how to properly apply the principles to take control in the correct amount of time. This type of training we reserve for only our most experienced and trustworthy students now. Each student must know when he or she has been "beaten" and accept it and learn from it and try again. With such a low time limit there is no stagnation of energy or intention between training partners. So while your sparring concept might be slightly different as long as there is a goal or objective I feel it can be beneficial no matter what you call it as long as it isn't just a 2 minute game of tag.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Contact that is unpredictable is important in training.  Dealing with someone who is full on resisting you is important.  You do not need to do it all the time but you need some of it!


----------



## Indagator

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Contact that is unpredictable is important in training.  Dealing with someone who is full on resisting you is important.  You do not need to do it all the time but you need some of it!



Well said.


----------



## MJS

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Contact that is unpredictable is important in training. Dealing with someone who is full on resisting you is important. You do not need to do it all the time but you need some of it!



QFT!  My thoughts exactly!


----------



## Chris Parker

Brian R. VanCise said:


> [SUP]Okay long post dumped.  How frustrating!!!




This has happened to you a couple of times, yeah? The new software should keep a copy, so you should be able to recover such posts. Don't know how, though, haven't tried it myself... 

[/SUP]


Brian R. VanCise said:


> [SUP]I believe that limited sparring such as scenario training is very important!  It is also important to have some sparring within a curriculum.


 

If you're referring to scenario (free-response) training as "sparring", cool, and agreed. In fact, a number of the Ryu have that as a major part of their training methodology, although I'm not sure how well known such aspects are in the Bujinkan by and large (I'm sure there are a number who do know about it, but it seems like many either ignore it, are unaware of it, or try to put "regular" sparring and the like in as a stop-gap measure).

[/SUP]


Brian R. VanCise said:


> [SUP]I do believe like Chris that the empty hand skill sets within the Takamatsuden arts do not lend themselves well to sparring.  They are more conducive to ambush and reactive style counter attacks.


 

No, that's not quite what I meant. I'll see if I can explain in a little more detail later in this post.

[/SUP]


Brian R. VanCise said:


> [SUP]However, having said that does not mean that you should not spar.




 First, we really need to agree on a definition of "sparring". The one that I, and others, have been going with is the "two people face each other, and try to outperform each other. Both attack and defend, and are aware of their opponent trying to attack and defend". In that regard, yeah, I'd say, for us, you shouldn't spar. If you mean more of a scenario based training, where there is an attacker and a defender, a specific aim perhaps (such as escape, or subdue, or disarm, or whatever), which is basically an unscripted form of training, then yes, that should be a part of the training.[/SUP]


Brian R. VanCise said:


> [SUP]You see I am a strong believer in cross training even if it is just so you understand how another system works to have a chance to defend against it.  You see no amount of Taijutsu training in the Takamatsuden arts will give you a feel for dealing with a resisting Brazilian Jiujitsu exponent or a Muay Thai specialist, etc.  It does not mean you will be ineffective as the Takamatsuden arts are effective in a self defense situation at what they do just that every practitioner needs that experience.


 

Ah, I'm not such a fan, really. I see it as people not understanding their own art well enough in the first place when it is used to "fill gaps" in their system. And the argument of "well, just in case we come up against such a trained person" is, to me, so highly unrealistic as to have no credence. Firstly, you can't possibly train in every system out there, so there's always going to be gaps in what you're experienced with. Second, serious martial practitioners tend to not be who you'd ever face in a real assault, so it's wasted effort unless you're planning on meeting them in their competitive environment... but we'll see the issues with that in a moment. So I'm not really agreeing that "every practitioner needs that experience". Additionally, training in a classical martial art shouldn't be about self defence... if it is, you have seriously misjudged the art you're studying. The Takamatsuden arts (meaning the Ryu-ha themselves) are really in no way suited to a self defence situation, so to describe them as being effective in that regard isn't really accurate either. Now, before you misinterpret that, the skills of the various Ryu can certainly be effective, the principles are definitely applicable, and the tactics are as good as they ever were... but a modern self defence situation is far from what they are designed for.

[/SUP]


Brian R. VanCise said:


> [SUP]If we look at the Human Weapon episode we experienced watching Doug Wilson actually dismantle his opponent while he kept his Fukuro Shinai in his hands.  He only had a major issue when he decided to go empty handed.  We also observed Bruce Appleby (whom I have met and is a really nice person) be out athleticed and lose closely by a much superior athlete who was a former pro football player.


 

Hmm, if we're going to bring this up again, let's be frank about it. Doug acquitted himself far better than Bruce did (despite the grief he got for being swept... really, I don't mind him being swept, but there's enough in the Shinden Fudo Ryu and Takagi Yoshin Ryu that deal specifically with sacrifice throws to perform when that happens that I'm disappointed in his lack of follow up!). Doug's bo work was his best, his sword was, really, better than Bruce's, which had huge amounts of issues. And it was nothing to do with Bill being a "better athlete", it was to do with Bruce not applying any real tactics, having very poor distancing (he was way too close the entire time), and a complete lack of targeting and angling (footwork). Doug was getting a little over-excited and overcutting from time to time, but he really did do much better. Oh, but I'm not sure what Bruce being a "nice" person has to do with anything, really... if anything, it works against him in this realm!

[/SUP]


Brian R. VanCise said:


> [SUP]Now Doug and Bruce I imagine rarely if ever had participated in sparring in that fashion much like their opponents.  Yet one won and one of  them lost.  Doug other than the empty handed part looked great and won.  Bruce lost but it was close.


 

I don't know that sparring was actually the answer, though. And I really don't think a 13th Dan losing "close" against a guy who had never done any swordwork before that week is really anywhere close to being acceptable, but that's me. Personally, I think the biggest issue was that they met their opponents in an environment they weren't knowledgable about... but I also think that it's not an environment that was cared about either. I did find it interesting that weapons were chosen, given the structure and assumptions of weapon training, but again, that's me. I think it was set up in a way that was never going to be a glowing representation of the art, which is a pity. But I don't think the producers of the show realised that, so I'm not laying blame anywhere.

[/SUP]


Brian R. VanCise said:


> [SUP]Sparring helps ensure that not only due practitioners have strong mental will but that the system also maintains some athleticism amongst its practitioners.


 

Ah, now here we agree completely. I, however, don't feel that such things require sparring (in the one-on-one competitive format described earlier) is needed for such benefits, and that the downside outweighs the benefits that can be achieved in other ways.

[/SUP]


Brian R. VanCise said:


> [SUP]I imagine that if they had recruited some of the even more athletic practitioners that I know the results would have been better.


 

Honestly, I doubt it. I do think that if they chose more junior ranks, less experienced practitioners, it would have been a better move (on the part of the Bujinkan membership present).

[/SUP]


Brian R. VanCise said:


> [SUP]Why is this important?  The future of a system I feel is carried on better when the practitioners at the top are athletic, have strong mental will and an understanding in the "real time" application of their system.  Unfortunately, to many people in systems that do not spar have no idea of application in "real time" against a resisting opponent!  This creates a situation where people can theorize but that theory is never tested.




 Ah, but Brian, you're projecting your value system onto the art. Athleticism isn't necessarily required, nor even that their is an ability to apply the system in 'real time' when dealing with a traditional art. So for continuation of the system, honestly, no. If the system is based on competitive usage, sure. If it's designed with self defence, or modern conflict in mind, then that needs to be addressed properly and realistically... but, and here's the kicker, that doesn't mean that any form of athleticism is required there either. Nor is any ability to employ the methods in a long, drawn out "sparring" format. It really just comes down to recognising what an art is created for, what it's suited for, and going with that, rather than what many seem to do, which is decide what they want an art to do for them (what skills and abilities they want it to give them), and try to insist that that's what it does.

[/SUP]


Brian R. VanCise said:


> [SUP]It also creates a situation where people can dismiss some thing because the technique did not look sharp when anyone who has sparred, fought in real life or been in a combative situation will tell you that rarely if ever will the technique in such a situatioin be perfect.   I woiuld not advocate mass scale sparring in the Takamatsuden arts but instead at least some.  Hope that helps![/SUP]



Hmm. Again, I don't think that requires sparring in the form being discussed here, but simply proper, appropriate training devices and methods, which can, and should, include free-response methods, including dealing with failure (of technique). Sparring will honestly just reinforce bad concepts.



Haikuguy said:


> Here are another few seconds of akban's randori to ponder about
> 
> [video=youtube_share;GsbG-XUCGps]http://youtu.be/GsbG-XUCGps[/video]



Hi Oded, I'm not going to comment on the Kunai aspects here, just on the tanto sparring you linked the clip for, and in that regard, I'll be blunt and say I saw more of the same: unrealistic, but fun. I will say that there was more of a ninjutsu footwork and movement being employed here, so it was more congruent, which just makes me wonder more why it can appear here, but not in the unarmed sparring?



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Contact that is unpredictable is important in training.  Dealing with someone who is full on resisting you is important.  You do not need to do it all the time but you need some of it!



I know that Indagator and MJS have agreed with this comment, thanked you for it etc, but honestly, it's not true. Unpredictable (random) training is highly beneficial, certainly, and is recommended. However, the issue is with the idea of training against resistance. Frankly, it's unrealistic.

If you are attacked, your attacker will not resist. Mainly because they won't be concerned (looking for) your counter attacks, they'll just be wanting/trying to attack you. They don't actually actively defend anything, they don't actively resist anything, they just attack. What they will do, though, if you start defending or counterattacking, is react. This is incredibly different to the way someone who is trying to outperform you "resists" your actions. In sparring, both opponents are simultaneously trying to attack (score) and defend (stop the opponent scoring). This means that they are more "aware" of your attempts to "score" on them, and are looking for you to do so, having a range of actions designed to counter such attempts. But when it all comes down to it, this is completely removed from the reality of an attack.

The simple fact is that a real, committed attacker won't resist. They won't really give any thought to defence. They'll just be concerned with attack. If your goal is to look at defending against an assault, don't spar. It's nothing like a real assault, and therefore of no real benefit to that end.


----------



## Haikuguy

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Contact that is unpredictable is important in training.  Dealing with someone who is full on resisting you is important.  You do not need to do it all the time but you need some of it!



Totally agree.
"contact that's unpredictable" = sparring, and not just performing Katas, in an open system (a system which involves strikes, wrestling, small joint manipulation, pressure points and all other things that are ilegal in UFC...)
"Dealing with someone who is full on resisting you" (and the sparring that I've just described) takes a great deal of practice and guidance to do safely.

The idea is to keep your sparring partner safe.


And does "full on resisting" means taking someone's eye out? pulling a hidden blade and using it? a gun and using it? pushing someone down the stairs?
And if not, why not? I mean, if someone will try to hurt my family, I will definitely "full on resist"....

The biggest difference between randori and tatakai http://<a href=http://www.akban.org/pyramid_en/pyramid-conclusions.php> Tatakai</a>is *THE INTENT TO HARM*.



You take that intent out of the equation, you get some good people and with some good professional guidance and you can practice just about anything.


----------



## Haikuguy

Chris Parker said:


> The simple fact is that a real, committed attacker won't resist. They won't really give any thought to defence. They'll just be concerned with attack. If your goal is to look at defending against an assault, don't spar. It's nothing like a real assault, and therefore of no real benefit to that end.



Hi Chris

I respectfully disagree.



For example, this is one of the places I worked in security while studying in the university in Jerusalem-

I left 2 years before this incident happened (this footage was just recently released to the public) -
[video=youtube_share;Kqr4AnMw454]http://youtu.be/Kqr4AnMw454[/video]

A real, committed attacker will do all kind of things.

"If your goal is to look at defending against an assault, don't spar"- I think it all depends on the sparring.

Isn't it like saying- if your goal is to work in security, don't learn how to actively attack and pursue?
Just learn how to shoot from behind a table in indoor gun ranges?

 Whenever I wrote about gun ranges *of course* I was talking about tactical shooting.

This guy's training in tactical shooting (and Paintball too, by the way, was part of training in that job) helped him eliminate the terrorist eventually.


Speaking of Paintball, (let's try to say that paintball is the "sparring of the tactical shooting world"...), notice that the people who have experience and have been under fire are always more careful and cautious when it comes to handling themselves in a paintball game. 




hmm, so let me phrase this analogy...it might be a good one:


Akban's sparring to Ninjutsu is like paintball to tactical shooting, only with less protective gear.


----------



## Indagator

Lol did you just say simunition=paintball? Or did I read between the lines there...?

In regards to Mr Parker mentioning the thanks I gave to Mr VanCise on that post earlier, just to clarify:

I was more considering things in terms of it is good to experience training where things do not always go according to plan, or flow the way one's preconceived notions may have anticipated as this encourages (imho) a subtle development of flow in the moment and reactionary response - well, I shoud say it _can_ do if done well :lol:


----------



## pgsmith

> Akban's sparring to Ninjutsu is like paintball to tactical shooting, only with less protective gear.


 Based upon what has been displayed in the youtube videos of their sparring, I have to disagree. I would say rather that it *could be*, if it were done well. I don't think that the sparring that is shown in any of their videos would be beneficial for much of anything. Of course, that's just an opinion.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Chris one of the great things about the Takamatsuden arts is that you get quite a bit of exposure to roughly six different systems.  However, even though the overall systems are broad practitioners from any of the Kans can benefit from cross training.   Hatsumi Sensei came into it with a wide background in other systems.  I believe this helped him as a martial practitioner.  Tanemura Sensei also cross trained.  Manaka Sensei also cross trained in the military.  All of this training gave them a deeper perspective on the Martial Sciences which in my opinion is very important.  I believe in "Scenario Based Training" that is where one or more people act out a prescribed role and the defender or defenders then react.  This is excellent training and I have encouraged it since I began teaching a long, long, time ago.  In this type of training I believe in a walk through of the practitioners role then pad up and see what happens.  I believe in introducing variables in this type of training as additioinal stressors that the participants actually have no idea in what is coming. (ie. maybe a training knife is introduced during an unarmed session)  However, I also feel it is good to "Spar" ie. against a resisting opponent both with tools (padded weapons), empty hand and also grappling.  This allows a practitioner to get good at timing and distancing in conjunction with an opponent who is resisting and or attacking.  Now both of the above do not need to happen all the time but...... in my opinion they are essential and practitioners benefit greatly from this kind of training.  It certainly does not hurt them or make them unable in any way to function in a moment of violence.  Instead do to the variety of the training it should help them deal with unpredictable variables that are one thing that is constant in a moment of violence.  Traditional systems of martial practice can be excellent forms for personal protection.  They may like the Takamatsuden arts take a while longer to get good at but they certainly can turn out martial practitioners that are very, very capable of defending themselves and their loved ones.  This brings us to athleticism.  Athleticism is important.  I have been in and around athletics and athletes most of my life.  While athleticism is not necessarily a prerequisite to defending oneself it is a distinct advantage if a martial practitioner is in shape with a good balance of aerobic and anaerobic exercise. (strong cardio and strength training)  A martial practitioner would if they are taking their training seriously want to be in as close a state of peak physical fitness that they could achieve.  A professional level athlete frankly with a little training is going to be a bear to deal with. (provided they have good attributes and mind set conducive to personal protection skills)  Why should not every martial practitioner strive to be in their best physical condition?  Simply they should.  It is insane to argue against being in great shape. (even though it may not necessarily be necessary in some violent encounters)  Bill and the other guy in the Human weapon were professional athletes (Bill being at a top tier level ie. the NFL)  Their athleticism was at a much higher level than Bruce.  However, Doug was closer to his opponents and it reflected in their encounter.  People need to understand in my opinion that being as athletic as you can is a great advantage to a martial practitioner!  Very, very important in my opinion.  Let me recount a story of watching a "professional level athlete" in a room full of martial practitioners.  This was a long time ago when I was teaching a seminar to Budo Taijutsu practitioiners.  This seminar was geared towards "Scenario Based Training".  After a couple of hours of training, coaching with instruction on how to act as the aggressors, etc.  We started the drills.  The professional level athlete watched as a few scenarios were held.  When it was his turn he and another practitioner were paired up in a bar situation where their goal was to get out safely through an exit after being confronted.  As the scenario unfurled it was rather easy for him to maneuver with his partner out.  It was impressive!  Mind you he had been practiticing Budo Taijutsu for a short period of time and the aggessors at this point were all his seniors by several years.  Later he was in a two on one situation in a mugging and he dominated yet again against two seniors.  His natural athleticism and his attribute of a longer reach allowed him to literally beat away his attackers easily even though they were more highly skilled.  So I base not just on this encounter but many encounters like it as well as my own athletic skill sets and attributes that have allowed me to do the same as a good reason that practitioners should strive to be as athletic as they can be.  While a system might not require you to be a athletic there is no reason not to be as athletic as you can be!  Now one does not have to spar or be involved in scenario based training all the time.  Too much would take away from technical training which would also be a negative.  Yet, a martial practitioner will always benefit from contact and physical resistance training that is involved in sparring and scenario based training!


----------



## Chris Parker

Haikuguy said:


> Totally agree.
> "contact that's unpredictable" = sparring, and not just performing Katas, in an open system (a system which involves strikes, wrestling, small joint manipulation, pressure points and all other things that are ilegal in UFC...)
> "Dealing with someone who is full on resisting you" (and the sparring that I've just described) takes a great deal of practice and guidance to do safely.
> 
> The idea is to keep your sparring partner safe.



None of which explains why the Ninjutsu sparring found in Akban bears no relationship to the Ninjutsu techniques, movement, methods, structure, or anything else. But more to the point, if you're using the term "sparring" to simply refer to any unscripted training, that's not what we've been arguing against, so you know. We've been arguing against the form being shown in the Akban video clips thus far, which is a competitive form resembling light kickboxing combined with a bit of judo and some BJJ.



