well that not a,sweep, is it? That's a leg pin
I've seen this numerous times. However, I don't see it as pride, I see it as someone not really understanding how to be a good training partner. A large part of being a good martial artist, at least in the traditional martial arts with which I am most familiar, is in learning how to provide enough resistance that your training partner has to properly perform whatever movement you are practicing. Not enough resistance, and the movement doesn't have to be properly performed. Too much resistance, and again, the movement isn't properly performed.
a sweep has to have some similarity to the action of a broom in the act of sweeping, other wise its not correctly a sweep, despite what people may choose to call it
i don't understand your premise, how is his being resistant as a stooge for the move, hampering his development? It might be said its hampering his partners development, but not his
And the right type of resistance - both the right kind to lead to the technique (so they aren't using the "wrong" technique), and something that's not unrealistic (like someone going entirely rigid in the middle of an "attack").
Depends whose definition you're using. Words only mean what people agree they mean, and some groups include things in a sweep that you wouldn't and some that I wouldn't. That doesn't make them wrong, as long as their usage is consistent.
Receiving a technique (being thrown/locked) is actually one of the ways a student learns how the technique works. Giving improper resistance will cheat him of this learning.
Agreed. In order to learn a technique, I have to have it done on me. Otherwise, I just won't learn it. I won't get the placement right, I won't be using my muscles properly, I just won't be doing it right. It's why I know that I could never learn on my own.
but he is learning that the techneque doesn't work against a resistance, and that speeds his development, as it is then clear that its pointless to learn it
if they don't agree with me that makes them wrong, if they don't agree with a decent dictionary that makes them doubly wrong
What I found as a student (and have seen in my own students) is that I didnt' understand the technique properly until I felt it. When I saw it, I misunderstood (more often than not) what was really happening. Then I felt it...."Oh, it's the elbow that's being pushed down!"
Only if he understand how the technique DOES work. It's not speeding his development if all he gets is that the technique doesn't work (which is probably, based on my experience, what he's thinking). You see, you're assuming since it doesn't work on that specific resistance, that "it's pointless to learn". Every technique (all of them - no exceptions) fails under at least one kind of resistance. The real skill is feeling/recognizing the resistance and choosing a technique that works against/with it. Here's a vague example: if a technique is intended to work after a person has been pulled through a step, but they lean back and away (stopping the pull), the technique simply isn't available. But some other technique is, and if they aren't giving that resistance, the original technique is available and will work. So, if the drill is a leg sweep from a pull, inappropriate resistance would lead to the conclusion that a leg sweep is worthless. But in the right circumstances, that same leg sweep is pretty dependable. Under the resistance that defeated that leg sweep version, a pushing version might be the right answer.
So, if they call it a "bob maneuver", you wouldn't object? What if the "sweep" word has a different derivation than the common dictionary usage (which doesn't include a lot of martial arts terms)? Words are functional. Dictionaries don't control definitions - they simply report common general usage (which MA doesn't always fit).
