ITF TKD Sparring

[JR 137]

The trick is not too reach his head, the trick is to bring his head down to my height ;-)

My trick is to have his head on the ground while I'm standing up and making sure no one else is coming

 

[JP3]

My trick is to have his head on the ground while I'm standing up and making sure no one else is coming

sound tactic, imo.

 

[MI_martialist]

I am pretty flabbergasted to be honest. We are telling a new person to experiment, see what might work, and get feedback from students, who did the same thing? Where is the role of the instructor to provide optimal sequencing and environment to induce proper and appropriate actions when an attack happens?

This is mind-blowingly amateur. An instructor's job is to get the student fight ready and independent as soon as possible. By "sparring" and "experimenting", what is the instructor doing actually? This type of activity should not happen until the student has been properly programmed with appropriate action.

Now, if you want to do solo air dancing, and bounce around and play tag, then go ahead and experiment all you want...remember the super cool move of the great General looking at the sky to check the weather before battle...if do right, no can defense!!

 

[MI_martialist]

Get feedback immediately (or as soon as you can) from every single person with whom you spar, asking for advice, corrections, tips, tactics, whatever they want to offer and which is on their mind right after you are done.

You really don't have just one instructor... you are in a room full of them. Take advantage of it. You can learn from anyone.

So, are you saying that everyone in the room is qualified to instruct? It sounds to me like not even the "instructor" is qualified to "instruct".

 

[lklawson]

An instructor's job is to get the student fight ready and independent as soon as possible.

Are you sure? Look, I agree that martial arts "should" be about fighting. But not every context is exactly the same. Some martial arts teach historic "fighting" that has limited, or even no, application to modern fighting. Some martial arts are only theoretically oriented to "fighting" and are, deliberately, much more oriented to health, or "moving mediation," or some other application.

By "sparring" and "experimenting", what is the instructor doing actually? This type of activity should not happen until the student has been properly programmed with appropriate action.

There are many different theories on instruction and often have differing ways in which they best learn. "Experiential" learning/teaching is one of those. It is a actually pretty common technique to let a student "make their mistakes." I don't really like it, but it seems to work for some people.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[MI_martialist]

Are you sure? Look, I agree that martial arts "should" be about fighting. But not every context is exactly the same. Some martial arts teach historic "fighting" that has limited, or even no, application to modern fighting. Some martial arts are only theoretically oriented to "fighting" and are, deliberately, much more oriented to health, or "moving mediation," or some other application.

Am I sure? I am sure that if a martial instructor does anything but, they are a fraud, poser, fake...if one takes a students money in exchange for teaching that student to be martially ready, and we delay their ability to be martially ready, we become the Sword that takes Life! It is as simple as that...As for different types of "arts", I am sure they can be arts, but they cannot be martial. All martial systems are martial...if the "instructor" chooses not to be martial, then the instructor neuters the system and is a fake for calling it martial anything.

There are many different theories on instruction and often have differing ways in which they best learn. "Experiential" learning/teaching is one of those. It is a actually pretty common technique to let a student "make their mistakes." I don't really like it, but it seems to work for some people.

There are many different theories...and theories are pretty...it is only through proper martial sequencing that a student becomes martially proficient NOW and not LATER! Everything else is random, and random actions create random results.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Firstly, please don't edit inside the QUOTE tags. It makes it hard to reply.

Am I sure? I am sure that if a martial instructor does anything but, they are a fraud, poser, fake...

Well dang. I'll let you explain to the Aikikia and Tai Chi instructors that they're frauds, posers, and fake. Post back and let us know if they laugh at you or just tell you to GTFO.

if one takes a students money in exchange for teaching that student to be martially ready, and we delay their ability to be martially ready, we become the Sword that takes Life!

