How Important is Fighting in YOUR Martial Art?

[Chris Parker]

I am not sure how bunkai address the issue that the other is denying you the ability to do all of these moves to him.

Out of interest, how are you defining bunkai?

eg.

I will call it the bad partner. (yes another made up term)

Sparring/fighting exposes you to a different dynamic. And it is an important one.

You… er…. do know that that is a staged/set up clip, yeah?

With regards to sparring exposing you to a different dynamic, yeah… but other training methods expose you to ones (I'd argue more realistic ones) than sparring does… that's the point of different training methodologies, really.

 

[Spinedoc]

Out of interest, how are you defining bunkai?



You… er…. do know that that is a staged/set up clip, yeah?

With regards to sparring exposing you to a different dynamic, yeah… but other training methods expose you to ones (I'd argue more realistic ones) than sparring does… that's the point of different training methodologies, really.

But, but, but……wait…it's on the internet. Therefore it must be real and true…….

 

[Paul_D]

I am not sure how bunkai address the issue that the other is denying you the ability to do all of these moves to him.

Iain Abernthy's interpretations of kata bunkai deal with this issue.

 

[dominate_warrior]

I think that if you are capable of doing so than yes, I believe it is very important. It's not all about fighting. It's about finding strength and discipline in yourself; learning more and more each day about the art and yourself.

So yes it can be very important but don't let it make you forget about the true meaning of why martial arts exist and came about.

Em

 

[drop bear]

Out of interest, how are you defining bunkai?



You… er…. do know that that is a staged/set up clip, yeah?

With regards to sparring exposing you to a different dynamic, yeah… but other training methods expose you to ones (I'd argue more realistic ones) than sparring does… that's the point of different training methodologies, really.

yes i know it is staged. It was an example of what i am on about. That bad partner facto is a pretty big deal though.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The reason I say this is that in tournaments you are penalised for not attacking, yet in a fighting sense it is easier and is normally more advantageous to defend than to attack.

There's a bit of a catch-22 with that approach, however. You're quite correct that for self-defense the roles of attacker and defender are asymmetric. Sparring in the conventional sense can lead the student to build habits of engaging and attacking which can be counterproductive in a self-defense scenario where they need to be defending, disengaging, and escaping.

The problem I've seen in many, many schools where they primarily practice defenses predicated on a given attack, is that the students never actually get good at attacking*. If your training partner isn't good at attacking, then you will never develop really solid defenses against those attacks.

That's why I think there is an important place for the sort of sparring that develops solid aggressive tactics. You might not use those tactics in self-defense, but you will use them to help your training partners get better at defending.

*(Most of those schools give lip service to delivering a good attack and insist on delivering the attack according to certain guidelines, but the attacks still end up being something that will never be effective against a competent opponent.)

 

[drop bear]

There's a bit of a catch-22 with that approach, however. You're quite correct that for self-defense the roles of attacker and defender are asymmetric. Sparring in the conventional sense can lead the student to build habits of engaging and attacking which can be counterproductive in a self-defense scenario where they need to be defending, disengaging, and escaping.

The problem I've seen in many, many schools where they primarily practice defenses predicated on a given attack, is that the students never actually get good at attacking*. If your training partner isn't good at attacking, then you will never develop really solid defenses against those attacks.

That's why I think there is an important place for the sort of sparring that develops solid aggressive tactics. You might not use those tactics in self-defense, but you will use them to help your training partners get better at defending.

*(Most of those schools give lip service to delivering a good attack and insist on delivering the attack according to certain guidelines, but the attacks still end up being something that will never be effective against a competent opponent.)

Why i made up the bad partner idea. Fighting is about denying the other guys options from that outset. You don't let that grab come on and then defend.

You defend as soon as you can.

Triangle defence is a good example. The best defence is positional.

 

[drop bear]

Out of interest, how are you defining bunkai?

 

[K-man]

There's a bit of a catch-22 with that approach, however. You're quite correct that for self-defense the roles of attacker and defender are asymmetric. Sparring in the conventional sense can lead the student to build habits of engaging and attacking which can be counterproductive in a self-defense scenario where they need to be defending, disengaging, and escaping.

The problem I've seen in many, many schools where they primarily practice defenses predicated on a given attack, is that the students never actually get good at attacking*. If your training partner isn't good at attacking, then you will never develop really solid defenses against those attacks.

That's why I think there is an important place for the sort of sparring that develops solid aggressive tactics. You might not use those tactics in self-defense, but you will use them to help your training partners get better at defending.

*(Most of those schools give lip service to delivering a good attack and insist on delivering the attack according to certain guidelines, but the attacks still end up being something that will never be effective against a competent opponent.)

I think you have identified an important issue, that being unrealistic attacks. I don't like conventional competition sparring because it is not what you want for self defence. Self defence is the prime objective in all my training and sport sparring has no place.

Most attacks you see on Youtube and presumably in a large number of martial art schools is when someone steps in and punches then leaves the arm hanging out so that the person performing the defence can do what they like. Except in the very early stages of training I don't do that. However, you can't train a defence against a particular attack unless you know what attack is coming. Down the track we train against an unscripted attack where you just respond instinctively but it takes time to get people to that level.