Haikuguy said:


> And does "full on resisting" means taking someone's eye out? pulling a hidden blade and using it? a gun and using it? pushing someone down the stairs?
> And if not, why not? I mean, if someone will try to hurt my family, I will definitely "full on resist"....
> 
> The biggest difference between randori and tatakai is *THE INTENT TO HARM*.



To be honest, that linked article reads very well... but it's not borne out in any evidence, frankly. The sparring shown shows little resemblance to a real fight (absent the "intent to harm"), it resembles what it is, a competition. For all the talk of having understanding and researching real fights, I don't see any of that evident in any clip provided. I'd also say that the key fundamentals of kata practice aren't properly understood in that article either, but that's getting into another area.

When it comes to the concept of "full on resisting", an article that might be interesting for yourself is one from Rory Miller: The Myth of the Fully Resisting Opponent (http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2009/09/myth-of-fully-resisting-opponent.html).



Haikuguy said:


> You take that intent out of the equation, you get some good people and with some good professional guidance and you can practice just about anything.



Agreed... but, again, that doesn't explain why the Akban Ninjutsu sparring bears no relationship to any Ninjutsu. That was the big issue, after all.



Haikuguy said:


> Hi Chris
> 
> I respectfully disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, this is one of the places I worked in security while studying in the university in Jerusalem-
> 
> I left 2 years before this incident happened (this footage was just recently released to the public) -
> [video=youtube_share;Kqr4AnMw454]http://youtu.be/Kqr4AnMw454[/video]
> 
> A real, committed attacker will do all kind of things.



Hmm, bluntly, that showed exactly what I said. The physical interaction (between the fleeing guy in the white t-shirt - the terrorist, I assume - and the one in the green t-shirt) involved the guy in the green trying to stop/apprehend the one in white, and the one in white trying to escape. There was no actual resistance, it looked nothing like sparring, as both were working towards opposite aims, not the same one (one key difference between sparring, or sports, and actual fights/assaults, by the way). From there it's just running and shooting... again, no actual resistance, it's one person chasing another. This is not to make light of the very serious situation that occurred, but to point out that what you found demonstrates exactly what I described. I'm not sure what your point was... 



Haikuguy said:


> "If your goal is to look at defending against an assault, don't spar"- I think it all depends on the sparring.




The form of sparring that we have been discussing is the one-on-one competitive form that is shown in all the Akban clips.... two people square off, facing each other, and they engage with the same goal (outperformance of the other), similar skill sets (none of which was Ninjutsu... which was presumably what the Ninjutsu school would want to test in sparring?), and, in that regard, it is so far removed from the realities of an actual assault/fight that, yes, don't spar. It really doesn't do much. Free form training based on reality? Absolutely. But not the form of sparring seen. It has benefits, but preparation for actual conflict isn't it.




Haikuguy said:


> Isn't it like saying- if your goal is to work in security, don't learn how to actively attack and pursue?
> Just learn how to shoot from behind a table in indoor gun ranges?



Gotta tell you, that's not really what security is like in other parts of the world... so no, learning to actively attack and pursue really isn't much to do with security here. Nor in Canada I'd suggest either, you may want to look at your new home, it's not really like Israel.

As with everything in this realm, though, the key is to have it related to it's actual usage. Which is what I've been saying for the last three pages.



Haikuguy said:


> Whenever I wrote about gun ranges *of course* I was talking about tactical shooting.
> 
> This guy's training in tactical shooting (and Paintball too, by the way, was part of training in that job) helped him eliminate the terrorist eventually.



You may want to remember that you are discussing with a global community here... a gun range in many parts of the world will typically be the corridor-type, stand behind the barrier and fire downrange at a target. So when you mean something different, clarification can help us understand where you're coming from.



Haikuguy said:


> Speaking of Paintball, (let's try to say that paintball is the "sparring of the tactical shooting world"...), notice that the people who have experience and have been under fire are always more careful and cautious when it comes to handling themselves in a paintball game.



Then I think that shows that the relationship is actually reversed.... if people who had been off playing paintball were more careful and cautious being under fire, you'd have a point. But due to the mental side of the experience, unless treated as a serious training exercise, and guided properly as such, it's benefits are going to be limited in that fashion. That said, I'm really not surprised that the ones with experience under fire would have a different response in a paintball game. They're associating it with the emotional and mental experience they've already had.



Haikuguy said:


> hmm, so let me phrase this analogy...it might be a good one:
> 
> Akban's sparring to Ninjutsu is like paintball to tactical shooting, only with less protective gear.



Hmm. Not sure I'd agree from the evidence presented. More like kids play-fighting with sticks (sword fighting) to a firefight. I don't mean offence by that, more just to highlight how different the environments and mechanics/technicalities are between your sparring and Ninjutsu, as paintball and tactical shooting do share some similarities.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Chris one of the great things about the Takamatsuden arts is that you get quite a bit of exposure to roughly six different systems.  However, even though the overall systems are broad practitioners from any of the Kans can benefit from cross training.


 
Hey Brian,

It depends on what you're cross-training for, really. For instance, if you want to get good at the methods of the various Ryu, then no, it really doesn't add much at all. If you're looking at having a self defence capability, maybe. If you want to understand things that aren't covered (such as ground fighting), then okay. But that's not the same as saying that practitioners can all benefit... some may truly have absolutely no need. And some can have some downsides as well.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hatsumi Sensei came into it with a wide background in other systems.  I believe this helped him as a martial practitioner.  Tanemura Sensei also cross trained.  Manaka Sensei also cross trained in the military. All of this training gave them a deeper perspective on the Martial Sciences which in my opinion is very important.


 
It gave them a particular perspective, as anything they trained afterwards would be filtered through that early experience... but that's not the same as saying that because they trained in other arts before and during their time training in the Takamatsuden that requires it, or is even necessarily benefited by it. For instance, watching Moti Nativ's DVD of Kukishinden Ryu Dakentaijutsu, it's quite a good production, but I do wonder what it would look like without his Judo background, as the influence is very easy to see. His Judo experience may make him a better martial artist in some ways, but does it make him a better practitioner of the Takamatsuden arts, or does it take him further from the truth of them as he keeps his Judo present in what he does? Hypothetically, of course.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I believe in "Scenario Based Training" that is where one or more people act out a prescribed role and the defender or defenders then react.  This is excellent training and I have encouraged it since I began teaching a long, long, time ago.  In this type of training I believe in a walk through of the practitioners role then pad up and see what happens.  I believe in introducing variables in this type of training as additioinal stressors that the participants actually have no idea in what is coming. (ie. maybe a training knife is introduced during an unarmed session)



Yep, that's what I'd recommend as well. It goes up to the point where the attack is un-nominated and without warning... you can use such drills as the "boogey-man" drill for that.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> However, I also feel it is good to "Spar" ie. against a resisting opponent both with tools (padded weapons), empty hand and also grappling.  This allows a practitioner to get good at timing and distancing in conjunction with an opponent who is resisting and or attacking.


 
Timing and distancing are very much what kata training is about. And, again, actual resistance is actually unrealistic, so that doesn't count as a positive to my mind. I'd still avoid sparring, for reasons already stated.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Now both of the above do not need to happen all the time but...... in my opinion they are essential and practitioners benefit greatly from this kind of training.


 
Sure, but sparring isn't the only, or even the best way of achieving that. 



Brian R. VanCise said:


> It certainly does not hurt them or make them unable in any way to function in a moment of violence.


 
It provides a reinforced framework of less-than-ideal actions and stratagems, tactics, and so on. It can lead to habits that are dangerous, or at the least, ill-advised. And as such, yes, it can certainly hamper the ability to function in the best possible way in a moment of violence.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Instead do to the variety of the training it should help them deal with unpredictable variables that are one thing that is constant in a moment of violence.


 
By training in a way that doesn't match or apply to the realities of an assault?



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Traditional systems of martial practice can be excellent forms for personal protection.



They can provide applicable skillsets and principles... but in and of themselves, nope. They need a fair amount of adaptation first, which requires a great deal of understanding of the requirements of the different situation to begin with. 



Brian R. VanCise said:


> They may like the Takamatsuden arts take a while longer to get good at but they certainly can turn out martial practitioners that are very, very capable of defending themselves and their loved ones.



Sure... but so can anything, given the right person. That doesn't mean that they're suited to it in the first place.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> This brings us to athleticism.  Athleticism is important.  I have been in and around athletics and athletes most of my life.  While athleticism is not necessarily a prerequisite to defending oneself it is a distinct advantage if a martial practitioner is in shape with a good balance of aerobic and anaerobic exercise. (strong cardio and strength training)  A martial practitioner would if they are taking their training seriously want to be in as close a state of peak physical fitness that they could achieve.  A professional level athlete frankly with a little training is going to be a bear to deal with. (provided they have good attributes and mind set conducive to personal protection skills)  Why should not every martial practitioner strive to be in their best physical condition?  Simply they should.  It is insane to argue against being in great shape. (even though it may not necessarily be necessary in some violent encounters)  Bill and the other guy in the Human weapon were professional athletes (Bill being at a top tier level ie. the NFL)  Their athleticism was at a much higher level than Bruce.  However, Doug was closer to his opponents and it reflected in their encounter.


 
Athleticism was brought up in relation to Bruce versus Bill on the Human Weapon episode. You posited that it was due to Bills superior athleticism, being a former pro footballer, that gave him the win. Let's see:





The bout between Bill and Bruce goes from 1:47 to 4:53.

Now, the entire bout is with swords. And watching it, can you really say that Bill's athleticism comes into play at all?



Brian R. VanCise said:


> People need to understand in my opinion that being as athletic as you can is a great advantage to a martial practitioner!  Very, very important in my opinion.


 
I get your take on it, I really do. And I agree that fitness should be looked at by anyone even halfway considering themselves a martial artist, really, I think it should be looked at by everyone regardless, honestly.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Let me recount a story of watching a "professional level athlete" in a room full of martial practitioners.  This was a long time ago when I was teaching a seminar to Budo Taijutsu practitioiners.  This seminar was geared towards "Scenario Based Training".  After a couple of hours of training, coaching with instruction on how to act as the aggressors, etc.  We started the drills.  The professional level athlete watched as a few scenarios were held.  When it was his turn he and another practitioner were paired up in a bar situation where their goal was to get out safely through an exit after being confronted.  As the scenario unfurled it was rather easy for him to maneuver with his partner out.  It was impressive!  Mind you he had been practiticing Budo Taijutsu for a short period of time and the aggessors at this point were all his seniors by several years.  Later he was in a two on one situation in a mugging and he dominated yet again against two seniors.  His natural athleticism and his attribute of a longer reach allowed him to literally beat away his attackers easily even though they were more highly skilled.  So I base not just on this encounter but many encounters like it as well as my own athletic skill sets and attributes that have allowed me to do the same as a good reason that practitioners should strive to be as athletic as they can be.


 
All that tells me is that some people will have a natural gift or affinity... it isn't really an indication of anything else. After all, with minimalist experience, he could outclass people... so what's the point in training, if natural ability can trump it? You train to cover the gaps where natural ability isn't present, where there aren't genetic gifts. Yes, work on it, absolutely, but don't rely on being more athletic. 



Brian R. VanCise said:


> While a system might not require you to be a athletic there is no reason not to be as athletic as you can be!  Now one does not have to spar or be involved in scenario based training all the time.  Too much would take away from technical training which would also be a negative.  Yet, a martial practitioner will always benefit from contact and physical resistance training that is involved in sparring and scenario based training!



I agree with the principle you're talking about, but not the details, honestly. Scenario training, yep. Sparring, nope. Unless it's suited to the arts usage... which would not be self defence.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Chris I think you place way to little on the timing and distancing and mental strength that is gained from sparring.  It is not the same as a two man kata where the attack and outcome and determined.  Timing and distancing in "real time" is essential for application of Martial knowledge.  Bills superior athleticism and attributes gave him and advantage over Bruce that helped to negate Bruce's experience. (even though he may not have done sparring with Fukuro Shinai before)  Bill would be a handful for most martial practitioners in any one on one sporting aspect because of his athleticism and size.  Sure he would lose some and sure he would win some.  If you look throughout the Human Weapon series you will see him win and lose.  Martial practitioiners should be fit and in shape.  Hard to argue with that!


----------



## Haikuguy

Honestly this discussion just re-enforces in me the need for sparring in Ninjutsu, and the reason there is sparring in Akban.

Sparring in some way is better then no sparring at all.

Chris, your assertion that "Ninjutsu sparring found in Akban bears no relationship to the Ninjutsu  techniques, movement, methods, structure, or anything else", and which I disagree strongly with, still does not convince me why sparring is wrong.




And regarding the shootout video, (that has nothing to do with Akban, by the way) I wasn't talking about the physical fight, I was talking about the importance of training in "controlled chaos" to simulate a real-life situation:
Knowing how to change the magazine while on the run, handle malfunctions on the move, use your surroundings, interact with the target WHILE having to report on the radio the location, what happened, what steps need to be done- all this cannot be acquired from sitting in a class or shooting in a closed restricted gun range, and I don't care if you do it for 50 years.

(By the way, one of Akban's veteran that has a lot of shooting experience, and owns a gun, goes to this kind of closed shooting range once a month, to shoot one single bullet- he says that a week before he already starts to get nervous- it gives the whole shooting session an entirely different dimension)


Anyway, to sum up my take on it all- 
*Sparring is essential in any form of physical practice of fighting which involves 2 or more bodies interacting with each other. *

If you believe in practicing Ninjutsu alone, or that ninjutsu is not meant for fighting, then sparring would not be necessary for you.

What kind of sparring? 
in what form (if at all)? 
under what kind of mutual understanding (that has to exist to do it safely)?

Those are open to interpretation, and the interpretations are all welcomed.


----------



## Chris Parker

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Chris I think you place way to little on the timing and distancing and mental strength that is gained from sparring.  It is not the same as a two man kata where the attack and outcome and determined.  Timing and distancing in "real time" is essential for application of Martial knowledge.  Bills superior athleticism and attributes gave him and advantage over Bruce that helped to negate Bruce's experience. (even though he may not have done sparring with Fukuro Shinai before)  Bill would be a handful for most martial practitioners in any one on one sporting aspect because of his athleticism and size.  Sure he would lose some and sure he would win some.  If you look throughout the Human Weapon series you will see him win and lose.  Martial practitioiners should be fit and in shape.  Hard to argue with that!



No, I'm not placing too little emphasis or importance (you seem to be missing a word, so if you meant either of these...) on such aspects in sparring, but they are just as present in free-form scenario training, so I don't see the need to have sparring, which features a range of issues that counter the skills intended from our art, just to have them. As I said, the benefits can be found in other methods without the problems. I will say, though, that timing and distancing is better learnt in "real time" in kata training... after all, that's what it's for. Testing is another matter, and that's where forms of free-form training come into it. Sparring just isn't a good way for us, though.

When it comes to Bruce versus Bill and the issue of athleticism, I really do have to ask where in that entire encounter did Bill's "superior athleticism and attributes" help him? A longer reach gave him some advantage, but it wasn't really taken advantage of. What worked for him was pressing forward all the time and taking risks. Nothing to do with athleticism at all. And whether or not he would be a "handful for most martial practitioners" is kinda beside the point... you said that it helped him beat Bruce (narrowly), overcoming Bruce's experience with the weapon in question. I put up the video and asked for some evidence.

Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing against training for fitness and athleticism, not in the slightest. I'm really not arguing that at all. I am, however, arguing that the reason Bill "won" was due to his "superior athleticism". It wasn't a factor in the match in any real meaningful way... in fact, the most athletic thing Bill did in the fight was to roll to pick up the fukuro shinai... and he got whacked as a result.



Haikuguy said:


> Honestly this discussion just re-enforces in me the need for sparring in Ninjutsu, and the reason there is sparring in Akban.
> 
> Sparring in some way is better then no sparring at all.



I really don't know what to say to that... honestly I'd suggest re-reading the thread, because there's been very little support for one-on-one "game of tag" style sparring at all. Randori/scenario training, free-form responce, yep, absolutely. But the form of sparring seen in each and every Akban clip I've looked at? No, none at all.

If you mean "sparring in some way" to mean free-responce training, we've all agreed with that. But that's not the construct of "sparring" that has been discussed. And in the construct that has been used, it serves little benefit.



Haikuguy said:


> Chris, your assertion that "Ninjutsu sparring found in Akban bears no relationship to the Ninjutsu  techniques, movement, methods, structure, or anything else", and which I disagree strongly with, still does not convince me why sparring is wrong.



Firstly, find me some Akban sparring that shows Ninjutsu methodology in use. So far I haven't seen any, from yourself, or my searches. You may strongly disagree, but the evidence is all present.

As far as why sparring is "wrong", it's not. It's just not suited to the art itself. Why would you test an art designed to teach you to end things in one or two powerful actions and escape by having two people continuously engage, not ending things (symbolically, not actually), not escaping, and not using anything from the actual art being tested? If just makes no sense whatsoever.



Haikuguy said:


> And regarding the shootout video, (that has nothing to do with Akban, by the way) I wasn't talking about the physical fight, I was talking about the importance of training in "controlled chaos" to simulate a real-life situation:
> Knowing how to change the magazine while on the run, handle malfunctions on the move, use your surroundings, interact with the target WHILE having to report on the radio the location, what happened, what steps need to be done- all this cannot be acquired from sitting in a class or shooting in a closed restricted gun range, and I don't care if you do it for 50 years.
> 
> (By the way, one of Akban's veteran that has a lot of shooting experience, and owns a gun, goes to this kind of closed shooting range once a month, to shoot one single bullet- he says that a week before he already starts to get nervous- it gives the whole shooting session an entirely different dimension)



What? You posted the video as a direct responce to my comment that, in a real encounter, "resistance" is not a realistic thing to expect the opponent to do, so training against it is not actually realistic from a self-defence/real encounter perspective. In fact, your exact words were: 


> Hi Chris
> 
> I respectfully disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, this is one of the places I worked in security while studying in the university in Jerusalem-
> 
> I left 2 years before this incident happened (this footage was just recently released to the public) -
> 
> 
> A real, committed attacker will do all kind of things.




