Sparring and Hapkido?

[kwanjang]

Thats a new one for me. I can't even begin to imagine how one could break their hand on another persons' hip, I mean without doing serious damage to the other person. We're talking a SERIOUS "hip pointer", here. I have also wondered at the prevalence of eye sight issues resulting from repeated jarring of the head per detached retinas, broken blood vessels, and corneal abuse. Has anyone done any digging around about these? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Hello Bruce, I saw it happen. Gatti is well known for low blows, and he had in fact been warned a number of times for it. This time, it came back to haunt him as he has had problems with it every now and then even when taped to the hilt.

Lots of injuries like those you mention. Sugar Ray Leonard had a detached retina and had to quit for a while. Several others whose names don't come to me right off also have had such problems, and then there is Ali and his condition that was attributed to too many rope a dope blows.

If you want to see blood and guts though, you need to see the Ward v/s Gatti fights... Unbelievable courage (and maybe a bit of stupidity.


Regarding hand strikes: We use the whole gamut of strikes, but I personally prefer the palm strike. For one thing, I can instantly grab with the hand already open. FWIW, these days I don't advocate hitting the face with the hand. Too easy to cut your hand on teeth, and too easy to cause bleeding. The two just don't mix in these days of aids etc.

 

[MichiganTKD]

Attacking the hard parts of the body with a palm strike or knife hand and the soft parts with a fist is a principle of Tae Kyon training, and something I teach students to minimize injuries.
Several years ago, my Instructor was watching me practice punching a tree with a ridgehand, and told me not to do that. He introduced me to the hard-soft soft-hard principle by telling me to use palm strikes, knife hands, and other soft techniques against a hard surface. Something I still teach students, whether punching, kicking, or blocking.

 

[glad2bhere]

Good points.

There is another side to this as well.

Consider that a great many people who are involved in the sorts of encounters we are talking about are of good size, robust, seasoned to combat and compete with an eye towards getting off the mat (in whatever condition). Would people use the same approach were the circumstances a bit more lethal? Maybe I am stretching things by modern standards but work with me for a second.

Most of what we are describing here is tenacity born of competition. The idea in competition is to perform for a set period of time and so demonstrate ones' technical ability over another. In this way the concept of endurance, tenacity and perserverance are very different from, say, a battlefield. As I write this my military experience many years ago comes to mind. It was not, for instance, uncommon for new replacements to die in greater numbers before seasoned troops. This was not a matter of conditioning (as they had just come from the States), nor a matter of equipment (as we were all furnished in comparable manner). When such deathes occurred it was chalked up to being a "newbie" or a "nug", which was a terse but accurate way of stating that the person had not had sufficient time in-country to "get his head around" what everything was about. "Newbies" made decisions and drew conclusions based on the most general (and often inaccurate information). Actual combat was radically different. For those who haven't the foggiest idea what I am talking about, the movie "PLATOON" did a pretty decent job of portraying this issue in the first hour of the flick. What made matters worse was that older troops, yes, including me, would often distance themselves from "nugs" so as to avoid the emotional damage that comes from connecting with someone and then losing them as a casualty.

By now you are probably thinking that ol' Bruce has "gone around the bend". But the reason I raise this is that we often state that we train in "martial arts" and then use what I would call "civil arts" to make our points. When this happens I think we do our traditions a disservice. In actual warfare one does not engage the enemy with the idea of seeing how many accurate shells or rifle shots one can put in a given area. The idea is that one "stops the conflict" and usually by eliminating the stranger on the other patch of ground. The matter of size, conditioning, fist-fights or background may be influential but not determinant. When I think of these things I often remeber that old saw about the maker of the Colt revolver much known in the American West. The saying went that "God made men; Samual Colt made them all equal." I am wondering if we took away the idea of a person living through an encounter and elected instead to train as though one had accepted their own death (Cit: Code of the Samurai; Cleary) I wonder how different our training would be. Afterall isn't this the way the warriors who came before us trained? FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[SmellyMonkey]

Bruce-


I can see that something caused your mind to really take off and ponder something very deep....however I am having trouble understanding exactly what point you are trying to make. (Sometimes I am not very smart- bear with me!)