For your definition of "martially ready." I thought I was clear before, not everyone shares your definition of what a "martial art" is. As yet another example, some "martial arts" are focused 100% on some form of sport or another which may or may not adequately prepare the student for some form of fight or another. Do you think that Kendo adequately prepares a practitioner for being jumped "on the street" when he's unarmed? Go tell the Kendo Sensei that he's a fraud. Please. Video it while you're at it. How much does boxing, MMA, or Judo prepare someone for a sword duel? Go find your local Golden Gloves coach and tell him he's a fraud. Again, video record the results.

It is as simple as that...As for different types of "arts", I am sure they can be arts, but they cannot be martial. All martial systems are martial...if the "instructor" chooses not to be martial, then the instructor neuters the system and is a fake for calling it martial anything.

Riiight. While you're insulting the Kedoka feel free to go insult an Olympic Fencing coach or the Olympic Archery coach. Let them know that their shiz just ain't "martial" enough for you.

Look friend, I don't think you've thought this through.

There are many different theories...and theories are pretty...it is only through proper martial sequencing that a student becomes martially proficient NOW and not LATER! Everything else is random, and random actions create random results.

Except that the methods you are decrying actually do produce results. Do you have any studies or empirical evidence which shows that they don't? Anecdotally speaking, I've seen examples where they do.

Again, I don't think you've actually thought through your position.

 

[MI_martialist]

I have thought it through. If your "martial" training does not prepare you to protect yourself, and protect yourself immediately, then you are taking money from someone and are a fake, a poser.

I have sat down with 7th, 8th, and 9th degree "masters" and "grandmasters" and said the exact same thing...and I was invited back to train them, and to judge their examination, and participate in their examinations.

I am not saying that it cannot work any other way...it may, sometimes...as I said random acts generate random results...even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

It would be great to stop pussyfooting around...

Firstly, please don't edit inside the QUOTE tags. It makes it hard to reply.

Well dang. I'll let you explain to the Aikikia and Tai Chi instructors that they're frauds, posers, and fake. Post back and let us know if they laugh at you or just tell you to GTFO.

For your definition of "martially ready." I thought I was clear before, not everyone shares your definition of what a "martial art" is. As yet another example, some "martial arts" are focused 100% on some form of sport or another which may or may not adequately prepare the student for some form of fight or another. Do you think that Kendo adequately prepares a practitioner for being jumped "on the street" when he's unarmed? Go tell the Kendo Sensei that he's a fraud. Please. Video it while you're at it. How much does boxing, MMA, or Judo prepare someone for a sword duel? Go find your local Golden Gloves coach and tell him he's a fraud. Again, video record the results.

Riiight. While you're insulting the Kedoka feel free to go insult an Olympic Fencing coach or the Olympic Archery coach. Let them know that their shiz just ain't "martial" enough for you.

Look friend, I don't think you've thought this through.

Except that the methods you are decrying actually do produce results. Do you have any studies or empirical evidence which shows that they don't? Anecdotally speaking, I've seen examples where they do.

Again, I don't think you've actually thought through your position.

 

[jobo]

I have thought it through. If your "martial" training does not prepare you to protect yourself, and protect yourself immediately, then you are taking money from someone and are a fake, a poser.

I have sat down with 7th, 8th, and 9th degree "masters" and "grandmasters" and said the exact same thing...and I was invited back to train them, and to judge their examination, and participate in their examinations.

I am not saying that it cannot work any other way...it may, sometimes...as I said random acts generate random results...even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

It would be great to stop pussyfooting around...

your argument seems to be based on the fact that martial arts is a generic name for a vast number of disciplines' and there you have decided that any one teaching karate or what ever is a fraud, if the student cant fight successfully straight away.

they generaly advertise that they teach tkd and if they do indeed teach tkd, then there is no fraud. If tkd makes Yu a better fighter is entirely down to the abilities of the student

 

[MI_martialist]

My argument is based on the fact that "martial arts" need to make someone proficient at protecting oneself immediately and if it does not, it is not "martial" but is definitely "art". I don't care what name they give it...if they don't instruct and program for fighting success, and the instructor takes money for something "martial" and does not make it martial, it is a fake.