How are you now saying that you didn't post it to show such resistance? Seriously, all the things you discuss there are completely beside the point, and not a part of what was being said at all.



Haikuguy said:


> Anyway, to sum up my take on it all-
> *Sparring is essential in any form of physical practice of fighting which involves 2 or more bodies interacting with each other. *


*
*
No, appropriate training and testing methods are required for martial art training, which might include sparring, but might not.



Haikuguy said:


> If you believe in practicing Ninjutsu alone, or that ninjutsu is not meant for fighting, then sparring would not be necessary for you.



That's honestly not an accurate assessment, really. If sparring hampers your actual ability to apply the methods of the art by deliberately and specifically training and testing methods that are not part of the art's approach, don't spar.

Say, tell you what. Here's a story from my Chief Instructor. When he left Japan the first time, he mentioned to his instructor, Nagato Sensei, that his father was a martial artist and a boxer, and would want to see what he had learnt in Japan. So he asked Nagato what techniques he should use. Nagato just looked at him and asked "Are you prepared to break your father's bones?" "No, he's my father." "Then don't spar. Ninjutsu isn't a game".

If you're not ending it quickly, and training in such a way that that is the consistent aim (whether or not it's always successful), you're not testing the art's methods or employing them. And, in that way, it's fairly safe to say that you're not actually doing the art in any way.

Sparring has a large number of benefits, but as an analogue to reality, it fails on so many levels that there's no reason to have it to improve realism. Because that's the same as having a flight simulator which mimics the environment of an X-Wing fighter going against Imperial Tie Fighters in space. Some aspects will be transferable, but for testing ability in flying a commercial jet, it's applicability is severely limited.



Haikuguy said:


> What kind of sparring?



Hmm, you seem to have jumped a bit here.... are you asking what form sparring should take, if it's to be used at all? Assuming that you are, I'd employ (as I have said) free-form responce training based in realistic scenarios, with the attacker acting in a realistic fashion, the effects of technique being shown in a realistic fashion, the aims of the training being understood and followed. Not basically a form of light kickboxing which doesn't have anything to do with what we do at all.



Haikuguy said:


> in what form (if at all)?



Scenario training is the way to approach it, really. As above.



Haikuguy said:


> under what kind of mutual understanding (that has to exist to do it safely)?



Under a mutual understanding of the roles that each has, the aim of the training or testing, the effects of the techniques (so they don't have to be employed with full force), and so on.



Haikuguy said:


> Those are open to interpretation, and the interpretations are all welcomed.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Chris I agree that  "Scenario Based Training" is an excellent form of practice for personal protection.  I do not feel that it should only be that with no sparring.  The timing and distancing in kata is very important.  That allows a practitioner to work on technique and applicatioin of a very specific set of technique and the circumstances that go with it.  Unfortunately, typically there is not unexpected movement in a prearranged drill like "kata". (though of course there are methodology that can take this into effect and counter this argument)  Real time timing and distancing against an opponent who can come at you with a wide variety of technique and the contstant adapting movement and footwork found in sparring is very important.  Just as is rolling against a person trying to submit you is equally important in that they both take the application of technique out of theory and into application against a live human being.  Athleticism will always come into play in any sparring, scenario based training or real life encounter.  It was there in that exchange even if you could not observe it in a flamboyant matter.  I understand your point of view here but..... it may not necessarily be the right point of view for all martial practitioners in the Takamatsuden arts.


----------



## Haikuguy

There is quite a live discussion about the AKBAN way of training on youtube, you can check out the comments and add your thoughts under a video like this one on the youtube website

[video=youtube_share;p9_AOVBlZk0]http://youtu.be/p9_AOVBlZk0[/video]

I feel that I've hogged this thread....


----------



## skuggvarg

> There is quite a live discussion about the AKBAN way of training on youtube, you can check out the comments and add your thoughts under a video like this one on the youtube website



Hey, nothing wrong with sparring/randori/pressure drills, whatever you like to call it if and when done correctly. However, I got a bit sceptical when I watched a video from the AKBAN guys demonstrating how to "change" your taijutsu from "traditional" to fit a more street effective approach. The instructor took Koku as an example and proceeded to show why it was ineffective against a "modern" punch. First he showed the "traditional" kata and since it looked nothing like Im used to (for example didnt include the ken kudaki) I wonder how they can so quickly dismiss it. SHouldnt they focus on first getting the "correct" feel for the kata...

Regards / Skuggvarg


----------



## Haikuguy

Are you referring to this video?





Everyone at Akban do the "correct" Koku no kata, among many others, at the beginning of every class...(with the ken kudaki).
That's why this video is meant for more advanced practitioners who want to be able to implement koku in combat situations.



It is best described in this kata analysis from Koto ryu:


"1. Preserve  in this stage we do the Kata exactly as it was transmitted.

2. Break  this is the stage where we change different parameters of the kata, look for a different ways of doing it and for context usability.

3. leave  this is the stage where we try to perform the kata or the sequence in free sparring."


----------



## Tanaka

I agree with Mr. Parker on most subjects, but I think sparring is a great preparation tool for self defense. Coming from a school that incorporates all of the above(kata, sparring, drills, etc) There are somethings I've learned through sparring that I would not see myself  learning if I had not sparred. Of course you have timing, distancing, taking pain, unpredictable, and countering. You will learn sometimes the first technique doesn't work, and you will have to turn it into something else. Then you learn that second technique didn't work again and you have to flow it into something else. Then you finally find the third technique that gets it done. You will also learn that different people attack you differently and there's certain techniques that just favor for those certain people. You will also see the effect of weight and body type has on your technique. You will also get used to the unpredictable changing energy being given to you by your opponent and which technique to use accordingly. Really the list goes on and on, but do not mistake me for saying sparring is like a real fight. Sparring is not a real fight(atleast not for me). I am trying to learn during my sparring sessions, so I am usually experimenting and seeing how things work in the constantly changing situations. 

I read that article about "Fully resisting opponents" from Rory Miller. And I have to say with due respect that I do disagree with some of the things he has said. Based on my experiences and experiences of my teachers. Specifically on the part of slapping a rear naked choke on someone and them gouging your eyes to escape. Eye gouging, groin grabbing, throw jabbing, etc are all good stuff in self defense, but they don't make up for lack of technique. I've slapped many rear naked chokes on people and had them slapped on me. And if I didn't apply the proper countermeasures to get out of it. I would of been out in seconds, especially if I was a person who wasn't used to being choked and got excited(with my blood pressure going up). 
Which brings up another point... Somtimes you gotta be put in these situations because if you are constantly put in those stressful situations your stress level gets higher.  Thus it takes more to make you start to panic.(Unless you went into the situation with emotions high)

I am going to stress this point a little more. If you don't get hit, choked, and etc with intent daily... Then you aren't prepared. < That is my belief.
And one more point to stress because I see this strawman attacked a lot. Sparring is not to emulate a real fight or be considered close to a real fight.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> I know that Indagator and MJS have agreed with this comment, thanked you for it etc, but honestly, it's not true. Unpredictable (random) training is highly beneficial, certainly, and is recommended. However, the issue is with the idea of training against resistance. Frankly, it's unrealistic.
> 
> If you are attacked, your attacker will not resist. Mainly because they won't be concerned (looking for) your counter attacks, they'll just be wanting/trying to attack you. They don't actually actively defend anything, they don't actively resist anything, they just attack. What they will do, though, if you start defending or counterattacking, is react. This is incredibly different to the way someone who is trying to outperform you "resists" your actions. In sparring, both opponents are simultaneously trying to attack (score) and defend (stop the opponent scoring). This means that they are more "aware" of your attempts to "score" on them, and are looking for you to do so, having a range of actions designed to counter such attempts. But when it all comes down to it, this is completely removed from the reality of an attack.
> 
> The simple fact is that a real, committed attacker won't resist. They won't really give any thought to defence. They'll just be concerned with attack. If your goal is to look at defending against an assault, don't spar. It's nothing like a real assault, and therefore of no real benefit to that end.



I think that while the wording is slightly different, the meaning is the same.  Just like in that 'pure art' thread I started and we were talking about 'pure' and 'original'.  This is why I often talk about gaining control of a weapon when doing a disarm.  If you grab the guys weapon or limb holding the weapon, he's going to resist by puling away, trying to free his weapon.  If someone grabs me in a headlock and I try to reach up to grab his hair, eyes, etc, sure, they're going to react, but they're also going to be resisting your attempts at escape, ie: change the attack, move you around in an attempt to stop your defense.


----------



## skuggvarg

Haikuguy said:


> Are you referring to this video?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone at Akban do the "correct" Koku no kata, among many others, at the beginning of every class...(with the ken kudaki).
> That's why this video is meant for more advanced practitioners who want to be able to implement koku in combat situations.
> 
> 
> 
> It is best described in this kata analysis from Koto ryu:
> 
> 
> "1. Preserve  in this stage we do the Kata exactly as it was transmitted.
> 
> 2. Break  this is the stage where we change different parameters of the kata, look for a different ways of doing it and for context usability.
> 
> 3. leave  this is the stage where we try to perform the kata or the sequence in free sparring."


Yes, that was the video I was refering to. I did find other "versions" of Koku by Akban on youtube were the ken kudaki was present. Still, I cant really see where the Koku is in the other video. Why does he say "lets look at the traditional koku no kata" when what he shows next is far from it. It looks like he took out the ken kudaki and the footwork/positioning that comes with it (one of the key components in my humble opinion). 

Regards / Skuggvarg


----------



## Indagator

Just a wee question pertinent to the "analysis of Koto Ryu" mentioned earlier and referred again to above; what relevant qualification does the AKBAN member in question have to make a critical analysis of koto Ryu? Menkyo? Menkyo kaiden? Something else?

I realise this may sound like a loaded question but honestly I'm just aking to get an idea of where you guys are coming from with some of the analysis here.


----------



## Chris Parker

Ah, I've been a bit busy to get back to this one, so this'll cover quite a bit at once...



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Chris I agree that  "Scenario Based Training" is an excellent form of practice for personal protection.  I do not feel that it should only be that with no sparring.  The timing and distancing in kata is very important.  That allows a practitioner to work on technique and applicatioin of a very specific set of technique and the circumstances that go with it.  Unfortunately, typically there is not unexpected movement in a prearranged drill like "kata". (though of course there are methodology that can take this into effect and counter this argument)  Real time timing and distancing against an opponent who can come at you with a wide variety of technique and the contstant adapting movement and footwork found in sparring is very important.  Just as is rolling against a person trying to submit you is equally important in that they both take the application of technique out of theory and into application against a live human being.  Athleticism will always come into play in any sparring, scenario based training or real life encounter.  It was there in that exchange even if you could not observe it in a flamboyant matter.  I understand your point of view here but..... it may not necessarily be the right point of view for all martial practitioners in the Takamatsuden arts.



I think what I'm talking about when I say "Scenario training versus sparring" might need some clearing up. Sparring I am using (as stated earlier) to refer to a one-on-one "duel", where both partners are going in with the same aim (attack and defend against the other persons' attacks, in order to "outperform" the other), with similar skill sets, and for an extended time period (in other words, you stay in till the sparring session is called over, the round is over, or whatever). This leads to habits of staying when you should leave, as well as a highly unrealistic expectation of what to expect from your potential attackers in the street (that's actually a good distinction there, the guy on the street is not an opponent, they're an attacker.... which leads to a range of changes in the behaviour of both sides).

Sparring typically looks like this:




Kickboxing





Karate





MMA

Now, each of these are specific and suited to the needs of the arts they are employed in... but the tactics, strategies, and habits formed go against the needs of actual defense or combative usage.

When I talk about Scenario Training (as free-form training), I am talking about a training method where there is an attacker (or more than one, depending on the scenario being drilled) against a defender (or more than one, for example in security training, bodyguard training, partner protection training, and so on). The defenders aims and the attackers aims are not the same thing (the attacker wants to attack, the defender wants to defend/escape... which can involve going on the offensive, but doesn't mean the same thing as being the attacker), the tactics and strategies are by necessity different as well (with the aim of leaving the situation as soon as safety allows, and not wanting to "stay and trade blows" as you would in sparring, and so on.

Here are some examples (Note: some language warnings):










Now, there are simply thousands of different scenarios that can be trained.... and, when done properly, it gets to the point where the attackers attack with random attacks, not stopping until they're "stopped", and the defender(s) have complete freedom of response as well, from slow all the way up to full pace (with safety equipment). The tactics employed are exactly what would be employed in self defense, the attacks are exactly what would be encountered in an actual self defense situation, and so on.

Simply put, scenario training is designed to mimic reality as closely as possible, whereas sparring is designed to mimic a competition as closely as possible. Which are you training for?



Haikuguy said:


> There is quite a live discussion about the AKBAN way of training on youtube, you can check out the comments and add your thoughts under a video like this one on the youtube website
> 
> [video=youtube_share;p9_AOVBlZk0]http://youtu.be/p9_AOVBlZk0[/video]
> 
> I feel that I've hogged this thread....



Er, actually, Oded, I'm not able to engage the conversation on you-tube... it seems my pointing out that the version of Itsutsu no Tachi from Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu that Yossi put up was missing parts, showed a desperate lack of understanding of the kata itself, showed large mistakes and gaps in timing, distancing, targeting, and more, and that, if, as Yossi said, the aim was to show respect for the art they were "teaching" with no authorisation, they would be best advised to stop showing it and remove the video, I was banned from making comments on any of the Akban clips. Whoops. 

As for the video, up to about 34 seconds, it was recognisable as Ninjutsu (I saw some Gyokko Ryu mainly), but after that it was nothing to do with the art whatsoever. Especially for the section from 0:37-0:45... I mean, that was just the kickboxing stuff again. Nothing like anything found in Ninjutsu at all. And that's really been my point. If you're also teaching kickboxing, great... but if you're calling that part of the Ninjutsu teaching, you really need to have a closer look at what makes each art what it is.



Haikuguy said:


> Are you referring to this video?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone at Akban do the "correct" Koku no kata, among many others, at the beginning of every class...(with the ken kudaki).
> That's why this video is meant for more advanced practitioners who want to be able to implement koku in combat situations.



Koku at every class? Why? I can see why you'd do the Kihon Happo, or Sanshin, but Koku? But, as Richard said, that ain't Koku. It misses pretty much everything that makes Koku Koku.



Haikuguy said:


> It is best described in this kata analysis from Koto ryu:
> 
> 
> "1. Preserve &#8211; in this stage we do the Kata exactly as it was transmitted.
> 
> 2. Break &#8211; this is the stage where we change different parameters of the kata, look for a different ways of doing it and for context usability.
> 
> 3. leave &#8211; this is the stage where we try to perform the kata or the sequence in free sparring."



Yes, that's known in Japanese arts as Shu Ha Ri. But it doesn't mean that you train in one art, which gives you a particular postural concept, a particular usage of body weapons, a particular movement concept, a particular power source concept, a particular distancing concept, and a particular timing concept, and then doing something completely unrelated and saying "oh, well, we're doing the "Ri" approach to it". No you're not.



Tanaka said:


> I agree with Mr. Parker on most subjects, but I think sparring is a great preparation tool for self defense. Coming from a school that incorporates all of the above(kata, sparring, drills, etc) There are somethings I've learned through sparring that I would not see myself  learning if I had not sparred. Of course you have timing, distancing, taking pain, unpredictable, and countering. You will learn sometimes the first technique doesn't work, and you will have to turn it into something else. Then you learn that second technique didn't work again and you have to flow it into something else. Then you finally find the third technique that gets it done. You will also learn that different people attack you differently and there's certain techniques that just favor for those certain people. You will also see the effect of weight and body type has on your technique. You will also get used to the unpredictable changing energy being given to you by your opponent and which technique to use accordingly. Really the list goes on and on, but do not mistake me for saying sparring is like a real fight. Sparring is not a real fight(atleast not for me). I am trying to learn during my sparring sessions, so I am usually experimenting and seeing how things work in the constantly changing situations.



Hopefully the above examples will show clearer what I mean when I'm discussing Scenario training versus sparring... and how all the benefits that sparring gives are present in proper Scenario training, with an even closer analogue to a real situation/fight. Sparring really just isn't close enough for me. 



Tanaka said:


> I read that article about "Fully resisting opponents" from Rory Miller. And I have to say with due respect that I do disagree with some of the things he has said. Based on my experiences and experiences of my teachers. Specifically on the part of slapping a rear naked choke on someone and them gouging your eyes to escape. Eye gouging, groin grabbing, throw jabbing, etc are all good stuff in self defense, but they don't make up for lack of technique. I've slapped many rear naked chokes on people and had them slapped on me. And if I didn't apply the proper countermeasures to get out of it. I would of been out in seconds, especially if I was a person who wasn't used to being choked and got excited(with my blood pressure going up).
> Which brings up another point... Somtimes you gotta be put in these situations because if you are constantly put in those stressful situations your stress level gets higher.  Thus it takes more to make you start to panic.(Unless you went into the situation with emotions high)



Oh, absolutely train the technique... but the issue isn't when the choke is on, it's getting it on in the first place, which isn't always as clean as you might find in the dojo. If you do get it clean and fast, you will typically get a "panic" response from whoever you're putting it on... which can come out in different ways. Some more effectual than others, it must be said. But if you're still trying to get it on, not quite in position, and the other guy is seriously (realistically) trying to claw your eyes... and by that I mean that they actually will pull your eyes out, not that they are "replicating" the moves... it's quite a different situation. That's what Rory Miller was getting at. Until you've done it for real, against a real person with that amount of desperation, then it's still not "real" in your training.



