# Sparring to win vs sparring to understand



## Thousand Kicks (Aug 29, 2016)

I was reading another post and it made me think of some advice I was given when I started training.

My teacher once told me that sometimes you are sparring with a "I'm trying to win" mentality and sometimes you are sparring with a "I'm trying to understand" mentality.

Sparring to win is essentially trying to score points or make contact as efficiently as possible without getting hit back. This is basically what we do when we enter tournaments. If I only need two types of kicks to beat my opponent, then I only need two kicks. He explained you need to develop this mentality to learn how to develop a good gameplan and stay focused on the gameplan. Some students just randomly throw out kicks hoping something will land. It takes a lot of mental focus to make it through a tournament or a serious confrontation. You have to develop that focus by practicing with the mindset that you are trying to win.

Sparring to understand is like exploring and trying to increase your understanding of sparring. It is not just randomly throwing techniques out to see what happens, but focusing on a specific technique, or movement, or concept. In my school we would do round robin type sparring (you do at least one round against evrybody in class). So, if I wanted to concentrate on my cut kick, I can use it against different opponents to see how people counter my cut kick. The hard part about doing this is not abandoning the technique you are working on. You will get countered, you will get frustrated, you will feel like just going back to what you are comfortable with...but don't. You are gaining experience for the furture.

A few things you can work on

1. Don't throw any spinning techniques
2. Try to jam your opponents attacks
3. Punch more
4. Movement in all directions, not just straight back

You will find that through experimenting you will discover ways to beat different types of fighters that might be more effective than what you are currently doing. When you find yourself in a situation where you want to win, you have this experience to draw upon to develop a good gameplan.

Just my two cents


----------



## Danny T (Aug 29, 2016)

Sparring is about learning.
If you are sparring with an attitude of winning then you are competing not sparring.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 29, 2016)

What do you want to develop through your sparring process?

- You punch back because your opponent punch you?
- You kick back because your opponent kicks you?
- You just want to hit your opponent more than he hits you?

Since you just can't knock your opponent down 15 rounds in a role, for a pure striking game sparring, the goal is very hard to define.


----------



## MaMaD (Aug 29, 2016)

useful information. but i didn't understand last sentence


----------



## Headhunter (Aug 29, 2016)

There's no such thing as winning a sparring match there's no judges and no one says a winner or a loser if you think you won or lost that's your ego nothing more. You should never think I won that sparring match you just think of what you did well and what you didnt winning and losing only matters to your ego. Everyone wins at sparring because everyone learns. That's the whole point.


----------



## marques (Aug 29, 2016)

@Kung Fu Wang I didn't understand why you say the goal is very hard to define.
I focus on one 'random' thing every training. Something I think I need to develop or according to training circumstances /partners. If one training is not enough I may think about it and come back with an hipoteses to try next day. What is difficult?


----------



## Buka (Aug 29, 2016)

Hundreds of hours, over years and years. Lots of ice. Sometimes you're trying to understand exactly why you love this so.

Hundreds more hours, sometimes sparring with world class artists. You're trying to understand exactly what the hell are you doing with him......and why you just love it.

Hundreds more hours, remembering when the guy you're sparring was just a wee pup. And how he just caught you. And trying to understand why you love this, oh, so very much.

Hundreds of more hours. The clock ticks, the *****, bowing to nobody, ever. Get your time in, all you can. And smile.  Always smile.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 29, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Sparring is about learning.
> If you are sparring with an attitude of winning then you are competing not sparring.



Competition is the point of sparring. So there needs to be an element of win. 

For us if we are miles out from a fight then there is more exploration than competition. If we are closer to a fight it is lees about trying new things and more about refining what we know. And it is more about competition.

Especially in mma.  Because you can spend five minutes under a guy getting pounded.  So you dont want to get too crazy too early.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 29, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What do you want to develop through your sparring process?
> 
> - You punch back because your opponent punch you?
> - You kick back because your opponent kicks you?
> ...


