Sparring and My Difficulty Against Kicks

[oftheherd1]

I would. At least in the sense that it's a dangerous thing to do. Once you are on your heels if the other guy decides to press you could be in real trouble. Not just from kicks, either, you are also more vulnerable to takedowns and punches, and in no position to threaten with anything.

I personally love it when a sparring partner goes straight back instead of angling out, free shots!

What MA teaches to retreat on your heels?

 

[JowGaWolf]

The instructor, yak sao's son, ended up telling me not to recompose my guard after feeding the attacks so that my partner could get the feel of "winning" the exchange. I don't think that was doing my partner any favors.)

It doesn't do any favors for the person trying to learn. Sometimes it's necessary to get tagged in the face and then use that experience to figure out what we aren't doing correctly. After few failures and breaks in between to figure out what is being done incorrectly, "a light bulb moment" usually occurs. But it rarely occurs without a few failures. A student just has to be willing to accept those failures more as a learning experience instead of what we would normally think of as a failure.

For me personally those "light bulb" moments where all of the confusion and darkness instantly goes away and is placed with a real understanding of how to apply a technique is worth being hit in the face a couple of times (so long as they aren't brutal) lol. Nothing can really come close to the feeling of clarity when something suddenly makes sense. Not criticizing teaching methods, but this: "could get the feel of "winning" the exchange." is something that robs people of experiencing that clarity when they finally understand. For me it would be worst to feel that I understand, then to run my mouth, get in a ring or on the mats, and suddenly discover. "I don't know shiz." In this scenario. I've fallen, by going from high self-esteem to having to deal with low-self-esteem, which could also cause me to doubt myself.

I rather go in knowing that I'm trying to figure how something works vs going thinking that I know, when I really don't. I think this same feeling is something that got me in big trouble.

 

[drop bear]

That's a picture. What's the point of it? That sport isn't hurting combat.

And that looks lot like kabib nurkanurkanurka on the right there. Who would be a pretty devastating street fighter.

 

[drop bear]

What MA teaches to retreat on your heels?

Ones that don't train real time sparring mostly.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To assume that your opponent wont

- punch your head in pure wrestling, or
- catch your kicking leg and sweep you down in TKD match

are both wrong training.

The more you train in those sport, the less alert you will have, the less combat ability you will develop.

They are only wrong training if you are training for combat. They are perfectly valid training for sport context. Again, not everyone trains for defensive/combat usage. If someone is training specifically for high school wrestling (which a lot of kids in the US do), then assuming your opponent won't punch your head is a valid assumption - it's against the rules. That sport context doesn't have to negatively affect those of us who train for self-defense. I can still pick up some useful techniques and principles from competition wrestling, though I have to filter them through the context I train for. So I might actually train to do the technique in a way that is "wrong" for their context (exposes a leg more to takedowns, for instance) but is more "right" for my context (protects my head from punches).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And that looks lot like kabib nurkanurkanurka on the right there. Who would be a pretty devastating street fighter.

There are a lot of pure wrestlers out there I'd hate to get into a "real" fight with.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ones that don't train real time sparring mostly.

Even those tend to teach keeping weight more forward than that. Their problem is they usually aren't used to backing up under pressure, so they end up (literally) on their heels because they pull their head back faster than they can step, out of fear of getting hit.

 

[Martial D]

What MA teaches to retreat on your heels?

None that I know of. It's mostly an expression.

However once you start moving backwards and your opponent starts following and pressing with strikes, you'll probably find yourself literally on your heels after a couple steps, regardless of who taught you what.

This is why boxers, kickboxers and MMA fighters(and anyone else that includes sparring with contact in their curriculum) will teach you to angle out rather than retreat backwards.

 

[Dirty Dog]

So, people can't practice something for their own purposes? They aren't allowed to have their own view of an art and focus on the parts (and application) of that art that fit their personal pursuit?

Sure. I'm not talking about the person. I'm talking about a ruleset that encourages people to do stupid, useless things.
Sparring is good. We do a lot of sparring. And I've done more than a few tournaments.
That is precisely why I believe that rules that encourage useless/stupid techniques are idiotic.