Tanaka said:


> I am going to stress this point a little more. If you don't get hit, choked, and etc with intent daily... Then you aren't prepared. < That is my belief.
> And one more point to stress because I see this strawman attacked a lot. Sparring is not to emulate a real fight or be considered close to a real fight.



But if it's said that sparring is "preparation" for a real fight, then it must be seen as having properties similar to one, agreed? And the fact is that most of the aspects that most people look to to say "this is just like a real fight" are actually very far removed from a real defensive encounter... but are very close to the "real fights" that people see in MMA competitions....



MJS said:


> I think that while the wording is slightly different, the meaning is the same.  Just like in that 'pure art' thread I started and we were talking about 'pure' and 'original'.  This is why I often talk about gaining control of a weapon when doing a disarm.  If you grab the guys weapon or limb holding the weapon, he's going to resist by puling away, trying to free his weapon.  If someone grabs me in a headlock and I try to reach up to grab his hair, eyes, etc, sure, they're going to react, but they're also going to be resisting your attempts at escape, ie: change the attack, move you around in an attempt to stop your defense.



Ha, I'm going to head back over to that thread, hopefully later tonight... 

Yep, reaction is what happens, which is not the same as the reactions (or "resistance") found in sparring matches, say, BJJ rolling. In that encounter, one BJJ practitioner might have found themselves in a position where a particular armbar is available, so they start to attempt it... the other will then employ a defence directly against that lock, responding with a trained, skilled reaction, seeking to "defeat" the first persons lock. But against a "street attacker", starting to get the same lock on, the reaction will be quite different. There won't be the training to back anything up, so that skilled response won't be there... but what will come out will more likely be a direct attack towards the person trying the lock, whether that's hitting at them, kicking, scratching, or whatever. The difference is that the aim of the BJJ practitioner is to not be defeated, and preserve the opportunity to then "defeat" their opponent... whereas the street attacker just wants to attack, and is just looking to continue that attack. It really is very, very different.



skuggvarg said:


> Yes, that was the video I was refering to. I did find other "versions" of Koku by Akban on youtube were the ken kudaki was present. Still, I cant really see where the Koku is in the other video. Why does he say "lets look at the traditional koku no kata" when what he shows next is far from it. It looks like he took out the ken kudaki and the footwork/positioning that comes with it (one of the key components in my humble opinion).
> 
> Regards / Skuggvarg



The better version of Koku from Akban is this one:





This is not Koku:




But it does give a clue as to what Yossi was doing in the earlier one....

Oded, Koku is not about just outflanking and hitting the ribs (for the record, Yossi's target in the "ura gata" form was way too high as well, if he was a few inches lower he'd be getting the floating ribs, which might have an effect), and the "feel" of this movement is very different to Gyokko Ryu. It's slightly closer to Koto Ryu, or some aspects of Togakure Ryu, but it certainly ain't Gyokko Ryu or Koku itself.



Indagator said:


> Just a wee question pertinent to the "analysis of Koto Ryu" mentioned earlier and referred again to above; what relevant qualification does the AKBAN member in question have to make a critical analysis of koto Ryu? Menkyo? Menkyo kaiden? Something else?
> 
> I realise this may sound like a loaded question but honestly I'm just aking to get an idea of where you guys are coming from with some of the analysis here.



Well, Yossi was a senior student of Doron Navon, so anything would presumably come through him. They are still part of the Bujinkan, according to Yossi.


----------



## Indagator

I should probably look myself (hich I will) but according to Yossi only goes so far - are they  part of the Bujinkan according to Soke?


----------



## Chris Parker

That would be a question for Oded regarding whether or not Bujinkan membership is part of Akban membership....


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hey Chris,

Good definitition and examples.  I will absolutely agree that Scenario Based Training is excellent for personal protection skills.  Particularly because of the role playing and getting people to think of their way out of the situation. (by whatever means is necessary ie. running away, etc.)  One of the things I think that "sparring or submission grappling" gives a practitioner is the ability to on very specific skill sets in a one on one session. (though it can be two on one, etc.)  This allows a practitioner to work on their "go to" moves that may not be as availble to work on in Scenario Based Training.  Of course you can work on these "go to" moves in technique training and with focus mitts, heavy bag, etc. but then you are not working against a full on resisting human.   Just some food for thought!


----------



## Chris Parker

Actually, that type of thing can be trained quite easily in Scenario training as well (in fact, a lot easier than in sparring). For example, this month I'm taking my guys through "entry" techniques (use a fake to create an opening, and follow with your attack). The way we train it is to first go through the principle as a "technique", looking at how to make it work (how to sell the fake, principles of fake high, strike low etc), then we put it into a scenario. For instance, from a talking situation, the "bad guy" gets angry, you bring your hands up in a "fence", they shove you back (this is following on from our look at pre-emptive striking last month, and assuming that, for whatever reason, you don't get your first strike off in time) and quickly follow in to strike themselves. As they approach, you throw your fake and strike, then escape. As it is continued, a range of fake and enter concepts are drilled, and the response, while always being a "fake and enter" in this scenario, becomes a free-form expression of that. The pace is increased to realistic pace and pressure as we go. 

That's basically our way of drilling everything in our "street" work, and the result is that there are a range of solidly drilled concepts for all stages of combat (de-escalation before the physical, pre-emptive strikes, fake-and-enter patterns, defensive responses, weapon defenses, ground escapes, and so on). At the end, the students should be able to be put in any scenario training situation and be able to use any of the tactics they've drilled to successfully escape with complete free-form training, as in the clips above. They should be able to attempt to talk their way out of the situation, then, if that doesn't work, there's a range of fail-safes after that. But each training method is geared up to the exact result we want, and there's no point training a method that counter-acts it.


----------



## Cyriacus

Chris Parker said:


> Actually, that type of thing can be trained quite easily in Scenario training as well (in fact, a lot easier than in sparring). For example, this month I'm taking my guys through "entry" techniques (use a fake to create an opening, and follow with your attack). The way we train it is to first go through the principle as a "technique", looking at how to make it work (how to sell the fake, principles of fake high, strike low etc), then we put it into a scenario. For instance, from a talking situation, the "bad guy" gets angry, you bring your hands up in a "fence", they shove you back (this is following on from our look at pre-emptive striking last month, and assuming that, for whatever reason, you don't get your first strike off in time) and quickly follow in to strike themselves. As they approach, you throw your fake and strike, then escape. As it is continued, a range of fake and enter concepts are drilled, and the response, while always being a "fake and enter" in this scenario, becomes a free-form expression of that. The pace is increased to realistic pace and pressure as we go.
> 
> That's basically our way of drilling everything in our "street" work, and the result is that there are a range of solidly drilled concepts for all stages of combat (de-escalation before the physical, pre-emptive strikes, fake-and-enter patterns, defensive responses, weapon defenses, ground escapes, and so on). At the end, the students should be able to be put in any scenario training situation and be able to use any of the tactics they've drilled to successfully escape with complete free-form training, as in the clips above. They should be able to attempt to talk their way out of the situation, then, if that doesn't work, there's a range of fail-safes after that. But each training method is geared up to the exact result we want, and there's no point training a method that counter-acts it.


Out of Curiosity, are Your Students encouraged to Improvise if They make a mistake during a Scenario? As in, say for example, Student 1 is about to use a Ground Escape on Student 2. Student 1 does something of His own volition, which works just fine, but isnt what was taught to Him (Normally Id say not *EXACTLY* what was taught to Him. But Im pushing to a slightly further point for the sake of the question). Would this be Accepted, Discouraged, Encouraged... And so forth.
Just Curious. I mean, I cant say Id be surprised if Your Ground Escapes came quite easily anyway. So its just an example.


----------



## Chris Parker

My students are encouraged to utilise the principles and tactics that we're exploring. This week, we covered a lead-hand fake followed by a lead-leg kick, then we covered a rear-hand fake followed by a rear-leg kick. In pressure testing and scenario training, provided a high fake and low kick were used, whether it was lead/rear, rear/rear, lead/lead, or whatever, that's considered success. Letting the other guy get too close is considered not a successful usage of the tactic being taught, and would necessitate moving onto the next stage (defensive actions). 

So while they're not encouraged to improvise if there's a mistake, they're not given "techniques" at that point either. The only aim is to drill (with success) the tactic being taught. And in that vein, there's a lot of freedom as to exactly what they do. I tend to not even give them a specific kick, as that will change each time, depending on the distance after the fake, the opponents height, your height, the angle you've taken, and more. I'll give a range of ideas, and maybe something specific for the beginners, but that's it. It's not about techniques, it's about being able to employ the strategies and tactics.

In the "martial art" portion, I get them to do exactly what is shown, or as close as they can, as that is where that form of precision is needed and beneficial, learning to do things that you wouldn't necessarily do yourself, and extending your personality that way. But for self defence, I want my guys to have a range of skills that they can depend on, based on what they are confident in and feel strong with. So provided they keep to the tactic being shown, there's no "wrong" way. Although I do often show an "easier", or "better" way for them to achieve the results.... 

Hmm, did that make sense?


----------



## Cyriacus

Chris Parker said:


> My students are encouraged to utilise the principles and tactics that we're exploring. This week, we covered a lead-hand fake followed by a lead-leg kick, then we covered a rear-hand fake followed by a rear-leg kick. In pressure testing and scenario training, provided a high fake and low kick were used, whether it was lead/rear, rear/rear, lead/lead, or whatever, that's considered success. Letting the other guy get too close is considered not a successful usage of the tactic being taught, and would necessitate moving onto the next stage (defensive actions).
> 
> So while they're not encouraged to improvise if there's a mistake, they're not given "techniques" at that point either. The only aim is to drill (with success) the tactic being taught. And in that vein, there's a lot of freedom as to exactly what they do. I tend to not even give them a specific kick, as that will change each time, depending on the distance after the fake, the opponents height, your height, the angle you've taken, and more. I'll give a range of ideas, and maybe something specific for the beginners, but that's it. It's not about techniques, it's about being able to employ the strategies and tactics.
> 
> In the "martial art" portion, I get them to do exactly what is shown, or as close as they can, as that is where that form of precision is needed and beneficial, learning to do things that you wouldn't necessarily do yourself, and extending your personality that way. But for self defence, I want my guys to have a range of skills that they can depend on, based on what they are confident in and feel strong with. So provided they keep to the tactic being shown, there's no "wrong" way. Although I do often show an "easier", or "better" way for them to achieve the results....
> 
> Hmm, did that make sense?


Yes it did, thankyou kindly.
Ill comment that I approve of Your Methodology, even if I am probably biased by having little to directly personally (from my own experience) compare it to, and therefore hold it in higher regard.


----------



## Chris Parker

Thanks. A hell of a lot of years of research, study, observation, and insight have gone into it's development, of which I can only take a small degree of credit for the way it's done in my schools. And yeah, I'm kinda fond of our methods myself....


----------



## Cyriacus

Chris Parker said:


> Thanks. A hell of a lot of years of research, study, observation, and insight have gone into it's development, of which I can only take a small degree of credit for the way it's done in my schools. And yeah, I'm kinda fond of our methods myself....


Well, as it was explained to Me (This is not an exact quote. This was months ago): "Trying to do something precise and specific assumes theres anything precise or specific about hitting someone. Because they are trying to hit you. If you are trying to do something specific, you are trying to do THAT. Not hit them, but do the movement. And that is not Fighting."
In short, trying to adopt a "Someone will do this so you will do this to there like that" is *MOSTLY* ineffective. Of course it can be done right with certain things, like Grabs, wherein You may benefit from nullifying it with a basic motion, but Im referring to trying to use overly intricate combinations. Saying "Someone will attack you and you will react, heres some fantastic ideas", will usually work swell. Ill cite your example, of fake high hit low. The fake may well connect as well. It doesnt matter. Because the low one is whatll probably work. An example of my own would be to fake high with the back hand, then attack low with the front. If its done whilst offset slightly, it can be great for barraging into someone. But the important thing is, that it doesnt matter one bit which punches I use.


----------



## Chris Parker

Yeah, pretty much. What you need is simple, gross motor, reliable concepts that can be easily adapted to the needs of any particular situation. With the fake, at both the Tuesday and Thursday night classes, there were occasions where the "fake" DID connect... which I pointed out was fine, as it still achieved the result I was after. All the fake needed to do was raise their attention high... which it did. It didn't even matter what their reaction was, it could be a skilled attempted deflection, or cover, it could be a flinch back, it could be getting anxious (if on drugs, for instance, as you're then "attacking" their perception via their eyesight), or anything, provided their attention was brought up high, it gave the opening for a low kick to any open target. If you didn't get that reaction, don't go for the kick, get distance again, and do something else.

In regards to the kick, there was some correction to some of the newer guys as they were doing things like forms of roundhouse kicks... which can be very effective and powerful, but the way we set our bodies up with the footwork to move in with the fake means that they aren't very powerful for us. So they still need to use "ninjutsu" kicks... which is fine, as they are very natural and direct. Typically I'd point out that the kick they'd used (if they tried the roundhouse kick, for instance) wasn't giving them the result they'd need, and why, as well as showing our form and explaining why it is the way it is. So there's still that level of "correct" and "incorrect"... and again reinforces my point on training a single art and approach, whether it's traditional, scripted, or more free-form.


----------



## Cyriacus

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, pretty much. What you need is simple, gross motor, reliable concepts that can be easily adapted to the needs of any particular situation. With the fake, at both the Tuesday and Thursday night classes, there were occasions where the "fake" DID connect... which I pointed out was fine, as it still achieved the result I was after. All the fake needed to do was raise their attention high... which it did. It didn't even matter what their reaction was, it could be a skilled attempted deflection, or cover, it could be a flinch back, it could be getting anxious (if on drugs, for instance, as you're then "attacking" their perception via their eyesight), or anything, provided their attention was brought up high, it gave the opening for a low kick to any open target. If you didn't get that reaction, don't go for the kick, get distance again, and do something else.
> 
> In regards to the kick, there was some correction to some of the newer guys as they were doing things like forms of roundhouse kicks... which can be very effective and powerful, but the way we set our bodies up with the footwork to move in with the fake means that they aren't very powerful for us. So they still need to use "ninjutsu" kicks... which is fine, as they are very natural and direct. Typically I'd point out that the kick they'd used (if they tried the roundhouse kick, for instance) wasn't giving them the result they'd need, and why, as well as showing our form and explaining why it is the way it is. So there's still that level of "correct" and "incorrect"... and again reinforces my point on training a single art and approach, whether it's traditional, scripted, or more free-form.


I can see the sense in that.
Ive learnt to generally use Roundhouse type kicks either as a Leg Sweep with the Shin, a Leg Kick with the Ball of the Foot, or a Power Kick to the Ribs, or a Head Kick in one particular combination. Its also the only one that uses it like that. It is also the most uncommon Kick (This is a small list where looking at here, so dont look at that as an insult, anyone). While it is Powerful, and Fast, it can be hard to get a good angle on it, and as such goes on the backburner. Of course correcting things which will be ineffectual is important. It prevents people from teaching themselves to, say, roundhouse someone in the midsection and expect it to wrench them over, only to hit with a weaker part of the leg and wind up slapping them, in place of better words. And from what Ive seen of Ninjutsu Stances, this is especially true.
Logic aside, I personally prefer Straight Kicks anyway.


----------



## Chris Parker

It's more that it requires a completely different set-up with the hips, and a completely different sense of power development, so it's really not a part of our methods at all. Imagine pulling your right hand back, as if for a big haymaker/hook, then trying to backfist from there. A backfist is fine by itself, but it needs the right set-up, same with the roundhouse. And this is coming from a guy with a number of years of karate and TKD behind him.


----------



## Cyriacus

Chris Parker said:


> It's more that it requires a completely different set-up with the hips, and a completely different sense of power development, so it's really not a part of our methods at all. Imagine pulling your right hand back, as if for a big haymaker/hook, then trying to backfist from there. A backfist is fine by itself, but it needs the right set-up, same with the roundhouse. And this is coming from a guy with a number of years of karate and TKD behind him.


Yep - Thats more or less what I gathered. Though to be deliberately snarky Im going to say that You could do a Horizontal Midsection Backfist from that Chamber reasonably well 
I can relate to why it isnt a Method at all - We dont do Roundhouses with the Instep at all ever. I am positive it works with a stance befitting it, but from the positions and methods Ive learnt, it just doenst make sense at all, and there are better options anyway.


----------



## Chris Parker

If you've really pulled your hand back (so your elbow points  backward, and your fist is near your right ear), the only backfist you can do is behind you... but that's probably off topic! Mind you, so is the roundhouse kick discussion, come to think of it...


----------



## Cyriacus

Chris Parker said:


> If you've really pulled your hand back (so your elbow points  backward, and your fist is near your right ear), the only backfist you can do is behind you... but that's probably off topic! Mind you, so is the roundhouse kick discussion, come to think of it...


Well, yeah. But turn your hips to the left (Assuming its your right hand), and snap your arm in to the side, then open the Hip. 

And yeah, this is a bit off topic. But I didnt really see much sense in doing it by PM originally. That being said, alot of this Topic has been vaguely off topic.


----------



## Chris Parker

It'd be fairly weak still....


----------



## Cyriacus

Chris Parker said:


> It'd be fairly weak still....


Never implied otherwise, Good Sir!


----------



## Haikuguy

Indagator said:


> Just a wee question pertinent to the "analysis of Koto Ryu" mentioned earlier and referred again to above; what relevant qualification does the AKBAN member in question have to make a critical analysis of koto Ryu? Menkyo? Menkyo kaiden? Something else?
> 
> I realise this may sound like a loaded question but honestly I'm just aking to get an idea of where you guys are coming from with some of the analysis here.



Hi Indagator!

You can read about Yossi here and contact him yourself- he's a nice guy and he'll be happy to answer any questions.