Sparring makes it possible to work on techniques that you may not be good at without the risk of being destroyed as if you are in a real fight trying to learn how to apply techniques.  There are techniques that I would never try in a real fight solely because at my level of understanding, those techniques would be high risk.  Give me a few months of learning the technique through sparring and that technique no longer becomes a high risk technique that gets me beat up.  The once difficult to use technique now becomes as easy to use as a basic technique.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 29, 2016)

marques said:


> @Kung Fu Wang I didn't understand why you say the goal is very hard to define.
> I focus on one 'random' thing every training. Something I think I need to develop or according to training circumstances /partners. If one training is not enough I may think about it and come back with an hipoteses to try next day. What is difficult?


Let's compare wrestling with sparring.

In wrestling, you may want to spend 6 months to up 2 years just to develop 1 single technique (such as "single leg", or "hip throw", or ...). When you can use "single leg" to take 7 different opponents down one after another, you know that you have developed a dependable technique. You then start to use this technique to set up your 2nd technique. You now start to train "combo".

Since in sparring, you just can't knock 7 opponents down one after another, how will you be able to know that you have developed a dependable technique?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 29, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Competition is the point of sparring. So there needs to be an element of win.


Agree. If you don't keep a win-lose record, you will never know when you have developed a dependable technique so you can start to work on another technique or combo.

It's not ego. It's to be honest to yourself and know exactly where you are.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 29, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree. If you don't keep a win-lose record, you will never know when you have developed a dependable technique so you can start to work on another technique or combo.
> 
> It's not ego. It's to be honest to yourself and know exactly where you are.


If I can punch you in the face with a technique that has a high success rate then I know I have a dependable technique that can be used on you and on others who give me the same opening.  I don't need to win or lose to know if it's dependable. I just need to know I can hit you with it.  

Jabs are dependable. Both fighters use them. Does losing determine if it's dependable? Or does the fact that it lands successfully determine that it's dependable.

When you get to a certain level, you'll be able to tell if you can land a technique even if you don't throw it. I'm sure I'm not the only one that has been able to pull power off a punch and still have a successful hit.


----------



## marques (Aug 30, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Let's compare wrestling with sparring.
> 
> In wrestling, you may want to spend 6 months to up 2 years just to develop 1 single technique (such as "single leg", or "hip throw", or ...). When you can use "single leg" to take 7 different opponents down one after another, you know that you have developed a dependable technique. You then start to use this technique to set up your 2nd technique. You now start to train "combo".
> 
> Since in sparring, you just can't knock 7 opponents down one after another, how will you be able to know that you have developed a dependable technique?


I think I am close to understand. And since we should not knockout people for nothing, I agree with you. But striking is much more than KO. After me , power is the last thing to be trained. And maximum power is to be trained in a bag or something alike.
I was teached how to make pain with little speed and little muscles contraction. I derivate that with speed and muscle would be worst on the receiver side...
Grappling have not that kind of training limitations. Have other?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 30, 2016)

I tell students they must try new techniques and strategies they learn in class when sparring. They should expect an initial 90% failure rate. As they gain proficiency in the technique or strategy the failure rate will decrease. At some point the success rate will determine if the technique suits them for competition.


----------



## Rough Rider (Aug 30, 2016)

I find it odd that Takwondo calls it "sparring" during competition. In boxing, "sparring" is practice; competition it's "fighting".  So when Headhunter says that there's no judges, winners, or losers in sparring, I know what he means, but really, there are. Taekwondo tournaments have sparring matches with referees and judges.


----------



## marques (Aug 30, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Competition is the point of sparring. So there needs to be an element of win.
> 
> For us if we are miles out from a fight then there is more exploration than competition. If we are closer to a fight it is lees about trying new things...



I don't compete, so I should be stucked in the exploration phase. And my sparring is pointless.  
I understand you as a competitor, or as a competitor's coach, but you seem forgetting the non sports side...
Anyway we agree agree that competitors need more competitive sparring, other people not so much... (never closer to a fight, ideally)


----------



## Thousand Kicks (Aug 30, 2016)

Some interesting comments.