Could you summarize what you were trying to say?

Thanks!

Jeremy

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear jeremy:

Thanks. Even after I read that post it still wasn't saying things exactly. How about this?

We are talking about what are essentially "civil"/"sport" encounters. We are talking about how to hit and how to kick and all of this comes under the aegis of rules and sportsmanship (as such). However, we identify what we train in as "martial art" rather than "civil art". Were one to represent themselves as following a "martial" path it would seem to me that one would train as though they were going to a battlefield rather than a boxing gym. I must tell you that this is a very different kind of training. Imagine bumping the original Takeda Sokaku of DRAJJ up against the Ueyshiba (of later years) and I think it makes an accurate comparison of what I am working to say.

If we are to talk about "civil arts" and "sports" it follows that the bigger, faster, stronger adept will probably win out over the smaller adept with comparable skills. To me this is pretty much a no-brainer. So people beat on each other for a while and get things out of their system. Please understand I am not disparaging this activity if this is what people want to do. But the heritage of the "martial arts" is one of military applications not civilian and I am wondering if we are confusing things by using "civilian" activities to characterize "military" activities. The reason I brought up my experience in Vietnam was that I think the mistake of assuming things about what a military experience will be like by overlaying a civilian mindset on it was( at least in that example) fraught with peril. In Yon Mu Kwan Hapkido, for instance, we don't make a big thing about teaching children, recreating, or competing. Maybe the weapons that we use are old-fashioned but the fact is that we train in a MARTIAL art and not a CIVILIAN art. Hope this helps. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[SmellyMonkey]

Ahhh, that's better. Now I understand your point. Thanks for clarifying.



It is my goal to have my training be as "martial" as possible, with less emphasis on the "art". And to completely get away from the sport aspect of martial arts, such as point sparring.



But, how do we practice being a martial artist and train the mind for actual combat, unless we simulate the combat as realistically as possible? And reduce the chance of injury?



I don't believe training on a compliant partner has programmed my brain efficiently for real combat. I don't think I am a stupid guy. I pick up new techniques fairly quickly. I try to learn "why" the technique works, not just "how" to perform the technique. And I practice the techniques outside of class. At my level in my school, I am doing pretty well.



However, the other day my sparring partner and I practiced a situation where the attacker closed the gap quickly, grabbed the defender, and pulled or pushed the attacker. And I have to admit, I performed extremely poorly during this drill.



My brain was not used to this type of stimulus. It simply shut down.



Again, I am a beginner with only 1.5 years of training. But that is 1.5 years of training, 4 hours a week average...let's do the math. 78 weeks x 4 hours per week = 312 simulated combat hours. That has to be more then the average person on the street. Much more training then most criminals get. Heck, that is more hand to hand combat practice then most police officers get before they start their careers!



Yet my brain is still not wired to respond automatically to a basic attack.



So I have to ask. Is there something wrong with the way traditional martial arts are taught, if the goal is to teach the students how to fight?



Let's take my school and my experience with it out of the picture. Also, let's assume that I am not a complete idiot.



Look at your own schools. Is combat simulated in a way that will teach the brain to respond automatically in a stressful situation?



Also, is this "stressful" training given to new students? If not, why not? If not, is that fair to the beginning student, if the student is taking martial arts for self-defense?



Thanks in advance for your thoughts,

Jeremy

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Jeremy:

As many "straightlines" as you gave me in your last post I should be sending you a stipend, yes? Needless to say these are all great--- and weighty--- questions I think we all face. I'd be writing a book if I tried to answer all of these points--- good as they are---- but here are a couple that I toss your way just fer s***s-and-grins, 'kay?

I don't think that a person needs to actually fight a full-contact training regimine to develop a "martial spirit". Some gun-fighter from the old West (Wyatt Earp?) once said, "you don't have to be fast, just accurate." I hear the same sort of things in Hapkido training. For instance, it doesn't take a lot to jam your index finger INTO a persons' eye, but how many train with the idea that they are committed to doing just that? Most of our throws and jointlocks originally started as breaks but how many would have the moxie to actually execute the break? Most people would back off of an eardrum break, elbow to the base of the skull and heel-stomps to recumbant attackers. The same goes for weapons work. We don't mind swinging a sword around, but get us in paired work with live blades and its amazing the response. "Holy S***!! Someone could actually get hurt here!!"