I thought this thread is about sparring, not about things like "the purity of Ninjutsu" or "what makes Ninjutsu Ninjutsu"...
which are interesting questions, I have to say, but honestly, I'm not too bothered by it like other members of this forum obviously are.

I don't know- is Hip Hop today still Hip Hop? do the changes of time made it less Hip Hop or more?
and what's the "better" Hip Hop? how do you decide what's the "better" Hip Hop? should there be?

I don't know, and if I liked Hip Hop I probably wouldn't care- I would be excited to witness the evolution and just listen to good music.



In AKBAN we don't "own" Ninjutsu and don't want to (which is kind of obvious if we have the biggest martial arts online data base in the world, *for free*...)


And Chris, I understand that this issue is very important to you, and you have invested a lot of time in writing here and responding, but I still don't understand what's wrong with different approaches.



In regards to "what's better for real life situations", a lot of AKBAN veterans are teachers in counter-terrorism schools in Israel after a service in the special forces there- I think they'd know....

Anyway, I think I said everything I can about why I think sparring is important, and honestly, I would rather spend this time on the mat than trying to convince the un-convinced hunched over a computer...



Peace, friends!


----------



## Chris Parker

Yeah, the topic is sparring, but it's in the Ninjutsu section, so it's about sparring in a Ninjutsu context, not just in general. And there isn't an issue with the idea of different training methods, the question has been a simple one.... why, if you're teaching and training Ninjutsu, is your sparring method showing no ninjutsu methods at all? Not why are you sparring, not what are the benefits of it, just why are you sparring using methods that are completely removed from the actual art? And if you can't see how far removed they are, what criteria do you use to classify Ninjutsu's combative methods, as it would indicate a huge gap in understanding?


----------



## johnmills

One note about the scenario training videos- which I find quite interesting-  it looks like it is all done at half speed with little power. I still see the value of those types of drills as a training tool, but I'm not certain I would call them more 'realistic' than full contact sparring, which I also don't see as simulating reality, but more about honing skills, techinques and reflexes at the kind of speed a real conflict would play out.


----------



## Chris Parker

That's the beginning phase in JWT's training methods. If you go to the you-tube pages themselves, the scenarios and training method (including up to full pace and power training) is covered in the descriptions. Quite interesting reads, really.


----------



## johnmills

Thanks for the response. I will indeed check it out.

Spent a few years bouncing at a club in Atlanta then one in Los Angeles so I can't say I'm really interested in doing that type of training, but I love to sort of mentally compare notes to some of the wakiness I've born witness to ;p


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Chris Parker said:


> Actually, that type of thing can be trained quite easily in Scenario training as well (in fact, a lot easier than in sparring). For example, this month I'm taking my guys through "entry" techniques (use a fake to create an opening, and follow with your attack). The way we train it is to first go through the principle as a "technique", looking at how to make it work (how to sell the fake, principles of fake high, strike low etc), then we put it into a scenario. For instance, from a talking situation, the "bad guy" gets angry, you bring your hands up in a "fence", they shove you back (this is following on from our look at pre-emptive striking last month, and assuming that, for whatever reason, you don't get your first strike off in time) and quickly follow in to strike themselves. As they approach, you throw your fake and strike, then escape. As it is continued, a range of fake and enter concepts are drilled, and the response, while always being a "fake and enter" in this scenario, becomes a free-form expression of that. The pace is increased to realistic pace and pressure as we go.
> 
> That's basically our way of drilling everything in our "street" work, and the result is that there are a range of solidly drilled concepts for all stages of combat (de-escalation before the physical, pre-emptive strikes, fake-and-enter patterns, defensive responses, weapon defenses, ground escapes, and so on). At the end, the students should be able to be put in any scenario training situation and be able to use any of the tactics they've drilled to successfully escape with complete free-form training, as in the clips above. They should be able to attempt to talk their way out of the situation, then, if that doesn't work, there's a range of fail-safes after that. But each training method is geared up to the exact result we want, and there's no point training a method that counter-acts it.



Hey Chris,

While I agree that you can do the above and when utilizing Scenario Based Training myself we do the same exact thing.  Still not quite exactly the same as free flowing unpredictable sparring or grappling with no prearranged drill ie. scenario worked out.  There is a difference!  I am all about Scenario training but feel that one on one or two on one sparring is also beneficial as stated above.  I totally understand your point but feel that you gain a lot from sparring/rolling and the benefits when a person also trains in Scenario Based Training are numerous.  I think you can make them easiily work together.  I do not see them as mutually exclusive!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Love JWT's training and video clips by the way!


----------



## Chris Parker

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> While I agree that you can do the above and when utilizing Scenario Based Training myself we do the same exact thing.  Still not quite exactly the same as free flowing unpredictable sparring or grappling with no prearranged drill ie. scenario worked out.  There is a difference!  I am all about Scenario training but feel that one on one or two on one sparring is also beneficial as stated above.  I totally understand your point but feel that you gain a lot from sparring/rolling and the benefits when a person also trains in Scenario Based Training are numerous.  I think you can make them easiily work together.



Ha, absolutely, it's not the same! If they were the same, there really wouldn't be any argument of one over the other, would there? As I've said, I'm only concerned with forms of training that take me towards the results I need or want, which, in self defence training, means taking it as close to a realistic experience (including the realistic actions and aims of both the attacker and defender) as possible, and only training those responses that I want to have and rely on. Scenario training gives that to me in a way that sparring just doesn't.

But to flip this a bit, can you talk about the advantages of sparring training over the scenario training methods as you see them? I can see a couple that might have some validity to their argument, but honestly, they're rather small in number, and minimalist in their overall benefits, so I'm curious as to what you see that means you'd want to keep what is, honestly, a far less efficient or effective way of training for self defence in your repertoire.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Love JWT's training and video clips by the way!



Ha, me too.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Sorry I got pulled away by the pool guy!


Hey Chris,

Let's look at Submission Grappling (a form of sparring).  I have put in ton's of hours on the ground. (even more standing up)  The constant linking together of techniques while grappling is harder to replicate but not impossible in Scenario Based Training.  Now even though I spar and submission grapple that does not negate that I know to get up as quick as possible if I am in a violent situation. (I am going to get up as fast as possible unless in a totally one on one situation with no possibilities of extra people joining in)  The linking of technique, relaxation that occurs and the ability to develop your "go to" moves are just some of the advantages of sparring.  Not to mention the mental strength and all the other athletic benefits involved as well.

Where I will agree with you is that the Takamatsuden arts are not that great to spar with. (at least empty hand)  That is why when you see an off shoot "sparring" they invariably incorporate techniques not found in the system.  I do not necessarily see this as a weakness but more as a strength. (ie. the cross training)  

I do not see this as an either or situation.  Meaning, you can Spar, Roll and practice Scenario Based Training and it will only add to the depth and quality of your training.  Just like I feel a Takamatsuden Art practitioner will benefit also from practicing in a Iaido Dojo, Kyudo Dojo as well as a BJJ or Judo School.  They can still primarily be a Takamatsuden Practitioner but gain benefits from practicing in other systesms.  I do not believe any one system has all the answers and that a well rounded practitioner needs to experience other systems and their views on dealing with conflict.  However, that does not mean they have to give up their "core system".


----------



## Chris Parker

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Sorry I got pulled away by the pool guy!



Ha, fair enough!



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> Let's look at Submission Grappling (a form of sparring).


 
Cool, I've got a bit of experience in that field as well.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I have put in ton's of hours on the ground. (even more standing up)  The constant linking together of techniques while grappling is harder to replicate but not impossible in Scenario Based Training.  Now even though I spar and submission grapple that does not negate that I know to get up as quick as possible if I am in a violent situation. (I am going to get up as fast as possible unless in a totally one on one situation with no possibilities of extra people joining in)



Are you, though? If you are training to stay on the ground looking for a submission, why do you think you're going to get up as fast as possible? The only way you're going to consistently look for that is if you are training it... and that is trained as the more powerful response. Sadly, of course, with our unconscious, rational and logical thought doesn't really enter into it, so it's just as likely (in fact, more likely) that success you experience getting a submission, arm-bar, choke, or whatever, will be seen as more "powerful" over getting up and escaping, as that leaves you in a control position, which is unconsciously recognised as "powerful". So I'd suggest that, if and when it really came down to it, your training would have you look for a submission before you looked for an escape... and if you're training with self defence in mind, that's not the option you want to come out. 

The reason to train for submission is if going for submission is the way you generate success. Street defence wise, that's not the case. Competition wise, it is. So again, what are you training for?



Brian R. VanCise said:


> The linking of technique, relaxation that occurs and the ability to develop your "go to" moves are just some of the advantages of sparring.  Not to mention the mental strength and all the other athletic benefits involved as well.



Right, the linking of techniques... is that really what you're going to want though? Is it realistic to expect that? Is it realistic to expect to need it due to the other guy being a skilled grappler, and giving you skilled grappling defences? Personally, I'd say no.

As far as developing you're "go to" techniques/tactics, that's precisely what you'll get out of scenario training, a lot faster and more powerfully than in sparring (as in scenario training the reactions of the attackers will be more realistic, giving feedback of effective techinique, whereas, more in stand-up striking sparring, the lack of the opponent being halted in their attack, such as toppling after a kick to the knee, means that the "go to" techniques aren't re-inforced as powerful anywhere near as strongly or as well).

Relaxation and mental approach, again, more than present in scenario based training as well. And the athletic side of things can more than be taken care of as well... just keep training, and keep upping the intensity!

What this has all said to me is that the sparring method gives tactics and responses that are not ideal, and trains them in a way that is less likely to give a powerful (required) result, and takes longer to do so. It allows you to train in ways that benefit the competitive forms, but not for self defence. Again, what are you training for?



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Where I will agree with you is that the Takamatsuden arts are not that great to spar with. (at least empty hand)


 
Far more than just empty hand, my friend.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> That is why when you see an off shoot "sparring" they invariably incorporate techniques not found in the system.


 
No, I don't agree with that. In fact, when you think about it, it just doesn't make any sense at all. It's not the techniques that don't suit sparring, it's the tactics and strategies. Zenpo Keri isn't something that would be prohibited by sparring, nor is a Fudo Ken or Shuto Ken... what actually happens is that it brings up the insecurities and doubts about the usage of the methods, so the practitioner goes to what they believe is powerful and generates success... which is what they have seen "work" in movies, competition (which sparring is really a mimic of), and so on. It really has nothing to do with the techniques not suiting.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I do not necessarily see this as a weakness but more as a strength. (ie. the cross training)



This form of cross-influence (rather than cross-training, which I class as training in a different methodology in order to gain a wider understanding, such as cross training in BJJ so you have a better understanding of the new environment, the ground) does nothing but weaken the practitioners usage of the art by simply undermining any belief they might have in it's usefulness and applicability. If the student is training in an art, and then has to use completely different techniques and methods when it comes to sparring, which they believe equates to "application", it just says to them that the art they're learning doesn't work when it comes to application. There is no strength for the art there, and there isn't much for the student, either. They'd be better off just training in a sport stand-up system, or grappling system, where everything they learn has it's application in sparring, and it's all congruent.

I mean, do you see BJJ guys saying they need to learn the striking methods of BBT? No, because, in their application, everything they do has it's place in their sparring (rolling).



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I do not see this as an either or situation.  Meaning, you can Spar, Roll and practice Scenario Based Training and it will only add to the depth and quality of your training.


 
It's not quite an "either/or" situation, you're right. It's a matter of looking objectively at what the training actually does, what it reinforces, what it strengthens, what it weakens, what it minimalizes, what it's shortfalls are, and so on. And if you find that one form of training doesn't cut it in terms of the number of issues it presents against it's benefits, it's time to look at removing it. With self defence training, as I see it, that means that sparring doesn't really have a place.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Just like I feel a Takamatsuden Art practitioner will benefit also from practicing in a Iaido Dojo, Kyudo Dojo as well as a BJJ or Judo School.


 
It depends on what you're after, really. There's no Iai in the Bujinkan schools, nor is there any Kyudo/jutsu, so they would be mainly for the personal students interest, they really won't add too much to the practice of the Bujinkan arts. As far as Judo or BJJ, both great arts, and use sparring as they have the circumstances that gain benefits from it. But I will say that there are issues there as well... I've seen a lot of X-Kan members who cross-train in Judo have that other training getting in the way of their Takamatsuden practice. They may do things in a way that look good, and are "effective", in their way, but they aren't the way they are done in the Ryu themselves. Instead of doing throws the way Kukishinden Ryu does them, for instance, they are Judo throws mixed into the Kukishinden Ryu material, which takes it further from being what it's meant to be. And if you're training for self defence, sports systems aren't necessarily going to add too much... but I wouldn't honestly suggest any classical art either.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> They can still primarily be a Takamatsuden Practitioner but gain benefits from practicing in other systesms.


 
The question might be how much they are really a Takamatsuden practitioner if they are adding influence from these other sources, though. Sure, they may find things they feel are benefits from the other training, but that doesn't necessarily translate to them still being truly "Takamatsuden" themselves.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I do not believe any one system has all the answers and that a well rounded practitioner needs to experience other systems and their views on dealing with conflict.  However, that does not mean they have to give up their "core system".



I think that comes down to what the aims of the training are. If you're looking at what you can get out of it, with your own personal aims, say, self defence, with no concern as to where the skill comes from, maybe. There are still issues (too many cooks, and so forth...), but maybe. If, however, you want to get good at the art itself, nope. But then again, if you're just looking at a personal desire/aim, then the idea of being a Takamatsuden practitioner takes a back seat.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hey Chris,

Good points as always.  However where we disagree is that sparring cannot be beneficial to self defense training.  I liken it to most athletic sports in that you may have a ton of different drills some involving directly what you do within that sport and others that work general athleticism as well as attribute building.  Sparring promotes a strong mind set, linking together of techniques, relaxation, go to moves as well as attribute training and overall improvement on a practitioners athleticism. (plus many more things)  Does Scenario Based Training do this as well.  Truthfully I would agree that it does also help in most of these areas as well.  Where I disagree is that if you roll or spar your common sence will not dictate that you should not get out of there or get up etc.  I personally know people from competitive based systems that ran, got up or picked up a weapon, etc.  Their system with sparring or rolling or both did not hamper their ability to make a common sence choice in a moment of violence.  Kind've like in the Human Weapon show when Doug threw his weapon and engaged the BJJ practitioner.  After the throw and takedown he just picked up a fukuro shinai like it was the normal thing to do but his training per se should have him looking for a submission.  Why?  Because that was the common sence thing to do.  So he just did it!  Now he has more experie  ce in cross training so I am also willing to say that this might have had some effect.  Most RBSD practitioners that I know also spar as well as practice Scenario Based Training.  You just do not have to give up one and not do the other.


----------



## Chris Parker

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> Good points as always.


 
Hey Brian, thanks.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> However where we disagree is that sparring cannot be beneficial to self defense training.



That may not be as much a disagreement as a different opinion of the usefulness of sparring as a method to attain those benefits.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I liken it to most athletic sports in that you may have a ton of different drills some involving directly what you do within that sport and others that work general athleticism as well as attribute building.



No, I'd disagree there. Mainly as sparring is supposed to be testing and teaching application of skills, and that's the way it gets taken in. The ardent sparring supporters say that there's no way to know if your art works without sparring, not that there's no way to get the athletic benefits that can have a positive effect without it. It's not like going for a run, doing a cardio workout, or anything similar, as they are removed from the sense of "application", and as such, have no ill-effects on the performance of said skill sets.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Sparring promotes a strong mind set, linking together of techniques, relaxation, go to moves as well as attribute training and overall improvement on a practitioners athleticism. (plus many more things)  Does Scenario Based Training do this as well.


 
Yes. In a more realistic and applicable manner, as pertains to the actual application being trained for.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Truthfully I would agree that it does also help in most of these areas as well.  Where I disagree is that if you roll or spar your common sence will not dictate that you should not get out of there or get up etc.  I personally know people from competitive based systems that ran, got up or picked up a weapon, etc.  Their system with sparring or rolling or both did not hamper their ability to make a common sence choice in a moment of violence.


 
As I said, you will always go to what you feel is the most powerful (unconsiously). So if tactics or actions come out that are not part of the training, it's not because of a sense of logic, it's because (unconsciously) you feel that is more powerful. Picking up a weapon or running away are just a few examples (NOTE: I am discussing real life assault conditions here, I'll cover what happens in a sparring match or similar in a moment, as that is a different set of circumstances and honestly not really that relevant) of behaviours that could be seen as more powerful.... typically when you feel that you are outmanned.

But you have to ask yourself, what was the real effect of the sparring if it gets countered in a real event? Honestly, there's things I talk about there, which is again why I feel that sparring is not the right approach for combative use and application, and it comes primarily down to mindset. Frankly, sparring doesn't actually help there, it hinders. Quite a bit.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Kind've like in the Human Weapon show when Doug threw his weapon and engaged the BJJ practitioner.  After the throw and takedown he just picked up a fukuro shinai like it was the normal thing to do but his training per se should have him looking for a submission.  Why?  Because that was the common sence thing to do.  So he just did it!  Now he has more experience in cross training so I am also willing to say that this might have had some effect.


 
A competition, or sparring match, has a completely different set of mental attitudes that it requires, and that it fosters. Which is one of the biggest problems, really. What Jason was doing was what he knew... keeping the rules of the competition in mind, and sticking to them. A submission wouldn't have counted according to the way they set the matches up, so there wasn't any point. But here's the thing... the very fact that Jason was able to remain that coherent in his decision making process shows that he was still in conscious control... in other words, the adrenaline that he was feeling wasn't anywhere near sufficient enough to shut down his higher mental functions. And it's that type of adrenaline found in sparring, which is not the same, with very different effects, to that found in a real situation. As a result, the mindset trained is not what is needed for real violence, so that removes that "benefit" from sparring.