@Headhunter. The comment that everybody wins at sparring because everybody learns while sparring is simply not true. While it is true that doing something over and over will gain you some level of proficiency; you will hit a point where your training has to be more focused to get better. If you continue making mistakes while sparring with no attempt to correct the mistakes, you're not learning anything.

@Danny T. Yes, sparring with the attitude of winning is competing. But, I beleive this attitude has to be developed. If you never compete in training how do you compete in tournaments? How do you know when to turn it on?

@JowGaWolf . Winning or losing a match doesn't determine if a speciic technique is effective. It will tell you if your strategy was effective. In your post you say a jab is an effective tool. This is true. What you should ask is when is a jab an effective tool. When is a jab not an effective tool. Against opponent A, the jab may work great. Against opponent B, the jab may not work at all. So, the strategy to use or not use the jab is what's important, not the effectiveness of the jab itself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 30, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Sparring is about learning.
> If you are sparring with an attitude of winning then you are competing not sparring.


Agreed. There are two ways I'd consider using the terminology for clarity:

1) As Danny says, sparring is the learning segment, and competition is the practicum. In this case, during some classes you may spar, and in other classes you may compete.l
2) An alternate usage is that sparring is the competitive practicum, and we can also "practice for sparring", which is the learning segment. Thus, in some classes you may spar, and in other classes you may practice for sparring.

I'm okay with either usage, and have been guilty of using both interchangeably (my students just LOVE that level of clarity).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 30, 2016)

marques said:


> I don't compete, so I should be stucked in the exploration phase. And my sparring is pointless.
> I understand you as a competitor, or as a competitor's coach, but you seem forgetting the non sports side...
> Anyway we agree agree that competitors need more competitive sparring, other people not so much... (never closer to a fight, ideally)


I would argue that there's an element of competition in sparring, even for those of us who don't compete. If you and I are sparring, I'm trying to hit you as well and often as possible, while trying to defeat your attempts to hit me. That's a competition between us, whether we keep score or not - each successful strike is a score for the striker and each stymied attack is a score for the defender.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 30, 2016)

marques said:


> I think I am close to understand. And since we should not knockout people for nothing, I agree with you. But striking is much more than KO. After me , power is the last thing to be trained. And maximum power is to be trained in a bag or something alike.
> I was teached how to make pain with little speed and little muscles contraction. I derivate that with speed and muscle would be worst on the receiver side...
> Grappling have not that kind of training limitations. Have other?


We train with the mindset that a hard block that makes a person less likely to throw another pun


Thousand Kicks said:


> Some interesting comments.
> 
> @Headhunter. The comment that everybody wins at sparring because everybody learns while sparring is simply not true. While it is true that doing something over and over will gain you some level of proficiency; you will hit a point where your training has to be more focused to get better. If you continue making mistakes while sparring with no attempt to correct the mistakes, you're not learning anything.
> 
> ...


I agree and is the reason why I don't view winning as a sign of how effective or how dependable a technique is. If both fighters use a jab yet one still loses, then how can the win be proof of how dependable the jab is when there is also a fighter who lost using the jab. 
You are correct.
As you state winning and losing is about strategy. Winning can also be defined. What makes a win a win? The person who gets hit the least? The person who strikes fist? The person who throws more punches? The person who gets knocked out?

Winning also implies upon an agreed upon goal in which both fighters try to reach
 through the use of strategy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 30, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> What makes a win a win? The person who gets hit the least? The person who strikes fist? The person who throws more punches? The person who gets knocked out?



I know what you meant, but all I could think was, "Since when is the winner the one who got knocked out?"


----------



## marques (Aug 30, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I would argue that there's an element of competition in sparring, even for those of us who don't compete. If you and I are sparring, I'm trying to hit you as well and often as possible, while trying to defeat your attempts to hit me. That's a competition between us, whether we keep score or not - each successful strike is a score for the striker and each stymied attack is a score for the defender.


We agree there is always some competition. If not, it is a dance.  And somtimes competition should be the main purpose.