So it depends on what you want to test. If you want to test a particular technique you need a particular attack and as you say, that is not really applicable to the real world. However, if you don't specify an attack you can test the student's response to an unknown, realistic attack. To me that is far more realistic than sport sparring.

Does that make the attacker better at attacking? I couldn't really say because in reality once he attacks he is immediately being attacked violently back and if you are not used to that it can be really confronting, totally different to the give and take of normal sparring.

 

[K-man]

Ok, to me, despite the label there was no bunkai in this clip. There is a training drill called Kakie which is a bit like sticky hands, there was testing of the stability of Sanchin Kata and there was an explanation of several individual techniques that just happen to be in kata Seisan. Plus a few weak strikes to the torso that have nothing at all to do with bunkai. Bunkai assumes a series of techniques that are linked, leading to the attacker being disabled.

If this is your definition of bunkai ... it makes discussion impossible.

 

[drop bear]

Ok, to me, despite the label there was no bunkai in this clip. There is a training drill called Kakie which is a bit like sticky hands, there was testing of the stability of Sanchin Kata and there was an explanation of several individual techniques that just happen to be in kata Seisan. Plus a few weak strikes to the torso that have nothing at all to do with bunkai. Bunkai assumes a series of techniques that are linked, leading to the attacker being disabled.

If this is your definition of bunkai ... it makes discussion impossible.

Yeah ok.

No true Scotsman.

 

[drop bear]

Does that make the attacker better at attacking? I couldn't really say because in reality once he attacks he is immediately being attacked violently back and if you are not used to that it can be really confronting, totally different to the give and take of normal sparring.

The better he attacks the less chance he is going to get countered.

And not all sparring is at that one for one pace. Ronda rouseys last fight as an example.

 

[drop bear]

The better he attacks the less chance he is going to get countered.

And not all sparring is at that one for one pace. Ronda rouseys last fight as an example.

hardly give and take.

 

[K-man]

The better he attacks the less chance he is going to get countered.

And not all sparring is at that one for one pace. Ronda rouseys last fight as an example.

And that's fine. But that doesn't mean that we have to go down the track of competition sparring to effectively test our technique.

 

[drop bear]

And that's fine. But that doesn't mean that we have to go down the track of competition sparring to effectively test our technique.

You can play around with the concept of competition sparring. But at some stage you will have to test your stuff with a fairly open playing field.

What this provides you is the ability to roll over the guy in ten seconds if that is what you think will work. Or not. If you think something else will work.

And not this concept where you have this conclusion and you are trying to validate it.

Which I think is a backwards way to go.

This is why no security trainer sparrs the concept of standing arm locks. Because they have an outcome they have to reach. Which is standing arm locks will actually work.

And when you spar. They mostly don't.

 

[drop bear]

knife defence may be the easiest to finds and most glaring example of what i am suggesting here.

The issue is you are generally going to look like a goose regardless of your martial experience if you train this way.

 

[K-man]

knife defence may be the easiest to finds and most glaring example of what i am suggesting here.

The issue is you are generally going to look like a goose regardless of your martial experience if you train this way.

I don't have an is due with this. The 'fantasy' attacks are what I describe as God's gift to you. If you get that sort of attack, great but it is not all that likely if the guy with the knife has any experience. However there are different factors in play. Does the guy really want to kill or is there another reason for using the knife? If it is a robbery or hostage situation you may well have a static knife. If it is a domestic, the ice pick attack is the most common here. But we train with knives every night to get the guys familiar with the 'real' style attacks as shown in your video. It is not easy to defend against a knife which us why the advice is always, "if you don't have to fight the guy with a knife, don't. Keep your ego out of it."

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Most attacks you see on Youtube and presumably in a large number of martial art schools is when someone steps in and punches then leaves the arm hanging out so that the person performing the defence can do what they like. Except in the very early stages of training I don't do that. However, you can't train a defence against a particular attack unless you know what attack is coming. Down the track we train against an unscripted attack where you just respond instinctively but it takes time to get people to that level.

Yeah, drilling against a specific, known attack is part of the process before you get to training against unscripted attacks. That's not really what I'm talking about when I talk about training partners not knowing how to deliver good attacks. I'm talking about telegraphed attacks with poor distancing, poor balance, poor body dynamics, and no awareness of what the intended follow-up would be.

Does that make the attacker better at attacking? I couldn't really say because in reality once he attacks he is immediately being attacked violently back and if you are not used to that it can be really confronting, totally different to the give and take of normal sparring.

Being immediately and violently counterattacked should be part of the sparring experience. (I'm not talking about "tag, you're it" point sparring, obviously.) It's true that much of sparring can end up being a chess game with lots of "feeling out" going on, but everybody should have the experience of launching a poorly timed or ineffective attack and being repaid with a barrage of punches or being slammed to the ground. That's part of how you learn the flaws in your attacks.

 

[Hanzou]

Honestly, the sparring portion is far more telling;

 

[MJS]

Honestly, the sparring portion is far more telling;

LOL! No comment. However, I'd much rather see some Black Belt sparring, such as this:

or even this:

At least they're hitting, and the hits are hard.