Now stepping away from the blood-thirsty stuff, consider that most folks leave their "martial" training in the dochang. A warrior is a warrior 24/7. That doesn't mean I cleave the guy who over-charges for gas in two with a wol-do. What it means is that Integrity, Dedication, Development and Service permeate everything we do, and if all is well with our deportment the "Hwa" is better balanced for our being around. I know we like to make a big thing about competition cuz its about as close as most people come to combat in their lives. The fact is, though, that we say we follow "martial" arts and then only perform the most superficial and physical part of the subject. For my part, if a person says they are going to follow a Warriors' Path that means that all the chips are on the line--- on a daily basis. Is this so different from when, say, a Christian says they are putting everything on the line for their "soul", or for their "faith"? FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[hedgehogey]

Smellymonkey: You've got it completely right. Static training will not lead to self defense ability.

I strongly encourage you to read the "what is aliveness" section on www.straightblastgym.com

 

[glad2bhere]

Yep! And just so people don't think I am advocating sitting on a pillow somewhere communing with the Cosmos, let me underscore that what I am talking about is not WHAT kind of training that you do but HOW you do it. I can do all the full-contact I want, but if in my mind I am seeing it as some sort of elaborate game I would be no better prepped for real combat than had I simply read books on the subject. Real battles may be fought with the body, but are won between the ears!

BTW: To Jeremy: Just so you know--- you really don't want to "react automatically" to a situation. People make a lot of it but the fact is that you WANT you mind in the loop. Acting--- seeing clearly what needs to be done and doing it---- takes place with the whole being. And there is nothing "automatic" about it. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[SmellyMonkey]

Yep! And just so people don't think I am advocating sitting on a pillow somewhere communing with the Cosmos, let me underscore that what I am talking about is not WHAT kind of training that you do but HOW you do it. I can do all the full-contact I want, but if in my mind I am seeing it as some sort of elaborate game I would be no better prepped for real combat than had I simply read books on the subject. Real battles may be fought with the body, but are won between the ears!

BTW: To Jeremy: Just so you know--- you really don't want to "react automatically" to a situation. People make a lot of it but the fact is that you WANT you mind in the loop. Acting--- seeing clearly what needs to be done and doing it---- takes place with the whole being. And there is nothing "automatic" about it. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Actually, the thought of you sitting on a pillow saying "ohmmmm" is kind of funny...

Yes, I do want my brain on to a degree. So I can say "does he have a weapon? is breaking the joint reasonable in this situation? are his buddies around? should I whip out my folder and finish him?"

But I want the INITIAL response to be automatic. For example, if I get grabbed, I want to at least take his balance away automatically, thereby giving me enough time to ask all the questions above before the guy begins stabbing me repeatedly!

We need to practice training these basics. Drills where the defender knows a general attack is coming (push, pull, grab), and is forced to own the attacker's balance ASAP. Later on in training, we can practice additional techniques AFTER we get the balance.

Does that make sense?

Anyway, I'm getting frustrated. Not due to anyone's postings, just due to my feeling of being a complete newbie who has not yet mastered these basics.

 

[glad2bhere]

"......But I want the INITIAL response to be automatic. For example, if I get grabbed, I want to at least take his balance away automatically, thereby giving me enough time to ask all the questions above before the guy begins stabbing me repeatedly!

We need to practice training these basics. Drills where the defender knows a general attack is coming (push, pull, grab), and is forced to own the attacker's balance ASAP. Later on in training, we can practice additional techniques AFTER we get the balance.

Does that make sense?....."