Of course, different students have different physical abilities, etc., but it is the INSTRUCTORS JOB to, I don't know...instruct, using proven methods and sequences to make the student fighting proficient immediately. The consequences are too dire not to!!!

your argument seems to be based on the fact that martial arts is a generic name for a vast number of disciplines' and there you have decided that any one teaching karate or what ever is a fraud, if the student cant fight successfully straight away.

they generaly advertise that they teach tkd and if they do indeed teach tkd, then there is no fraud. If tkd makes Yu a better fighter is entirely down to the abilities of the student

 

[jobo]

My argument is based on the fact that "martial arts" need to make someone proficient at protecting oneself immediately and if it does not, it is not "martial" but is definitely "art". I don't care what name they give it...if they don't instruct and program for fighting success, and the instructor takes money for something "martial" and does not make it martial, it is a fake.

Of course, different students have different physical abilities, etc., but it is the INSTRUCTORS JOB to, I don't know...instruct, using proven methods and sequences to make the student fighting proficient immediately. The consequences are too dire not to!!!

just before we explore the nuances of you post, let's deal with the most startling claim. You expect someone to become proficient IMMEDIATELY . straight away after just one lesson?

 

[lklawson]

I have thought it through. If your "martial" training does not prepare you to protect yourself, and protect yourself immediately, then you are taking money from someone and are a fake, a poser.

I have sat down with 7th, 8th, and 9th degree "masters" and "grandmasters" and said the exact same thing...and I was invited back to train them, and to judge their examination, and participate in their examinations.

I am not saying that it cannot work any other way...it may, sometimes...as I said random acts generate random results...even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

It would be great to stop pussyfooting around...

So your plan is to NOT address any of my points, ignore them, and reiterate your original, demonstrably wrong, position?

 

[lklawson]

My argument is based on the fact that "martial arts" need to make someone proficient at protecting oneself

"Protecting oneself" from what?

immediately

and if it does not, it is not "martial" but is definitely "art".

In your, apparently very very narrow, definitions.

I don't care what name they give it...if they don't instruct and program for fighting success, and the instructor takes money for something "martial" and does not make it martial, it is a fake.

Exactly. Please reference the Kendo recommendation above.

Of course, different students have different physical abilities, etc., but it is the INSTRUCTORS JOB to, I don't know...instruct, using proven methods and sequences to make the student fighting proficient

Excellent. I'll remind you that the method you have been opposing vociferously is, in fact, "proven."

immediately.

The consequences are too dire not to!!!

Is that because, statistically speaking, most people studying a "martial art" are highly likely to need to know "how to fight" for self defense very quickly, or even immediately? You know, that is, as opposed to the statistics which indicate that most people are unlikely to be put in a position where self defense is required?

And that's without you defining exactly what qualifies as "ability to fight" or "martial art" or "proven" methods of training happen to be?

Nah. I'm sticking with my earlier assessment. Despite your claim, you really haven't thought this through as evidenced by your ill defined yet narrow "definitions" of martial, art, self defense, fighting, and training methods, as well as your avoidance of counter-arguments.

 

[MI_martialist]

Let us just leave it at the fact that you can call it what you want, "teach" what you want, spar all you want...and be a poser, and if you are fine with that, good for you.

"Protecting oneself" from what?



In your, apparently very very narrow, definitions.

Exactly. Please reference the Kendo recommendation above.

Excellent. I'll remind you that the method you have been opposing vociferously is, in fact, "proven."



Is that because, statistically speaking, most people studying a "martial art" are highly likely to need to know "how to fight" for self defense very quickly, or even immediately? You know, that is, as opposed to the statistics which indicate that most people are unlikely to be put in a position where self defense is required?

And that's without you defining exactly what qualifies as "ability to fight" or "martial art" or "proven" methods of training happen to be?