But if we spar I will not try to win you. I will defend and observe you at first. I will let you 'win' by passivity to know your skills and where you want to go... 

After a first assessment I will set my targets according to it. Much better person than me and I will be happy if I can defend myself. Very week person (in relation to me) I will try spinning kicks, footwork with hands on my back... And spend a lot of time showing my weaknesses, in order to have the challenge even against people with little training or skill.

I may have no chance against you. But I will think about that all the time and comeback with an hypothesis. Even if it fails, I am learning with the process. Wining in sparring is learning. Thinking about sparring may also be learning...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 30, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I know what you meant, but all I could think was, "Since when is the winner the one who got knocked out?"


Totally agree. I wonder if Kung Fu Wang is like the other instructor at my school who is always telling me to blast him in his face instead of pulling the punch when I see that a my strike is going through uncontested. I wonder if Kung Fu Wang would give me the same opportunity to hit him full strength if we were to spar or if he's like me and prefers that his sparring partner doesn't connect with full force when he's been caught wide open.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 30, 2016)

We have sparring sessions and fighting session.
Sparring sessions are about learning, using new or different actions/techniques/timing/combinations etc.
Fight sessions are competitive intermediate power 1/3 - 2/3 speed or power sessions and are about winning.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 30, 2016)

Danny T said:


> We have sparring sessions and fighting session.
> Sparring sessions are about learning, using new or different actions/techniques/timing/combinations etc.
> Fight sessions are competitive intermediate power 1/3 - 2/3 speed or power sessions and are about winning.


What do you use to determine the winner? Is it on a point scale?


----------



## Danny T (Aug 30, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> What do you use to determine the winner? Is it on a point scale?


Now that would depend upon what type of competition you are training for.
We don't keep score we simple fight.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 30, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Now that would depend upon what type of competition you are training for.
> We don't keep score we simple fight.


Sounds similar to fighters determine who won by how they felt coming out of the fight.


----------



## Buka (Aug 30, 2016)

The two guys that fought - they both know who won. 
When they both think they won, it was either close enough to be an actual stalemate, or one is lying his butt off....probably due to ego.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2016)

marques said:


> I don't compete, so I should be stucked in the exploration phase. And my sparring is pointless.
> I understand you as a competitor, or as a competitor's coach, but you seem forgetting the non sports side...
> Anyway we agree agree that competitors need more competitive sparring, other people not so much... (never closer to a fight, ideally)



Depends if you ever want to really shake out the cobwebs every now and then.

A propper knock down drag out fight style sparring session will do the same for non competitive martial artists as it does for competitive ones.

Tenacity wins fights as much as technique. Especially in the first few fights where technique is not as big a factor. Now if you were training to stop a potential attacker. That is almost your entire zone. Unless they have a knife. Then you are boned.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2016)

Danny T said:


> We have sparring sessions and fighting session.
> Sparring sessions are about learning, using new or different actions/techniques/timing/combinations etc.
> Fight sessions are competitive intermediate power 1/3 - 2/3 speed or power sessions and are about winning.



Sparring like that is also about loosing. Which you can't do if you never really tried to win.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 30, 2016)

Buka said:


> The two guys that fought - they both know who won.
> When they both think they won, it was either close enough to be an actual stalemate, or one is lying his butt off....probably due to ego.


Recently I have been focusing more on my linear techniques and decided not to use any big circular punches.  I was able to do pretty well but I also too got punched in the face with stuff that I normally don't get hit with.  I walked away feeling that I did bad that day and it puzzled me as to why I got hit in the face the way I did.  Then it occurred to me that I was totally focusing on using different techniques and that I hadn't thrown any big punches.

After that I didn't feel bad about the punches because it's expected when trying to learn how to apply unused / new techniques.  For a while I felt like I lost the sparring matches but also like I lost my fighting ability.  The good news is that I didn't lose my skills, but the bad news is that now I've gotten to the point with my techniques where I need to buy the full face protection head gear, so I can learn these other techniques without getting a fat lip every 2 weeks.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 30, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I hadn't thrown any big punches.