I explained this idea to my guys at one point by pointing out that, in sporting contests, a common refrain is to hear that you need a "killer instinct", which refers to the idea of always pushing forward and advancing. Leaving aside, for the moment, that that particular approach can be dangerous in some defence situations, and is hardly something you always want to apply, I pointed out that it's just not the mindset desired for actual combative applications. There, you want what I referred to as a "killer intent". By that, I meant the approach and mentality of ending things immediately, and committing to whatever course of action that is best suited... but that intent needs to be present in all your training, and if done in sparring, it just doesn't fit.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Most RBSD practitioners that I know also spar as well as practice Scenario Based Training.  You just do not have to give up one and not do the other.



As I said, I haven't come across any RBSD practitioners or instructors that utilise sparring (as described earlier in the thread) in their training methods. There are extended training drills, but not "sparring" per se. I'm wondering if we're talking about the same thing....


----------



## Aiki Lee

Round and round and round we go....

Brian, what happens when you have people spar? What does it look like? Are their specific goals or is it the "just fight" mentality? How do you prevent students' egos from getting in the way durring a sparring session which as Chris mentioned is about out performing one another IMO.

In scenario based training, uke can respond to a simulated strike to vulnerable targets such as the groin and eyes or ankles and knees. In sparring no one reacts to simulated strikes, so the tactics have to change and no longer resemble what a person would actually do in a real encounter. Have you found a way to prevent this?


----------



## Tanaka

Actually what Chris Parker just showed did kind of clear things up. As far as the choking discussion though, in the couple of scenarios outside the dojo the choke was much easier to get. This was  because in a scramble a lot of people give up their back or allow access to their back easier because they turn around to cover up from strikes rather than stay squared up.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Himura Kenshin said:


> Round and round and round we go....
> 
> Brian, what happens when you have people spar? What does it look like? Are their specific goals or is it the "just fight" mentality? How do you prevent students' egos from getting in the way durring a sparring session which as Chris mentioned is about out performing one another IMO.
> 
> In scenario based training, uke can respond to a simulated strike to vulnerable targets such as the groin and eyes or ankles and knees. In sparring no one reacts to simulated strikes, so the tactics have to change and no longer resemble what a person would actually do in a real encounter. Have you found a way to prevent this?




I do not teach the Takamatsuden arts though I have practiced them for over twenty years.  Partly because I could not do them the justice that they would deserve.  Instead I focus on teaching IRT which when we spar does look like how we train.  We spar one on one, two on one and some times more or in a group setting.  We also do Scenario Based Training just as how Chris described earlier.  Ego will always play a role in any athletic endeavor particularly at first.  After awhile you are working to execute your training without thought and ego would be irrelevant at that point.  We spar full contact with groin strikes allowed. (allowed also of course in Scenario Based Training as well)  People do react to fakes that are well done but a trained person in general will not react to a poor fake or one that is not capable of damage. (unless they react to draw someone in  )  I am not a believer that sparring is the end all be all but just one more way to become well trained and efficient with your body.  It should not be the prime goal but simply a tool that will make you better.


----------



## johnmills

A common BJJ saying is 'technique goes out the window when you're being punched in the face.' It primarily refers to the difference between rolling- where opponents are working for submissions under a certain rule set- and a real fight where that rule set has been thrown out the window. The point is rolling is useful in the context of working strength, endurance, and being able to execute techinques under pressure. It's a piece of the puzzle, and an important one, but even its practioners know it is not the end all be all of training.

I think the exact same attitude applies to sparring. No, it's not a real fight, any time you agree to certian rules it is not. But it is much more difficult to execute a proper Jodan Uke if you don't know what punch is coming, or if indeed it will be a punch at all, or a kick, or a grab, or tackle or any of a hundred other unexpected attacks your opponent can make.

Reactions- like every other aspect of a matial art- have to be trained, and that can only be done if you don't know what your opponent is going to do next.

Ultimately I'm just agreeing with Brian, it is a tool to make you better.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Chris Parker said:


> As I said, I haven't come across any RBSD practitioners or instructors that utilise sparring (as described earlier in the thread) in their training methods. There are extended training drills, but not "sparring" per se. I'm wondering if we're talking about the same thing....



*I know Krav Maga guys that spar. *(hard to not think of Krav Maga as an RBSD system)  Particularly the Israeli practitioners. (they seem to spar a bit)  I know one RBSD practitioner who also utilizes sparring similar to the way that I do in that while they do not do it all the time but they do utilize it enough.  Paul Vunak developed RAT as a reality based system.  I am sure that they have a sparring component as Jeet Kune Do is a part of it.  MCMAP the system utilized by the United States Marines is a system that you would say is very reality based and they have sparring sessions within their system.  The United States Army Combatives program definitely has those touches of a RBSD art but they roll quite a bit.  Pekiti Tirsia Kali is a RBSD in my opinion and is taught the the Filipino Force Recon Marines and they spar.  Tony Blauer is very well known in the RBSD world.  While I am not sure 100% that he has sparring in all of his training seminars I have witnessed his students rolling and sparring in their gear at demos trying to sell their product and in his origional developed system Chu Fen Do sparring was integral.  While I agree that their are some RBSD practitioners that do not spar their are also others that do.  Even more important I would bet is that their initial instructors in their developmental stages also sparred which was crucial to their development further down the road.  Similarly I imagine Chris that you have sparred in the past and rolled and that without that training you would be less of a practitioner than you are now.  I will agree that I like Scenario Based Training just that I do not think a practitioner in any system should just do Scenarios with no sparring.  I think they will miss developing the ability to link things together effectively as well as developing go to moves.   *No instead I think they will be better off with some of both!*  

I would ad that sparring never hindered me professionally when having to make an arrest on someone.  No instead the strong mental will developed during those sessions aided.  

I just do not see it as an either or situation.  I think if you find the right balance you can do both with no negative side effects.  I understand where you are coming from but we can agree to disagree.  

I only have so much time to post here so it is very hard for me to come back again and again.  Debating you feels like being in court with a lawyer.   That is not a snipe but a compliment at your skills!


----------



## Chris Parker

Ah, here's the issue. None of those are RBSD systems. They are modern systems, and deal in modern conflict (for the most part), but are not actually RBSD systems, as that implies and refers to a rather different training method and approach. A big clue is that an RBSD system will have very limited, if any, actual physical "techniques" to itself, instead, it will rely on previous training that the practitioner/trainee has. Each system you mentioned has it's own particular methodology (technique-wise), which puts them more in the idea of modern martial systems. And honestly, it's not uncommon for such systems to spar for a variety of reasons... but one of the common ones I see is that it's just felt that it's "expected", or that it's not "real" unless it's done with sparring. Needless to say, I see a few issues with that.


----------



## Chris Parker

Just going back over the last few posts, a few things that came up for me.



Tanaka said:


> Actually what Chris Parker just showed did kind of clear things up. As far as the choking discussion though, in the couple of scenarios outside the dojo the choke was much easier to get. This was  because in a scramble a lot of people give up their back or allow access to their back easier because they turn around to cover up from strikes rather than stay squared up.



That's not exactly what was being discussed in the article, though. The way people give up their back there is a fear response, a primal defensive reaction to an overwhelming attack (or at least one that is perceived as overwhelming). There isn't the forms of resistance that Rory was talking about. As always, each situation is unique and different, but the situation you described isn't the "resistance" argument, it's a position one. Rory was discussing the "sanitised" forms of resistance which is taken as "real".



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I do not teach the Takamatsuden arts though I have practiced them for over twenty years.  Partly because I could not do them the justice that they would deserve.  Instead I focus on teaching IRT which when we spar does look like how we train.  We spar one on one, two on one and some times more or in a group setting.  We also do Scenario Based Training just as how Chris described earlier.  Ego will always play a role in any athletic endeavor particularly at first.  After awhile you are working to execute your training without thought and ego would be irrelevant at that point.  We spar full contact with groin strikes allowed. (allowed also of course in Scenario Based Training as well)  People do react to fakes that are well done but a trained person in general will not react to a poor fake or one that is not capable of damage. (unless they react to draw someone in  )  I am not a believer that sparring is the end all be all but just one more way to become well trained and efficient with your body.  It should not be the prime goal but simply a tool that will make you better.



I don't think Himura was discussing the idea of fakes, though, Brian, and I know that's certainly not what I'd be talking about. I'm (and I'm assuming Himura, as well) talking about a real reaction as if the strike was performed to it's effect, not about suckering in with a fake. A kick to the knee to buckle the opponent, not just shaken off and continued with the sparring match. That's kinda the key "reality" difference between sparring and other forms of free-responce training.



johnmills said:


> A common BJJ saying is 'technique goes out the window when you're being punched in the face.' It primarily refers to the difference between rolling- where opponents are working for submissions under a certain rule set- and a real fight where that rule set has been thrown out the window. The point is rolling is useful in the context of working strength, endurance, and being able to execute techinques under pressure. It's a piece of the puzzle, and an important one, but even its practioners know it is not the end all be all of training.
> 
> I think the exact same attitude applies to sparring. No, it's not a real fight, any time you agree to certian rules it is not. But it is much more difficult to execute a proper Jodan Uke if you don't know what punch is coming, or if indeed it will be a punch at all, or a kick, or a grab, or tackle or any of a hundred other unexpected attacks your opponent can make.
> 
> Reactions- like every other aspect of a matial art- have to be trained, and that can only be done if you don't know what your opponent is going to do next.
> 
> Ultimately I'm just agreeing with Brian, it is a tool to make you better.



Free form scenario training (as described earlier) has the exact same benefits (dealing with unexpected, or unknown attacks, and so on) without the issues of training for a false sense of reality. That's really the core of my argument against it. In BJJ, sparring (rolling) is still essential because it replicates the application of the methods, which includes competitive matches. But that doesn't make it essential, or even really useful, for every other art out there. It is indeed just a tool, but using a screwdriver when you need a hammer doesn't make it the best choice. Sure, you can use the handle to hammer a nail in, but it's still not the best choice.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Chris Parker said:


> I don't think Himura was discussing the idea of fakes, though, Brian, and I know that's certainly not what I'd be talking about. I'm (and I'm assuming Himura, as well) talking about a real reaction as if the strike was performed to it's effect, not about suckering in with a fake. A kick to the knee to buckle the opponent, not just shaken off and continued with the sparring match. That's kinda the key "reality" difference between sparring and other forms of free-responce training.



Yes. this is what I was reffering to.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hey Chris,

In regards to Krav Maga it definitely is a modern martial system but I would disagree that it is not a Reality Based System. (clearly the Krav Maga practioners feel it is as they advertise it as one)  Just look at this website: http://www.kravmagabootcamp.com/public/department118.cfm
or this one:
http://www.allstarma.com/commando/
or this one:
http://www.reactdefense.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=4
or this one:
http://www.kravamerica.com/About-Krav-Maga/krav-maga-training-programs.html
or this one:
http://www.squidoo.com/learn-krav-maga
or this one:
http://www.dynamiccombatvirginia.com/programs.html

Now I just googled Krav Maga and copied and pasted each and every one starting at the top.  They all have "Reality Based Training" some where right at the beginning in their description.  So either you personally have a different interpretation that the entire Krav Maga worldwide organization or they all are wrong and you are right?  Maybe you have a different standard and because they spar they are not "Reality Based".  I would like them place them in as a Reality Based System based on their overall approach.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Himura Kenshin said:


> Yes. this is what I was reffering to.




Okay cool!  Some body kicks you in the knee in practice would your knee buckle every time?  I have been kicked in the knee a lot of times in sparring and or in Scenario Based Training. (we allow leg kicks so invariably you get some to your knees now and then even when they are not the target)   A few times it buckled but most of the time I just shrugged it off and continued on.  A knee strike can be devastating but..... not always.  So if you during a scenario act out that it takes you down that could be a negative and not realistic.  When doing a kata sure if the correct application of said kata is to take into effect the knee strike then of course you would do that.  However, in reality some times a strike will not get that desired effect.  Now are we talking about the same thing?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Mind you that this conversation is good and beneficial to all.  I enjoy seeing, hearing and listening to other peoples opinions and or training methodology.


----------



## Cyriacus

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Okay cool!  Some body kicks you in the knee in practice would your knee buckle every time?  I have been kicked in the knee a lot of times in sparring and or in Scenario Based Training. (we allow leg kicks so invariably you get some to your knees now and then even when they are not the target)   A few times it buckled but most of the time I just shrugged it off and continued on.  A knee strike can be devastating but..... not always.  So if you during a scenario act out that it takes you down that could be a negative and not realistic.  When doing a kata sure if the correct application of said kata is to take into effect the knee strike then of course you would do that.  However, in reality some times a strike will not get that desired effect.  Now are we talking about the same thing?


Question: This has nothing to do with the Discussion, but just general curiosity. What kind of Knee Kicks are You talking about? Round with the Instep? Side Kicks? Front Kicks? Etc. Im not going to list all of them, You know what I mean


----------



## Chris Parker

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> In regards to Krav Maga it definitely is a modern martial system but I would disagree that it is not a Reality Based System. (clearly the Krav Maga practioners feel it is as they advertise it as one)  Just look at this website: http://www.kravmagabootcamp.com/public/department118.cfm
> or this one:
> http://www.allstarma.com/commando/
> or this one:
> http://www.reactdefense.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=4
> or this one:
> http://www.kravamerica.com/About-Krav-Maga/krav-maga-training-programs.html
> or this one:
> http://www.squidoo.com/learn-krav-maga
> or this one:
> http://www.dynamiccombatvirginia.com/programs.html
> 
> Now I just googled Krav Maga and copied and pasted each and every one starting at the top.  They all have "Reality Based Training" some where right at the beginning in their description.  So either you personally have a different interpretation that the entire Krav Maga worldwide organization or they all are wrong and you are right?  Maybe you have a different standard and because they spar they are not "Reality Based".  I would like them place them in as a Reality Based System based on their overall approach.



Yeah, I think it comes down to a difference in terminology. If there are ranks involved (there are in Krav Maga), a syllabus which is structured involving techniques, then to me, it's not an RBSD. That's not to say it isn't, or couldn't be a realistic approach to self defence training, just that an RBSD program is short term (not long term), and is a particular approach, primarily geared towards the pre- and post-fight more than the fight itself. It's assumed in many RBSD groups that you already have that covered in some fashion... although there are always methods (but not really "techniques") that are drilled. Additionally, there is a lot of Krav Maga that simply isn't "reality based" in any way, and, despite their rhetoric, they're just as much a martial art as the local karate dojo. 



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Okay cool!  Some body kicks you in the knee in practice would your knee buckle every time?  I have been kicked in the knee a lot of times in sparring and or in Scenario Based Training. (we allow leg kicks so invariably you get some to your knees now and then even when they are not the target)   A few times it buckled but most of the time I just shrugged it off and continued on.  A knee strike can be devastating but..... not always.  So if you during a scenario act out that it takes you down that could be a negative and not realistic.  When doing a kata sure if the correct application of said kata is to take into effect the knee strike then of course you would do that.  However, in reality some times a strike will not get that desired effect.  Now are we talking about the same thing?



Ha, if I'm kicking the knee, it'll buckle, all right... at the very least! And if it doesn't (if my training partner doesn't give me that reaction), then either I've missed the kick, and they're giving me valuable feedback on my targeting, or they're not acting realistically either. I take the shots I do because they are high return, and hard to protect against.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Mind you that this conversation is good and beneficial to all.  I enjoy seeing, hearing and listening to other peoples opinions and or training methodology.



Agreed!



Cyriacus said:


> Question: This has nothing to do with the Discussion, but just general curiosity. What kind of Knee Kicks are You talking about? Round with the Instep? Side Kicks? Front Kicks? Etc. Im not going to list all of them, You know what I mean



Nothing like what you're used to in TKD, my friend. Think of kicking in a door, slamming your foot through it... then apply that as a kick to the side of the knee, where it doesn't really bend.


----------



## Aiki Lee

I'm think more of stomping down into the knee or as Chris put it, smashing through it like a door. Even with a snap kick though, I would aim for joints with the intention of breaking bone alignment, if a break an actual bone that's great but it's more of a bonus side effect. My main concern is affecting balance and making the opponent's position weaker and harder to fight from. In scenario training your partner can resist some things realistically (as long as it is safe to do so) like refusing to let a poorly applied wrist lock take them down, but they shouldn't resist being kicked in the knee or ankle if you simulating driving through it because even if they could take such a blow there is still a high risk of partner injury. In sparring, as I see it, training partners will shrug such things off because in their mind they have to "win". No decent human being would _want_ to risk serious injury to their training partners so they either wouldn't perform such actions or pull them back to the point of being ineffective in this environment because the other person is more focused on recieving hits and hitting back than realizing that if this were a serious self-defense encounter his training partner would actually do something completely different (i.e stomping down on the side of the knee as opposed to round kicking the thigh or back of the leg.

In regards to the Krav Maga, I think the sparring aspect is really more about teaching them to be aggressive and not give up after being hit. That's good, that I can get behind, but the sparring does not resemble their self-defense techniques.




_edit: For some reason the editing page won't let me embed the next clip so I'll try posting a second comment and see if that works.
_


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Yes the kicks in the Takamatsuden arts are dramatically different than in TKD, Karate, Muay Thai, Kickboxing, etc.  Having said that though because I have used them in sparring in a full contact manner I would not rely 100% that they are any different than other kicks in effectiveness when dealing with an opponent head on.  From the side they should work. (though I have seen peoples knees react strange after years and years of sparring and being in athletics in other sports)  From the back of the knee worse case you should have the knee stomped to the ground if not really messed up. (I have used this in making an arrest to good effect)  Yet, I would not rely 100% on anything.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Ok so in these two videos we have guys sparring. But it doesn't rememble self-defense, because there doesn't seem to be a goal other than "hit the other guy". Is this realistic? In a way yes, but only when guys square off and decide to fight without knowing what they want the end result to be. For example:






In this video the officer brawls with the guy, he looks like a decent enough boxer, but what is his goal? He doesn't seem to want to arrest or hold the guy for questioning. He just seems to want to beat him up. If it were self-defense or an apprehension he would either escape or seek to control him somehow. These fights tend to be ego driven and kind of pointless.  Nothing ever really comes from them until they escalate to the point that more people join in or someone grabs a weapon. Sparring I feel creates this menbtality and if you were training for sport would be fine, but in self-defense training must be geared towards taking initiative and either apprehending (if your police and that's your job), or escaping. 