Yes-- PERFECT sense. This is exactly what a person would ordinarily be training for, even at the most basic levels. Later a more conscious effort to identify and quantify this part of the execution comes along, say somewhere between 5th and 2nd Guep someplace. And you are right not to want to have the sort of knee-jerk reaction like that Peter Sellers character in THE PINK PANTHER who is always being ambushed by his butler/valet. The balance "taking" AKA "balance breaking" is a pivotal part of Hapkido. Joe Connollys' (Skokie, Ill) routinely start their classes with a variety of unbalancing drills. I don't go quite THAT far but I do harp on my students to make sure that taking the balance is part&parcel of execution. For myself, where I begin to have concerns is when we are doing simple introductory (Level One) material and pressure on the throat or a pull on the elbow is required and the student balks for fear of injuring their partner. On the one hand I applaud their conscientious attitude in respecting their partner, but on the other hand I have to give them a "goose" (figuratively) to get them to use some authority in what they are doing. Meaning no disrespect to Aikido-ka lurking in the background, but I don't want my students falling down over nothing if you know what I mean.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[SmellyMonkey]

I hope others are still interested in this conversation, because I still am...


Okay. A few posts back I asked the question, how do different HAPKIDO schools add stress to the training?

My goal for adding stress it to get used to performing techniques under high stress, to gain some confidence that I will not freeze in a real self defense situation.

I am not only looking for answers like "controlled full contact sparring". We've already discussed the pro's and con's of full contact hapkido training. I'm looking for other ways of adding stress too.

Anyone have answers to my question?

Thanks!

Jeremy

 

[iron_ox]

Hello Jeremy,

Without trying to sound too artsy-fartsy, the art is what prepares you for combat. Techniques should prepare your body, the art prepares the mind for combat.

You had mentioned that in a certain situation, your mind "shut-down", this I have found is due to lack of training in a technique to real (and "mindless") repetition, once this is done, the body will react, allowing the brain to change gears and catch up.

At my school, we use repetition and visualization - your partner is an attacker, not "your classmate" - try that and see how you fare.

Sincerely,

Kevin Sogor

 

[SmellyMonkey]

Hello Jeremy,

Without trying to sound too artsy-fartsy, the art is what prepares you for combat. Techniques should prepare your body, the art prepares the mind for combat.

You had mentioned that in a certain situation, your mind "shut-down", this I have found is due to lack of training in a technique to real (and "mindless") repetition, once this is done, the body will react, allowing the brain to change gears and catch up.

At my school, we use repetition and visualization - your partner is an attacker, not "your classmate" - try that and see how you fare.

Sincerely,

Kevin Sogor

I agree with you that that repetiton helps program specific movements into your brain. As I am sure we all experienced, it is best to learn new martial arts techniques slowly. After we have taught the muscles to perform the technique slowly, we can gradually increase the speed of the movement until we can perform the technique at a fast speed, while still keeping good form.

However, I don't believe being able to perform a technique in an unstressed environment means you could perform the technique in a real fight.

Thankfully, I haven't been in a real fight. So I don't know this for sure. But hang with me, and let me use what I have learned from music.

As a kid, I found that I was a gifted violinist. I practiced hard and frequently. After months of praciticing a piece of music, I got to the point where I could play the song perfectly without the sheet music. I had "mastered" the music.

But when I performed the music in a competition or audition (high-stress), I would shake like a leaf and struggle to make it through the music I had mastered. My best performance in a high stress sitituation was never as good as my best practice session in a low-stress.

That is, until I had performed in enough high stress environments that I learned to cope with the added stress hormones. What happened was I "normalized" my brain to the additional stress hormones. After a few years, I would find that I could perform a peice better when I was extremely stressed. In fact, I thrived on stress.

So I believe firmly that stress must be added to ones martial arts training if they wish to perform in a high stress situtation.

Read this article for more information. (I really like this site, as this is the second link to defend university I have used in this thread.)
http://www.defendu.com/sst.htm

Thanks,
Jeremy

 

[howard]

excellent discussion, lots of good points... would just add in response to the posts about taking the attacker's balance that that is the key to hapkido... that is the "hapki", just as it's the "aiki" in aikijujutsu. it's what makes it possible to apply techniques with very little force. it's central to all of our techniques. if you fail to take his balance away, you can easily end up in a strength contest, which is exactly what you want to avoid.