You don't need to throw 100% powerful punch on your opponent's face. You can throw 100% powerful punch on his shoulder instead. The shoulder and face are the same distance from your reach. I like to use my opponent's shoulders as my punching bag. I also don't mind my opponent to use my shoulders as his punching bag. If you can knock your opponent down by using a 45 degree downward hay-maker on the side of his shoulder, it may prove your knock down power but it won't hurt him that much.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 30, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Sounds similar to fighters determine who won by how they felt coming out of the fight.


I'm discussing sparring and fight training in prep for a real competition where one fights to ko or submit the opponent (even if it goes the full time and rounds for the contest).


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 30, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You don't need to throw 100% powerful punch on your opponent's face. You can throw 100% powerful punch on his shoulder instead. The shoulder and face are the same distance from your reach. I like to use my opponent's shoulders as my punching bag. I also don't mind my opponent to use my shoulders as his punching bag. If you can knock your opponent down by using a 45 degree downward hay-maker on the side of his shoulder, it may prove your knock down power but it won't hurt him that much.


ok. Just making sure you didn't have some kind of secret face conditioning technique that I didn't know about. lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 30, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You don't need to throw 100% powerful punch on your opponent's face. You can throw 100% powerful punch on his shoulder instead. The shoulder and face are the same distance from your reach. I like to use my opponent's shoulders as my punching bag. I also don't mind my opponent to use my shoulders as his punching bag. If you can knock your opponent down by using a 45 degree downward hay-maker on the side of his shoulder, it may prove your knock down power but it won't hurt him that much.


That distance is only the same if the opponent has not bladed his body at all. If he's standing at 45 degrees, his front shoulder is inches closer (on both vertical and horizontal planes) than his head.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 30, 2016)

Danny T said:


> I'm discussing sparring and fight training in prep for a real competition where one fights to ko or submit the opponent (even if it goes the full time and rounds for the contest).


I'll take the submit road, that way I can tap out lol


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 30, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That distance is only the same if the opponent has not bladed his body at all. If he's standing at 45 degrees, his front shoulder is inches closer (on both vertical and horizontal planes) than his head.


If you

- can't defend your shoulder, you can't defend your head.
- can hurt your opponent's shoulder, you can hurt your opponent's head.

The bottom line is, you

- will feel good if your fist can hit on solid object.
- won't feel good if your fist always hit on the thin air.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you
> 
> - can't defend your shoulder, you can't defend your head.
> - can hurt your opponent's shoulder, you can hurt your opponent's head.



I protect my head with my shoulder. And generally face punch.  I have done sparring with the shoulder as a target.  But i tend to put it in the way of a punch rather than protect it.  So it messes me up a bit.

But i also like puzzles so it is an interesting mechanic to fight with.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 30, 2016)

It's always a challenge to move from light contact into full contact. I once used the Kendo equipment. Since it doesn't hurt when your opponent punches on your chest, you don't worry about blocking. That's not good either.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you
> 
> - can't defend your shoulder, you can't defend your head.
> - can hurt your opponent's shoulder, you can hurt your opponent's head.
> ...


My point is that it's a useful substitute, but it's not actually the same distance. Yes, if you can't hit his shoulder, you probably can't hit his head. However, being able to hit his shoulder does not mean you could have hit his head. The shoulder is an easier target in many situations. It does give you the advantage of being able to hit fairly hard without worrying about head injury, so, again, it's a useful substitute for some good reasons.