Here are some Krava maga self-defense lessons. I don't think they are very good, but they illustrate my point.











Without commenting on all the things I find wrong with these methods they still illustrate principles not found in sparring. In both cases, in addition to causing damage the strikes appear to be used to take the distract the attacker's mind from the disarms. Then notice all the kciks to the groin that you don't see in sparring. Kicking the groin does more than cause pain and injury, it pitches the body forward and off balance as most people throw the hips back when someone is trying to scramble their eggs. People don't _usually_ kick to the groin in sparring and as we all know:


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Scenarior Based Training fills the gap nicely.  However, that does not negate the positives that ones gains through regular sparring, rolling, etc. (strong mental will, ability to relax, linking techniques together, etc., etc., etc.)  You simply do not have to choose one over the other and Scenario Based Training does not provide some benefits that sparring, rolling does.  However together they both work very well!


----------



## Cyriacus

Chris Parker said:


> Nothing like what you're used to in TKD, my friend. Think of kicking in a door, slamming your foot through it... then apply that as a kick to the side of the knee, where it doesn't really bend.



...You pretty much just said, as I read it, Front Stamp Kick from the Side, to the Knee. We did that last week.
Side Kick to the Front of the Knee is more common though.

Let Me be the first to say, I have never learnt to use any given Kick with the Instep to the Knee.

I was mostly curious so as to get some context behind His statement.


----------



## Chris Parker

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Scenarior Based Training fills the gap nicely.  However, that does not negate the positives that ones gains through regular sparring, rolling, etc. (strong mental will, ability to relax, linking techniques together, etc., etc., etc.)  You simply do not have to choose one over the other and Scenario Based Training does not provide some benefits that sparring, rolling does.  However together they both work very well!



Brian, can you point out how scenario training does not cover those benefits? They definitely give you the ability to relax under pressure, the ability to strengthen your mental approach (with the added benefit of it actually being the proper mindset required for self defence situations, as opposed to sparring), the ability to link techniques together (failure of techniques is a big part of scenario training, so it'd not like you train that everything works every time...), and more.

Sparring has benefits. The thing is, scenario training has the same benefits, but none of the drawbacks or limitations. Both is not really the best idea when it comes to self defence unless you have some benefits that sparring gives that scenario or other training doesn't. So far, you honestly haven't given any.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*In my opinion* Chris I do not think that Scenario Based Training is as good for linking techniques together or working on go to moves as Sparring or Rolling.  Just for instance I have worked my sweeping skill sets thousands of times in submission grappling so much so it is second nature and highly developed. (yes a lot of two person technique work too ie. kata)  In Scenarios I have rarely been put down in a guard position.  Part of that is I have fast reflexes and a really good sprawl and even if surprised usually I can sprawl or evade with most people.  I have isolated in Scenarios where I am already mounted, etc. surprised in bed (on a mattress in training no less) to negate some of that ability.  However, if I relied on Scenario Based Training only to develop my guard sweeping skill sets they probably would not be as sharp.  Not that I might not be able to do it just that but in my opinion I doubt it.  The other aspect of linking is also I believe not as easy to develop as in sparring or rolling for the same exact reasons.  I personally have also developed a couple of real go to moves during thirty plus years of initially point sparring, then kickboxing then into our style of full contact IRT sparring.  Those go to moves I believe would have been harder also to develop doing only Scenario Based Training.  Not that I might not have been able to develop them just that it probably would have been harder.  Now these are my opinions based on having extensive practice with both Sparring, Submission Grappling (rolling) and of course Scenario Based Training.  Once again I think it is better when they are both used together.  I think then the practitioner develops better.  I can observe my students and say they are farther along in their development than I was in a similar time frame to know that it works!


----------



## Chris Parker

Ha, surprisingly, Brian, I don't agree!

When it comes to linking techniques, there is just as much freedom in scenario training as there is in sparring, so the ability to link from one technique to another is just as prevalent. When done properly, aspects such as technique failure certainly form a large part of it, allowing linking from failed technique to new technique, from set-up to new technique, and many other forms.

With the idea that "go to techniques" are easier to work on in sparring, that I'd disagree with completely. The easiest, and best way to work on "go to techniques/tactics" is to set up a situation (scenario) where they can be applied in a consistent and repeatable fashion... which is not sparring. Besides, if you're working on "go to techniques" in your sparring, as methods that generate success, all you're really doing is working on techniques that generate success in the false reality of sparring... in other words, you're working on improving the way you act in a situation that isn't what you're wanting to improve in.

I also doubt that your skills improved more in sparring than in properly constructed scenario training when it comes to things such as sweeps from the guard if your takedown defense is solid enough to not get into that situation in sparring... 

All that said, I didn't actually see an answer to Himura's question there: What is the format of your sparring exactly? Is it like the sparring in the clips seen above, or something different? Is it two people both trying to "score" against each other, or is there a designated attacker and defender? Is there a specific range it's limited to, or does it change? The reason we're asking is that I'm suspecting what you're referring to as sparring might be closer to what I'm describing as scenario training.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hey Chris,

We will just have to agree to disagree! 

In IRT our sparring generally consists of full contact empty hand, with weapons. (generally guy's pull off when someone is hurt so as not to hurt them permanently)   We also have sparring drills.  Guard vs. striking.  One individual striking while the other is grappling for control, submission, etc.  A variation of monkey in the middle where the defender never knows where the attack is coming from.  Of course we have Scenarion Based Training as well.  We train in street clothes, uniforms, etc.  Hey we even train on the beach when we can.   Very, very, very varied in our training approach.  Guest instructors, intensives, seminars are the norm.  Someone who has been with me for awhile will have been exposed to Budo Taijutsu, Brazilian Jiujitsu, Kuntaw, Arnis, Balintawak, Dekiti Tirsia Siradas, Kickboxing, Muay Thai, etc., etc., etc. from other instructors around the world.  They will also have been taught the law by a lawyer in their state, have experience in hearing stories from LEO's, Security, Probation, Corrections, Military personnel, private citizens who have survived an attack or used their training to evade or avoid one.  I know this varied approach works as it has been used successfully by LEO's, Security, Military, Corrections, Civilians whether in an engagement or avoiding a physical encounter.  That avoidance part is so important and the ability to deescalate a situation.   There is no doubt on my side as to the effectiveness of the approach as I have used it in the past professioinally as well.  It has also been used in the ring and cage with a few people even earning a championship belt here or there.  My youtube channel is here with a few video clips: http://www.youtube.com/user/IRTBrian?feature=mhee#p/u  I just noticed though that I do not have any Scenario Based Training on the channel so that will have to be rectified in the near future! ;P)  I do not see it as an either or situation.  I understand your point though coming from a Takamatsuden art that if you spar the technique utilized in that particular system would have to be modified.  Whereas if you Scenario Based Train only you can probably keep the technique closer to the ryu-ha.  I just think you limit yourself in this approach and I do not like limitations!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Chris if you are interested more in our appraoch I have a private channel that I can allow you in to see more video clips, etc.

Obviously once you see the movement in IRT you will see that it is heavily influenced by the Filipino Martial Arts and Brazilian Jiujitsu.  that does not mean that Budo Taijutsu is not there as it is but my other background does seem to come out quite a bit!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Chris Parker said:


> With the idea that "go to techniques" are easier to work on in sparring, that I'd disagree with completely. The easiest, and best way to work on "go to techniques/tactics" is to set up a situation (scenario) where they can be applied in a consistent and repeatable fashion... which is not sparring. Besides, if you're working on "go to techniques" in your sparring, as methods that generate success, all you're really doing is working on techniques that generate success in the false reality of sparring... in other words, you're working on improving the way you act in a situation that isn't what you're wanting to improve in.
> 
> I also doubt that your skills improved more in sparring than in properly constructed scenario training when it comes to things such as sweeps from the guard if your takedown defense is solid enough to not get into that situation in sparring...



Hey Chris,

I would have to say that no way a practitioner would develop "go to moves" to the same level utilizing only Scenario Based Training.  Just not going to happen. (though I am not saying it is impossible)  One of my pet "go to" moves I have used in real life in a confrontation.  Worked like a charm!  I only used it that one time but everything happened just like I have used it in sparring.  I would also say since I have a highly developed sprawl and rarely get taken down in Sparring or Scenario Based Training (unless put in that position) that my sweeps get consistent work every week in Rolling or Submission Grappling.  Hard to replicate the amount of skill set development that you can get in those types of Sparring with just Scenario Based Training. (though I am not saying it is impossible)  

The above is all testable though.  Have a Scenario Based Training only practitioner face up against someone who Rolls and Spars regularly and see who would come out ahead in that matchup. (we pretty much both know who would win the outcome)  You could of course reverse  it and have someone who Rolls and Spars only then do Scenario Based Training to see how they do as well. You might be surprised to see how quickly they can adjust with just a tiny bit of experience.  Yet in the other situation it would probably take a lot longer to catch up with someone of equal experience and attributes.   However, the best for both practitioners would be to utilize both in their training.  That way they get the best of both worlds!

There are a few more video clips here of a couple of guy's who have stepped into the cage: http://www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com/trainingnews.html


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I don't want to over exaggerate whom I have taught or that people might take it that way.  I have taught some small groups of military personnel that were getting ready to deploy as well as quite a few one on one over the years.  Quite a few Security personnel.  Quite a few LEO's, some correction officers and probation officers.  These are people who have sought me ought for extra training beyond what they were receiving.  Several have been with me for quite a while or with another IRT instructor.  I have also worked professionally where arrests were a pretty common place though I have a lot less experience in this area than a Law Enforcement Officer who has been working for fifteen to twenty years or so.  Just trying not to over inflate my expeirence or anything! 

Just as I know you have taught equally to these types of professions Chris.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Ah, I've been a bit busy to get back to this one, so this'll cover quite a bit at once...
> 
> 
> 
> I think what I'm talking about when I say "Scenario training versus sparring" might need some clearing up. Sparring I am using (as stated earlier) to refer to a one-on-one "duel", where both partners are going in with the same aim (attack and defend against the other persons' attacks, in order to "outperform" the other), with similar skill sets, and for an extended time period (in other words, you stay in till the sparring session is called over, the round is over, or whatever). This leads to habits of staying when you should leave, as well as a highly unrealistic expectation of what to expect from your potential attackers in the street (that's actually a good distinction there, the guy on the street is not an opponent, they're an attacker.... which leads to a range of changes in the behaviour of both sides).
> 
> Sparring typically looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kickboxing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MMA
> 
> Now, each of these are specific and suited to the needs of the arts they are employed in... but the tactics, strategies, and habits formed go against the needs of actual defense or combative usage.
> 
> When I talk about Scenario Training (as free-form training), I am talking about a training method where there is an attacker (or more than one, depending on the scenario being drilled) against a defender (or more than one, for example in security training, bodyguard training, partner protection training, and so on). The defenders aims and the attackers aims are not the same thing (the attacker wants to attack, the defender wants to defend/escape... which can involve going on the offensive, but doesn't mean the same thing as being the attacker), the tactics and strategies are by necessity different as well (with the aim of leaving the situation as soon as safety allows, and not wanting to "stay and trade blows" as you would in sparring, and so on.
> 
> Here are some examples (Note: some language warnings):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, there are simply thousands of different scenarios that can be trained.... and, when done properly, it gets to the point where the attackers attack with random attacks, not stopping until they're "stopped", and the defender(s) have complete freedom of response as well, from slow all the way up to full pace (with safety equipment). The tactics employed are exactly what would be employed in self defense, the attacks are exactly what would be encountered in an actual self defense situation, and so on.
> 
> Simply put, scenario training is designed to mimic reality as closely as possible, whereas sparring is designed to mimic a competition as closely as possible. Which are you training for?
> 
> 
> 
> Er, actually, Oded, I'm not able to engage the conversation on you-tube... it seems my pointing out that the version of Itsutsu no Tachi from Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu that Yossi put up was missing parts, showed a desperate lack of understanding of the kata itself, showed large mistakes and gaps in timing, distancing, targeting, and more, and that, if, as Yossi said, the aim was to show respect for the art they were "teaching" with no authorisation, they would be best advised to stop showing it and remove the video, I was banned from making comments on any of the Akban clips. Whoops.
> 
> As for the video, up to about 34 seconds, it was recognisable as Ninjutsu (I saw some Gyokko Ryu mainly), but after that it was nothing to do with the art whatsoever. Especially for the section from 0:37-0:45... I mean, that was just the kickboxing stuff again. Nothing like anything found in Ninjutsu at all. And that's really been my point. If you're also teaching kickboxing, great... but if you're calling that part of the Ninjutsu teaching, you really need to have a closer look at what makes each art what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Koku at every class? Why? I can see why you'd do the Kihon Happo, or Sanshin, but Koku? But, as Richard said, that ain't Koku. It misses pretty much everything that makes Koku Koku.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's known in Japanese arts as Shu Ha Ri. But it doesn't mean that you train in one art, which gives you a particular postural concept, a particular usage of body weapons, a particular movement concept, a particular power source concept, a particular distancing concept, and a particular timing concept, and then doing something completely unrelated and saying "oh, well, we're doing the "Ri" approach to it". No you're not.
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully the above examples will show clearer what I mean when I'm discussing Scenario training versus sparring... and how all the benefits that sparring gives are present in proper Scenario training, with an even closer analogue to a real situation/fight. Sparring really just isn't close enough for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, absolutely train the technique... but the issue isn't when the choke is on, it's getting it on in the first place, which isn't always as clean as you might find in the dojo. If you do get it clean and fast, you will typically get a "panic" response from whoever you're putting it on... which can come out in different ways. Some more effectual than others, it must be said. But if you're still trying to get it on, not quite in position, and the other guy is seriously (realistically) trying to claw your eyes... and by that I mean that they actually will pull your eyes out, not that they are "replicating" the moves... it's quite a different situation. That's what Rory Miller was getting at. Until you've done it for real, against a real person with that amount of desperation, then it's still not "real" in your training.
> 
> 
> 
> But if it's said that sparring is "preparation" for a real fight, then it must be seen as having properties similar to one, agreed? And the fact is that most of the aspects that most people look to to say "this is just like a real fight" are actually very far removed from a real defensive encounter... but are very close to the "real fights" that people see in MMA competitions....
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, I'm going to head back over to that thread, hopefully later tonight...
> 
> Yep, reaction is what happens, which is not the same as the reactions (or "resistance") found in sparring matches, say, BJJ rolling. In that encounter, one BJJ practitioner might have found themselves in a position where a particular armbar is available, so they start to attempt it... the other will then employ a defence directly against that lock, responding with a trained, skilled reaction, seeking to "defeat" the first persons lock. But against a "street attacker", starting to get the same lock on, the reaction will be quite different. There won't be the training to back anything up, so that skilled response won't be there... but what will come out will more likely be a direct attack towards the person trying the lock, whether that's hitting at them, kicking, scratching, or whatever. The difference is that the aim of the BJJ practitioner is to not be defeated, and preserve the opportunity to then "defeat" their opponent... whereas the street attacker just wants to attack, and is just looking to continue that attack. It really is very, very different.
> 
> 
> 
> The better version of Koku from Akban is this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not Koku:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it does give a clue as to what Yossi was doing in the earlier one....
> 
> Oded, Koku is not about just outflanking and hitting the ribs (for the record, Yossi's target in the "ura gata" form was way too high as well, if he was a few inches lower he'd be getting the floating ribs, which might have an effect), and the "feel" of this movement is very different to Gyokko Ryu. It's slightly closer to Koto Ryu, or some aspects of Togakure Ryu, but it certainly ain't Gyokko Ryu or Koku itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Yossi was a senior student of Doron Navon, so anything would presumably come through him. They are still part of the Bujinkan, according to Yossi.



Hey Chris,

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner.  The threads moving along, but I did want to ask your thoughts on something.  With the scenario clips you posted, which BTW, are very good.   I actually saw those clips a while back on MAP.  Anyways...yeah, definately some good stuff.  As you know, I think scenario training is very important.  Now, since we were talking about the different types of resistance one will face, let me ask you...what do you think about the resistance shown in those clips?


----------



## MJS

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Chris if you are interested more in our appraoch I have a private channel that I can allow you in to see more video clips, etc.
> 
> Obviously once you see the movement in IRT you will see that it is heavily influenced by the Filipino Martial Arts and Brazilian Jiujitsu.  that does not mean that Budo Taijutsu is not there as it is but my other background does seem to come out quite a bit!



Ohhh!! I'd be very interested in seeing that, if its ok with you.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hey Mike I will shoot you out the links later on today.


----------



## Chris Parker

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> We will just have to agree to disagree!



Honestly, I don't think we're disagreeing on much other than terminology.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> In IRT our sparring generally consists of full contact empty hand, with weapons. (generally guy's pull off when someone is hurt so as not to hurt them permanently)   We also have sparring drills.  Guard vs. striking.  One individual striking while the other is grappling for control, submission, etc.  A variation of monkey in the middle where the defender never knows where the attack is coming from.  Of course we have Scenarion Based Training as well.