Nah. I'm sticking with my earlier assessment. Despite your claim, you really haven't thought this through as evidenced by your ill defined yet narrow "definitions" of martial, art, self defense, fighting, and training methods, as well as your avoidance of counter-arguments.

 

[lklawson]

Let us just leave it at the fact that you can call it what you want, "teach" what you want, spar all you want...and be a poser, and if you are fine with that, good for you.

Sure. Just as soon as you specify what "poser" means and support what you want to call "facts." You've been reluctant to do either so far, so I doubt you'll relent at this point.

 

[jobo]

Sure. Just as soon as you specify what "poser" means and support what you want to call "facts." You've been reluctant to do either so far, so I doubt you'll relent at this point.

your forgetting the FACT, that a grand master invited him to teach them

 

[MI_martialist]

Let me start by being basic and simple:

Martial: the definition of martial

So, if one is to instruct "Martial Arts", then one is to instruct something martial...or relating to a warlike state, or befitting a warrior. So, if one does not do that, then what does one instruct? This is not a "narrow" definition of anything, but rather a REAL definition of what martialism has always been, and is no longer in this country with commercial kinder care centers all over the place.

So, how does one instruct in a way that is befitting a warrior, or in a warlike state? Not that martial is directly linked to the military, as martial existed before military, but let us look at the methods of those organizations that prepare warriors for a warlike state...hmm...they weaponize first, then program program them for action...only using that which is proven to give the most chance of success...

So, why is what I am saying way off? It is because Martial has been taken out of "arts martial" and hase been replaced by...exercise, social club, trophies, tournaments, blets, colored uniforms, stripes, patches, etc...

I will say this to, and have said it to many, Masters, GrandMasters, etc...what can you argue with? If you dispute Martial in Martial Arts, then you are not doing anything martial and are a POSER...(the definition of poser).

So, to go back to the original post...Sparring is a game of tag that will not program the appropriate actions to protect oneself in case of a physical encounter. It will teach the student how to have great distance to touch the opponent, to pull punches, etc...

Does this answer your questions?

Sure. Just as soon as you specify what "poser" means and support what you want to call "facts." You've been reluctant to do either so far, so I doubt you'll relent at this point.

 

[jobo]

Let me start by being basic and simple:

Martial: the definition of martial

So, if one is to instruct "Martial Arts", then one is to instruct something martial...or relating to a warlike state, or befitting a warrior. So, if one does not do that, then what does one instruct? This is not a "narrow" definition of anything, but rather a REAL definition of what martialism has always been, and is no longer in this country with commercial kinder care centers all over the place.

So, how does one instruct in a way that is befitting a warrior, or in a warlike state? Not that martial is directly linked to the military, as martial existed before military, but let us look at the methods of those organizations that prepare warriors for a warlike state...hmm...they weaponize first, then program program them for action...only using that which is proven to give the most chance of success...

So, why is what I am saying way off? It is because Martial has been taken out of "arts martial" and hase been replaced by...exercise, social club, trophies, tournaments, blets, colored uniforms, stripes, patches, etc...

I will say this to, and have said it to many, Masters, GrandMasters, etc...what can you argue with? If you dispute Martial in Martial Arts, then you are not doing anything martial and are a POSER...(the definition of poser).

So, to go back to the original post...Sparring is a game of tag that will not program the appropriate actions to protect oneself in case of a physical encounter. It will teach the student how to have great distance to touch the opponent, to pull punches, etc...

Does this answer your questions?

no
you said a ma must make them proficient Immediately.
that requires a working defintion pf both proficient and immediately.
if we take it a face value you are requiring them to be very good at fighting after only one lesson

 

[lklawson]

Well, at least you're finally trying to support your thesis. Not that it's less narrow, but it's a start.

Let me start by being basic and simple:

Martial: the definition of martial

Pretty standard fare.

So, if one is to instruct "Martial Arts", then one is to instruct something martial...or relating to a warlike state, or befitting a warrior.