Oh, and I'll also argue the shoulder is much harder to defend from certain angles, so getting hit in the shoulder doesn't mean you weren't defending your head.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 31, 2016)

marques said:


> I don't compete, so I should be stucked in the exploration phase. And my sparring is pointless.
> I understand you as a competitor, or as a competitor's coach, but you seem forgetting the non sports side...
> Anyway we agree agree that competitors need more competitive sparring, other people not so much... (never closer to a fight, ideally)



People must agree how terms are defined before a meaningful discussion can be had. 
It seems the discussion has expanded to encompass 3 separate things:
1. Training. Learning and developing techniques and strategies for use against an opponent or adversary for sparring or self defense depending on training goals. 
2. Sparring -  Sport combat within a specific rule set where a winner is ultimately determined by points, submission, knockout / unconsciousness or DQ. 
3. Fighting. Willing participants engage in combat with no ruleset. Goal is to defeat opponent. Opponent can not or will not continue. 
4. Self defense. Otherwise unwilling participant forced to defend (Can involve pre emption) Against an attacker. No rules - Goal is survival / protection of others.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> People must agree how terms are defined before a meaningful discussion can be had.
> It seems the discussion has expanded to encompass 3 separate things:
> 1. Training. Learning and developing techniques and strategies for use against an opponent or adversary for sparring or self defense depending on training goals.
> 2. Sparring -  Sport combat within a specific rule set where a winner is ultimately determined by points, submission, knockout / unconsciousness or DQ.
> ...


You've left out of your "sparring" definition the type of sparring that is done without points or judges and which is not a sport activity by most people's definition. It's a very similar activity, and would be odd to lump it into "training" where so many different activities exist. I'd segment "sparring" from "sport competition", so perhaps have 5 categories. The conversation would be discussing the "sparring" and "sport competition" categories.


----------



## Thousand Kicks (Aug 31, 2016)

I see people getting hung up on the word "win". When my teacher used the phrase sparring to win, he wasn't referring to a competition where somebody is declared the winner or loser at the end. He was just talking about a competitive or serious mind set. It's just getting in the head space where your telling yourself that you are employing a strategy and trying to make it work.

Fellow students have asked me to watch them spar to give my advice on things to improve. At the end of the round(s), my first question is always "What were you trying to do?" Most times I get a funny look followed by "What do you mean, I was sparring." To get better at anything means you have to assess where you are and determine the goal. Simply saying I want to get better is not going to help much. Get better at what, your defense, your offense, yout footwork?

The root of his question is how are you trying to improve yourself.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 31, 2016)

Let's compare "sparring" with "wrestling".

In

- wrestling, you try to take your opponent down, and not to be taken down by your opponent.
- sparring, you ...

Why should people treat "sparring - test your striking skill" and "wrestling - test your grappling skill" any different?


----------



## marques (Sep 1, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> 4. Self defense. Otherwise unwilling participant forced to defend (Can involve pre emption) Against an attacker. No rules - Goal is survival / protection of others.



Self defence is plenty of rules. Otherwise, it is free violence.

But, while I don't agree completely with the definitions, you touched the point: we are not talking about the same, since sparring, training, fighting, self defence have different definitions and interpretations. Anyway, we get something from these discussions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2016)

marques said:


> Self defence is plenty of rules. Otherwise, it is free violence.
> 
> But, while I don't agree completely with the definitions, you touched the point: we are not talking about the same, since sparring, training, fighting, self defence have different definitions and interpretations. Anyway, we get something from these discussions.


There are no rules during self-defense. Attackers don't follow a rule book. If they did, they wouldn't be attacking.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 1, 2016)

marques said:


> Self defence is plenty of rules. Otherwise, it is free violence.


Examples of "Rules" for self defense please.


----------



## marques (Sep 1, 2016)

From the beginning, self-defence is a legal term. If it is not legal, it is not self-defence, in a strict sense. I know a lot of people use their own definition. But the rules of self-defence are written.

For instance, Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service . I did not verify the content, but the source must be trustable. It was just the first I found.

Ok, no rules from the side of the attacker. Anyway he will avoid bad consequences for him... So some limitations also for him.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 1, 2016)

marques said:


> Anyway he will avoid bad consequences for him... So some limitations also for him.


I never assume that my attacker cares about the bad consequences for him.  People get murdered, stabbed, shot, jumped by multiple attackers, sucker punched, and stomped every day.  The only thing I can assume is that I could easily be included in one of those groups.  My job is to defend myself in a way that doesn't put me in one of those groups.  Because I don't want to go to jail or prison, I must make sure that my response is reasonable within the law.  This means that certain requirements must be met before I can go to the extreme of defending myself.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 1, 2016)

Thousand Kicks said:


> Fellow students have asked me to watch them spar to give my advice on things to improve. At the end of the round(s), my first question is always "What were you trying to do?"