Most of that is what I would class as scenario training, different sides have different aims etc. Sparring is, as I said, taken as two persons both aiming to outperform each other by having the same aim, which does not appear to be what you are describing here.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> We train in street clothes, uniforms, etc.  Hey we even train on the beach when we can.   Very, very, very varied in our training approach.  Guest instructors, intensives, seminars are the norm.  Someone who has been with me for awhile will have been exposed to Budo Taijutsu, Brazilian Jiujitsu, Kuntaw, Arnis, Balintawak, Dekiti Tirsia Siradas, Kickboxing, Muay Thai, etc., etc., etc. from other instructors around the world.  They will also have been taught the law by a lawyer in their state, have experience in hearing stories from LEO's, Security, Probation, Corrections, Military personnel, private citizens who have survived an attack or used their training to evade or avoid one.


 
Kay... honestly, Brian, this is fantastic, but training in 10 different arts doesn't have a lot of relevance when it comes to the idea of sparring or not specific to the Ninjutsu arts, wouldn't you say? As far as it working, it seems to be more scenario (what I've been discussing as scenario) training, rather than sparring, so, all good!



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I know this varied approach works as it has been used successfully by LEO's, Security, Military, Corrections, Civilians whether in an engagement or avoiding a physical encounter.  That avoidance part is so important and the ability to deescalate a situation.   There is no doubt on my side as to the effectiveness of the approach as I have used it in the past professioinally as well.  It has also been used in the ring and cage with a few people even earning a championship belt here or there.


 
Training avoidance and de-escalation can only really be trained (freely) in scenario training, so that's another point there! The cage is where sparring training is what you're after.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> My youtube channel is here with a few video clips: http://www.youtube.com/user/IRTBrian?feature=mhee#p/u  I just noticed though that I do not have any Scenario Based Training on the channel so that will have to be rectified in the near future! ;P)


 
Some cool stuff there, nice work.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I do not see it as an either or situation.


 
It's not. It's a matter of picking the best option for the needs you have.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I understand your point though coming from a Takamatsuden art that if you spar the technique utilized in that particular system would have to be modified.  Whereas if you Scenario Based Train only you can probably keep the technique closer to the ryu-ha.  I just think you limit yourself in this approach and I do not like limitations!



I don't think scenario training is limited, in fact, it opens up more freedom than just sparring does. There's nothing in scenario training that limits what techniques can be used, but in sparring there often is.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Chris if you are interested more in our appraoch I have a private channel that I can allow you in to see more video clips, etc.
> 
> Obviously once you see the movement in IRT you will see that it is heavily influenced by the Filipino Martial Arts and Brazilian Jiujitsu.  that does not mean that Budo Taijutsu is not there as it is but my other background does seem to come out quite a bit!



Sure, always good to see what others are doing.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> I would have to say that no way a practitioner would develop "go to moves" to the same level utilizing only Scenario Based Training.  Just not going to happen. (though I am not saying it is impossible)


 
Scenario training is about designing the exact circumstances you need to train exactly what you want to. Sparring gives you what presents itself in the moment. Why do you think that scenario training (designed to develop and sharpen a particular skill, say, a "go to" move) is less effective at it than sparring where you may never find yourself in a position to actually attempt such a go-to move, let alone train it consistently and effectively.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> One of my pet "go to" moves I have used in real life in a confrontation.  Worked like a charm!  I only used it that one time but everything happened just like I have used it in sparring.  I would also say since I have a highly developed sprawl and rarely get taken down in Sparring or Scenario Based Training (unless put in that position) that my sweeps get consistent work every week in Rolling or Submission Grappling.


 
And how do you train it? Do you and someone else just go for it, and if they try to shoot, you sprawl? Or do you have a training partner trying to take you down, and you try to stop them (which is a form of scenario training)?



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hard to replicate the amount of skill set development that you can get in those types of Sparring with just Scenario Based Training. (though I am not saying it is impossible)



Yeah... I don't get how you see that, honestly.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> The above is all testable though.  Have a Scenario Based Training only practitioner face up against someone who Rolls and Spars regularly and see who would come out ahead in that matchup. (we pretty much both know who would win the outcome)


 
What is the outcome you're after? If I want someone to have a solid, dependable skill (specific, such as your sprawl), is it better to constantly drill it, as well as having it in scenario training, or to have sparring where it might or might not turn up?



Brian R. VanCise said:


> You could of course reverse  it and have someone who Rolls and Spars only then do Scenario Based Training to see how they do as well. You might be surprised to see how quickly they can adjust with just a tiny bit of experience.  Yet in the other situation it would probably take a lot longer to catch up with someone of equal experience and attributes.   However, the best for both practitioners would be to utilize both in their training.  That way they get the best of both worlds!



Again, really, it all comes down to what the result you want it.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> There are a few more video clips here of a couple of guy's who have stepped into the cage: http://www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com/trainingnews.html



Cool, but that's where sparring comes into usefulness. And it's got nothing to do with Ninjutsu, so isn't really relevant.



MJS said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner.  The threads moving along, but I did want to ask your thoughts on something.  With the scenario clips you posted, which BTW, are very good.   I actually saw those clips a while back on MAP.  Anyways...yeah, definately some good stuff.  As you know, I think scenario training is very important.  Now, since we were talking about the different types of resistance one will face, let me ask you...what do you think about the resistance shown in those clips?



I don't class it as resistance, as they're not really resisting. They attack, then when the tables are turned, they cover up. That's a fair bit more realistic, in fact, my biggest issue is the amount of time taken by the defenders...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Chris Parker said:


> Honestly, I don't think we're disagreeing on much other than terminology.



 Yes Chris on most things we probably agree. 




> Training avoidance and de-escalation can only really be trained (freely) in scenario training, so that's another point there! The cage is where sparring training is what you're after.



Agreed.  Of course you can train avoidance and de-escalation in classroom but in practical application it is best trained in Scenario Based Training. 





> I don't think scenario training is limited, in fact, it opens up more freedom than just sparring does. There's nothing in scenario training that limits what techniques can be used, but in sparring there often is.



Agreed.



> Scenario training is about designing the exact circumstances you need to train exactly what you want to. Sparring gives you what presents itself in the moment. Why do you think that scenario training (designed to develop and sharpen a particular skill, say, a "go to" move) is less effective at it than sparring where you may never find yourself in a position to actually attempt such a go-to move, let alone train it consistently and effectively.



In Sparring/Rolling there is no script.  Just two or more people acting and reacting again and again.  Because of this there is a lot of time to work techniques and "go to" moves over and over again.  Very hard to replicate that amount of repetition in Scenario Based Training.  Just not going to happen




> And how do you train it? Do you and someone else just go for it, and if they try to shoot, you sprawl? Or do you have a training partner trying to take you down, and you try to stop them (which is a form of scenario training)?



No of course you start with solo training the sprawl again and again.  Then you move onto partner training working the sprawl against a takedown again and again.  Finally you work it in Sparring where it may or may not happen.  Then you can work it in Scenario Based Training where it can be worked in or not. (depending on the goals of the Scenario)  I think that this way you get the best of all training!




> What is the outcome you're after? If I want someone to have a solid, dependable skill (specific, such as your sprawl), is it better to constantly drill it, as well as having it in scenario training, or to have sparring where it might or might not turn up?



All of the above! (rather than eliminating any of them)


I do not know how you can do this multi-quote thing so regularly as it takes so much time!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

It is just like firearm training.  You of course want technique training then application training of the technique at a range.  However to take it further you then take those skills into Force on Force airsoft training. (one on one or more) just like in sparring.  Then you take it into the Scenario Based Training to make the process complete.  If you want to be at your optimum efficiency with a firearm you would include all of the above.  You see you do not need to drop any of the steps just include them all and you get the best more complete training situation!


----------



## Chris Parker

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yes Chris on most things we probably agree.


 
 Ha, yeah. Even when we disagree, we're usually agreeing in many ways!

That said, a few things here confuse me...



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Agreed.  Of course you can train avoidance and de-escalation in classroom but in practical application it is best trained in Scenario Based Training.



It's best taught as drills, but trained in scenario forms. You're agreeing with me there on a point for scenario training over sparring.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Agreed.


 
Uh, Brian, I completely disagreed with your comments, which stated that scenario training was limiting, and sparring wasn't, are you now saying you agree that scenario training is NOT limiting, whereas sparring is? That's a complete turn around, and I'm happy to have you on our side, but then you continue...



Brian R. VanCise said:


> In Sparring/Rolling there is no script.  Just two or more people acting and reacting again and again.  Because of this there is a lot of time to work techniques and "go to" moves over and over again.  Very hard to replicate that amount of repetition in Scenario Based Training.  Just not going to happen



 This really loses me in terms of logic, Brian. To be fair, let's look at even time given to each, sparring and scenario training, say, half an hour. If you're training for half an hour in a scenario-based training form, where the attacks are looking to attain a particular result (say, close and take you down, but can use any method to do so that they want), and the aim of the defence is to attain a particular result in response (say, stopping that takedown, working on your "go-to" sprawl), how many times do you think you could practice and rehearse your go-to sprawl? And, in half an hour of sparring, where there isn't the specific aim on either side, how many times do you think the attempted takedown and sprawl would be trained?

Really, your argument doesn't seem to make sense... can you clarify at all?



Brian R. VanCise said:


> No of course you start with solo training the sprawl again and again.  Then you move onto partner training working the sprawl against a takedown again and again.  Finally you work it in Sparring where it may or may not happen.  Then you can work it in Scenario Based Training where it can be worked in or not. (depending on the goals of the Scenario)  I think that this way you get the best of all training!


 
 How does sparring where it may not be a part of the training at all feature as an actual stage of training the method? Isn't that like learning, say, French, and then walking through the city, talking to people, some may speak French to you, but some might not, and say that that's you practicing speaking French, rather than finding a French club, and going there to practice with people in unscripted conversation? Really, you're arguing that there are benefits for training a method that might not even include what you're trying to practice over a method designed to specifically allow you to train and develop it, and that just confuses me.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> All of the above! (rather than eliminating any of them)



Again, how does the sparring help if it may not even include the skill you're trying to train in the first place? It just doesn't actually make sense....



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I do not know how you can do this multi-quote thing so regularly as it takes so much time!



Ha, call it a practiced hand...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hey Chris,

First I would not say that a sprawl is not a  "go to" move as it is reactionary or that it is a reactionary "go to" move that requires someone trying to take you down.   Meaning that the other person has to attempt a takedown for you to utlize it.  An action "go to" move might be some thing like knowing when and how to set up a cross, ridgehand, lunging punch, etc.  You would utilize footwork, a fake, bait, etc. to put the other person physically and mentally off balance so that you could then take advantage of the situation.

In regards to limiting or not limiting both Sparring/Rolling and of Scenario Based Training have limitations.  In the above instance Sparring has limitations in training avoidance or de-escalation.  Hope that clarifies.  Scenario Based Training has other limitations!

Almost invariably in Sparring you will have time to practice your sprawl and other defensive takedown maneuvers.  Happens all the time!  Literally all the time!  One advantage in this instance is you do not know it is going to happen you just have to react.  That is essential.  This can also be replicated in Scenario Based Training to provided it is planned out and you of course keep the person not in the loop that there will be a takedown attempt!  

As for the french language analogy.  I would say that in Sparring your going to have to work your sprawl and takedown defenses repeatedly over time.  A lot!  So Sparring has within it the abilitty to work your Sprawl and "go to" techniques over and over and over and over and over again!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I prefer what I would consider an overall more complete appraoch with technique training, partner training (ie. kata), Sparring/Rolling and then Scenario Based Training.  I think the practitioner gets the best of all in this regard!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Round and round we go!


----------



## Chris Parker

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> First I would not say that a sprawl is not a  "go to" move as it is reactionary or that it is a reactionary "go to" move that requires someone trying to take you down.   Meaning that the other person has to attempt a takedown for you to utlize it.  An action "go to" move might be some thing like knowing when and how to set up a cross, ridgehand, lunging punch, etc.  You would utilize footwork, a fake, bait, etc. to put the other person physically and mentally off balance so that you could then take advantage of the situation.



Well, I'd consider a sprawl a "go-to" move when it comes to stopping a takedown! There's quite a range of "go-to's", when you get down to it, and I only used the sprawl as you'd already brought it up in earlier discussion.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> In regards to limiting or not limiting both Sparring/Rolling and of Scenario Based Training have limitations.  In the above instance Sparring has limitations in training avoidance or de-escalation.  Hope that clarifies.  Scenario Based Training has other limitations!



Okay, now we're getting somewhere! Can you elaborate on those limitations that you see scenario training as having over sparring, and how sparring (with different limitations) overcomes that to the end of furthering success in self defence?



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Almost invariably in Sparring you will have time to practice your sprawl and other defensive takedown maneuvers.  Happens all the time!  Literally all the time!  One advantage in this instance is you do not know it is going to happen you just have to react.  That is essential.  This can also be replicated in Scenario Based Training to provided it is planned out and you of course keep the person not in the loop that there will be a takedown attempt!


 
 If your sparring involves takedowns, sure. But there's no guarantee. You might be up against someone who doesn't like the ground, so they don't try them as much. But the thing is that the sprawl is just an example, the point was that the idea of hoping that something might have the opportunity to be trained in sparring doesn't mean that there are, as you said, more time to work on it than in a training form (scenario training) which is specifically geared towards training that skill set.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> As for the french language analogy.  I would say that in Sparring your going to have to work your sprawl and takedown defenses repeatedly over time.  A lot!  So Sparring has within it the abilitty to work your Sprawl and "go to" techniques over and over and over and over and over again!



Sorry, Brian, how is that anything to do with my French analogy?



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I prefer what I would consider an overall more complete appraoch with technique training, partner training (ie. kata), Sparring/Rolling and then Scenario Based Training.  I think the practitioner gets the best of all in this regard!



Ha, lose the sparring, and I'm with you!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I think we will have to agree to disagree Chris.  I think your missing a building block in not sparring while you think your not by attempting to get all you need from Scenario Based Training.  I think it is better if you combine them.  In the end we will just continue to go around and around in circles.  

How about next time I am down your way we train and I will buy the beers! 
If you get up here we can train and I'll let you buy!


----------



## Indagator

Aaaaahhhh! Australian beer :barf:LOL!


----------



## Sanke

Indagator said:


> Aaaaahhhh! Australian beer :barf:LOL!



You just don't know how to handle a good beer mate 


Sanke on the move.


----------



## Chris Parker

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think we will have to agree to disagree Chris.  I think your missing a building block in not sparring while you think your not by attempting to get all you need from Scenario Based Training.  I think it is better if you combine them.  In the end we will just continue to go around and around in circles.



The thing is, though, I don't know that what you're calling sparring and what I'm calling scenario training is that far apart, but despite asking a few times, you haven't actually answered exactly what you're meaning (other than a collection of ideas that are closer to scenario training), nor have you said what the benefits of sparring would be over scenario training for the purpose of self defense, just that you think sparring (whatever you're meaning by that here) is important(?).

If you don't want to answer, or can't as you've never questioned it in your own training before (common enough, really), fine. But it doesn't really give any conclusive end to our debate, at least from my end.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> How about next time I am down your way we train and I will buy the beers!
> If you get up here we can train and I'll let you buy!



Ha, I'd hope that we wouldn't need to disagree with each other to make such offers, Brian! And, for the record, you can have all the beer in either location, I don't actually drink.


----------



## Indagator

Sanke said:


> You just don't know how to handle a good beer mate
> 
> 
> Sanke on the move.



Lol!

I drink Guinness. Nothing better than that 

Being serious though when I have travelled in Australia, I found Cascade Stout to be relatively palatable although I've not found many who would agree!


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> I don't class it as resistance, as they're not really resisting. They attack, then when the tables are turned, they cover up. That's a fair bit more realistic, in fact, my biggest issue is the amount of time taken by the defenders...



Points taken, but don't you think that it gives a bit of a false impression?  I mean, will every attacker cover up once the tables are turned...or will they, realizing that they're getting their *** kicked, possibly fight back harder?  Dont get me wrong....I liked the clips.  Obviously they're a hell of alot better than some other stuff out there.


----------



## Chris Parker

There's a range of different responses that can occur, with them covering up being just one (and a realistic one, in some circumstances), particularly when the attack is done with the pure idea of opportunist attacks (when the attack happens due to some perception of superiority), as the sudden turn around can cause the attackers to lose the focus of what they're doing (a sudden shift from "predator" to "prey", which confuses them when it's unexpected). Then, when it's more emotionally caused, that's a less likely response... in that instance, it's more likely that they'd just keep trying to press an attack. Personally, I think each should be covered, both what happens if they turn and cover, or if they keep coming, and so on.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Chris Parker said:


> The thing is, though, I don't know that what you're calling sparring and what I'm calling scenario training is that far apart, but despite asking a few times, you haven't actually answered exactly what you're meaning (other than a collection of ideas that are closer to scenario training), nor have you said what the benefits of sparring would be over scenario training for the purpose of self defense, just that you think sparring (whatever you're meaning by that here) is important(?).
> 
> If you don't want to answer, or can't as you've never questioned it in your own training before (common enough, really), fine. But it doesn't really give any conclusive end to our debate, at least from my end.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, I'd hope that we wouldn't need to disagree with each other to make such offers, Brian! And, for the record, you can have all the beer in either location, I don't actually drink.



Hey Chris,

I think if you go back through  the thread you will see that on several occasions I have mentioned several benefits of sparring that I think you get more with Sparring over Scenario Based Training.  They are there!  I feel like at this point I am repeating the same thing over and over!  

If you ever make it to Vegas I will make sure that you have a great time minus the drinking of course!


----------



## Chris Parker

Well, I have heard that Vegas is a quiet, sleepy little town, but I'm sure we could find something to do...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Yep it is a sleep little place!


----------



## MJS

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yep it is a sleep little place!



That statement is so true, its not even funny! LOL!


----------