So, we can agree then that "befitting a warrior" is acceptable for "martial?" Good. Because, historically speaking, even in Western Culture with examples dating back to the Greeks (and possibly farther), various sports have been used which did not teach specific "battle field combat techniques" but, instead, were designed to do one or more of these:

• Enhance competitiveness
• Promote espirit de corps
  
• Promote general physical health

Some examples are Pankration (naked wrestling, which has very little to do with teaching combat techniques to a fully armored hoplite with a 12 foot spear in a phalanx) and U.S. Marines Pugil Sticks. Remember why Bodhidharma supposedly taught "martial arts" to the monks at shaolin? Because they were soft and not physically fit for the rigors of religious meditation (i.e.: "physical fitness").

So, now that we have "martial" nailed down as activities which benefit the warrior, as opposed to something that specifically teaches whatever your vaguely defined concept of combat techniques is, we can look at "point sparring." Can or does "point sparring" teach competitiveness, team spirit & loyalty, and promote physical and/or mental health? Check, check, and check. Yup. Point sparring is, apparently, "martial."

So, if one does not do that, then what does one instruct?

Ooops. Looks like it actually does.

This is not a "narrow" definition of anything, but rather a REAL definition

Yup; a real one that you didn't know you agreed with. Told you that you hadn't thought it through.

of what martialism has always been,

Martialism? Martialist? Are you a devote of Phil? He's his own worst enemy.

and is no longer in this country with commercial kinder care centers all over the place.

Nah. The problem is that you are not as informed on the history "martial" as you thought you were. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

So, how does one instruct in a way that is befitting a warrior, or in a warlike state? Not that martial is directly linked to the military, as martial existed before military, but let us look at the methods of those organizations that prepare warriors for a warlike state...hmm...they weaponize first, then program program them for action...only using that which is proven to give the most chance of success...

Historically speaking, your position is very narrow and ignores a lot of practices which were specifically "martial" in nature. Did you know that India, historically, had a specific diet for warriors? But because it doesn't teach combat techniques, or whatever you want to deflect with, I suppose it's not "martial."

So, why is what I am saying way off? It is because Martial has been taken out of "arts martial" and hase been replaced by...exercise, social club, trophies, tournaments, blets, colored uniforms, stripes, patches, etc...

You could say that but the historical evidence indicates you are wrong because exercise, social aspects, competitions, "ranks," and other related issues were all important elements of military ("martial") culture and there were "martial" systems such as Hutton's "Great Stick," which he specifically states was designed to improve competitiveness and espirit de corps in the age of metallic cartridge rifles and bayonets.

I will say this to, and have said it to many, Masters, GrandMasters, etc...what can you argue with? If you dispute Martial in Martial Arts, then you are not doing anything martial and are a POSER...(the definition of poser).

Frankly, that's nothing special. I've done the same. I know lots of people who can say as much about speaking with and training with Masters, Grand-Masters, etc. Any number of posters on this board can make the same boast. It's not big deal and doesn't really add any weight to your argument.

So, to go back to the original post...Sparring is a game of tag that will not program the appropriate actions to protect oneself in case of a physical encounter. It will teach the student how to have great distance to touch the opponent, to pull punches, etc...

And yet, much to your dismay I'd wager, is historically accurate as a martial pursuit.

Does this answer your questions?

The Jury is still out.

 

[MI_martialist]

Proficient immediately...able to act appropriately immediately. As for fighting...I may have used "fighting proficient" and most people do not understand this.

So, then...the number one thing to do in a confrontation is what? It is to act. So, if we can immediately instill a sense of urgency and will to act, the person will act...so, how is that not proficient? No one guarantees survival, but action certainly does immediately increase the chances.

no
you said a ma must make them proficient Immediately.
that requires a working defintion pf both proficient and immediately.
if we take it a face value you are requiring them to be very good at fighting after only one lesson