I ask my students this as well, so I don't give them a lecture about why they ate so many punches.  If they tell me that they are working on trying to use a specific technique then I can guide them and help them out.  If they say something like "I was just trying to hit him," then they will get a lecture from me.

I also ask them what were they thinking about when they were sparring.  A lot of times they say "nothing" so then I ask them what were they noticing about their opponent during the sparring.  If they say "nothing" again then I give them a lecture.

There always has to be a goal or an awareness of the opponent beyond "trying to hit."


----------



## marques (Sep 1, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I never assume that my attacker cares about the bad consequences for him.



You should not assume it, don't get me wrong. But you can use it to your advantage. Guys that want to kill or so don't like witnesses (and it is a good excuse in the court to be aggressive if you are attacked in an isolated place  - if you can justify you could not run away). So just screaming and running may be a good solution. A 'bar fight' only make sense with witnesses and the same strategy does not apply...
Here I am going a bit far from 'rules', but the 'everything goes' is also far from the reported facts. Yet, we must be ready!! 



JowGaWolf said:


> Because I don't want to go to jail or prison, I must make sure that my response is reasonable within the law.  This means that certain requirements must be met before I can go to the extreme of defending myself.



You know what self-defence is. It should be nothing special in the martial arts niche, but sadly it still is...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 1, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Because I don't want to go to jail or prison, I must make sure that my response is reasonable within the law.


One of my students got into a bar fight. in that 10 minutes, he played 100% defense. His opponent's punches could not land on his body. After 10 minutes, his opponent sat down on the coach and didn't know why he could not hit on my student. That fight ended right there and nobody got hurt.

IMO, if you can show your opponent that he can't hurt you that easy, he may not want to continue that fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2016)

marques said:


> From the beginning, self-defence is a legal term. If it is not legal, it is not self-defence, in a strict sense. I know a lot of people use their own definition. But the rules of self-defence are written.
> 
> For instance, Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service . I did not verify the content, but the source must be trustable. It was just the first I found.
> 
> Ok, no rules from the side of the attacker. Anyway he will avoid bad consequences for him... So some limitations also for him.


Self-defense is a legal term, when it is used as a defense against legal action. That, however, is not the only usage. In the sense it is most commonly used here, it refers to physical action taken to defend against imminent violence. In that context, there are no rules.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2016)

marques said:


> Ok, no rules from the side of the attacker. Anyway he will avoid bad consequences for him... So some limitations also for him.



What bad consequences do you see him avoiding that place a limitation on him? And how will the potential victim recognize those limitations during the attack?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One of my students got into a bar fight. in that 10 minutes, he played 100% defense. His opponent's punches could not land on his body. After 10 minutes, his opponent sat down on the coach and didn't know why he could not hit on my student. That fight ended right there and nobody got hurt.
> 
> IMO, if you can show your opponent that he can't hurt you that easy, he may not want to continue that fight.


If the attacker was completely ineffectual, that may have been a reasonable response. If the attacker was giving attacks that would otherwise have been problematic (could cause real injury), then 10 minutes is far too long to stay in that danger zone. It only takes one stone on the ground, one spilled drink, or one stupid mistake to give someone an opening. If it was a clear case of out-matching the other guy, then some method of restraining him would have been a wiser choice, in my opinion.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 1, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One of my students got into a bar fight. in that 10 minutes, he played 100% defense. His opponent's punches could not land on his body. After 10 minutes, his opponent sat down on the coach and didn't know why he could not hit on my student. That fight ended right there and nobody got hurt.
> 
> IMO, if you can show your opponent that he can't hurt you that easy, he may not want to continue that fight.


 What would your student have done if someone was more than content to attack his limbs?


----------



## drop bear (Sep 1, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> There are no rules during self-defense. Attackers don't follow a rule book. If they did, they wouldn't be attacking.



Not that it really matters for sparring.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 1, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> What would your student have done if someone was more than content to attack his limbs?


To play defense in the beginning to let people know that you didn't start this fight can be important in court if legal issue is what you are worry about.


----------



## marques (Sep 4, 2016)

Fr


gpseymour said:


> What bad consequences do you see him avoiding that place a limitation on him? And how will the potential victim recognise those limitations during the attack?


From one side, I understand the question. I try to say everything, and more, in two sentences. From another side,  I just give the clues that the reader may explore or not. I will not lecture you (the readers).

Another clue: People interested in self-defence should know about violence dynamics and may, as an intellectual exercise, read (choose?) all the environments he gets in identifying threats and possible exits. It may seem extreme for some, but is what we do naturally when driving. To finish, during the attack anything is a bit late if you missed all the precedent steps...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 4, 2016)

marques said:


> Fr
> 
> From one side, I understand the question. I try to say everything, and more, in two sentences. From another side,  I just give the clues that the reader may explore or not. I will not lecture you (the readers).
> 
> Another clue: People interested in self-defence should know about violence dynamics and may, as an intellectual exercise, read (choose?) all the environments he gets in identifying threats and possible exits. It may seem extreme for some, but is what we do naturally when driving. To finish, during the attack anything is a bit late if you missed all the precedent steps...


Instead of providing "clues" in a discussion, why not simply communicate what you want others to understand? You made a statement that doesn't make sense to me. I asked for clarification.


----------



## marques (Sep 4, 2016)

@gpseymour , I know I am not always clear. And your question is absolutely legit. But I am 'working' on a voluntary basis and I go until I want, or can. I will try to communicate better on next posts, but I will not be stuck on that subject. There are many websites and books on the subject. I like (your) questioning, but not on that subject I already discussed 100's of times...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 4, 2016)

marques said:


> @gpseymour , I know I am not always clear. And your question is absolutely legit. But I am 'working' on a voluntary basis and I go until I want, or can. I will try to communicate better on next posts, but I will not be stuck on that subject. There are many websites and books on the subject. I like (your) questioning, but not on that subject I already discussed 100's of times...


Actually, you made a statement that doesn't make sense. If you intend to communicate anything, you should clarify your statement. My question is direct and clear - what did you mean by your statement? I cannot go somewhere and look up what you meant - only you can tell me that.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> What bad consequences do you see him avoiding that place a limitation on him? And how will the potential victim recognize those limitations during the attack?



Fine we will go here. 

This is easy. So for example someone sticks a knife in your face and asks for you wallet. He doesn't want to kill. So that becomes his limitation. 

So instead of scratching his eyes out.  Your defence becomes to give him your wallet. 

Otherwise all i ever hear is rules in a street fight. 

You cant kick guys in the head. 
You camt go to the ground.
Apparently you can't even thai clinch. 
Fights all occur at close range. 
And so on.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 4, 2016)

Otherwise there are elements that are not technical that will win fights. Physicality, tenacity, fitness.

If you never spar to win. You will not explore and develop those elements within yourself.

The mental game of fighting a guy who really wants to beat you. If you want to explore that element of self defence where you are under stress and winning is important you have to include those elements in your training.

I turn it off and on as needed.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 5, 2016)

marques said:


> From the beginning, self-defence is a legal term. If it is not legal, it is not self-defence, in a strict sense. I know a lot of people use their own definition. But the rules of self-defence are written.
> 
> For instance, Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service . I did not verify the content, but the source must be trustable. It was just the first I found.
> 
> Ok, no rules from the side of the attacker. Anyway he will avoid bad consequences for him... So some limitations also for him.



In the future you may wish to define your terms. Without your premise, and definitions it is difficult to understand your point. With your premise and definitions it is much easier. 
Legalities and rules are not  necessarily the same thing.  Nor is the concept of "Self Defense" necessarily a legal one particularly since the legalities may vary depending on jurisdiction.


----------