So really, because I'm not doing it to be "combat ready" and aiming to make sure every move I make is effective at damaging someone I should hand in my belt and cancel my membership?

Nope. But you shouldn't call the useless stuff you do for the sake of points TKD.

I could buy a lot of custard filled doughnuts with the money...

Those would, at least, provide some degree of nutrition. Stupid kicks don't provide anything useless. And rules that encourage/reward them are bad.

Now that's the other thing, defining what is and what isn't "part of TKD" is almost impossible.

Not really. If it's an effective kick, there's no reason not to consider it part of TKD. If it isn't, then it's not.
Simple.

One could look at the list of techniques contained within the patterns and decide that constitutes the entire art.

Which patterns? I know about 50 TKD patterns. I can't honestly think of any useful movement I could make that isn't included in one or more of them.

The stuff that scores points does so because it's in the ruleset - not because it's definitively representative of the core of the art.

And if that ruleset rewards useless technique, it's bad. And should be changed.

I'd much rather forfeit than score with a useless kick.

 

[drop bear]

Even those tend to teach keeping weight more forward than that. Their problem is they usually aren't used to backing up under pressure, so they end up (literally) on their heels because they pull their head back faster than they can step, out of fear of getting hit.

By not training under pressure. That result will happen.

 

[Buka]

There are a lot of pure wrestlers out there I'd hate to get into a "real" fight with.

I hate wrestlers, they never get tired. If you’re going to train with one, bring food.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I hate wrestlers, they never get tired. If you’re going to train with one, bring food.

And while they're eating it, sucker punch them?

 

[pdg]

I'll lump these together...

But you shouldn't call the useless stuff you do for the sake of points TKD.

Those would, at least, provide some degree of nutrition. Stupid kicks don't provide anything useless. And rules that encourage/reward them are bad.

Not really. If it's an effective kick, there's no reason not to consider it part of TKD. If it isn't, then it's not.
Simple.

You'll have to define "useless" or "effective" for me, because I think we have different views.

As I've previously said, some things that I do I consider throwaway moves. By themselves, they'll "do" nothing.

But if they help get you in position, or distract as part of setting up a following move - are they still useless?

I can do a silly little dance, that's useless - but if it makes someone pause so I can add a punch on the end? Still useless?

I wouldn't call it "a TKD technique", but y'know, maybe effective

Which patterns? I know about 50 TKD patterns. I can't honestly think of any useful movement I could make that isn't included in one or more of them.

And yet, I'll bet there are useful things outwith those patterns.

Also, I'll bet there's more than a few things that you can't apply directly - so they must be useless.

And if that ruleset rewards useless technique, it's bad. And should be changed.

I'd much rather forfeit than score with a useless kick.

Again, what exactly constitutes useless - and how do you know whether something you can use I can't, or I can make something effective that you can't perform?

 

[Dirty Dog]

I'll lump these together...

Good idea.

You'll have to define "useless" or "effective" for me, because I think we have different views.

Maybe. Maybe not.

As I've previously said, some things that I do I consider throwaway moves. By themselves, they'll "do" nothing.

But if they help get you in position, or distract as part of setting up a following move - are they still useless?

Nope. Then they're part of a strategy.

I can do a silly little dance, that's useless - but if it makes someone pause so I can add a punch on the end? Still useless?

Probably not. But if it gets you punched 90% of the time, does nothing 8% of the time, and helps you 2% of the time, then probably so.

And yet, I'll bet there are useful things outwith those patterns.
Also, I'll bet there's more than a few things that you can't apply directly - so they must be useless.

Examples?

Again, what exactly constitutes useless - and how do you know whether something you can use I can't, or I can make something effective that you can't perform?

Given the specific example, you said yourself that it was useless for anything other than scoring a point under a messed up set of rules.
Shame on me for taking you at your word.

 

[pdg]

Probably not. But if it gets you punched 90% of the time, does nothing 8% of the time, and helps you 2% of the time, then probably so.

Well, I'm at 50/50 with success - first time it worked flawlessly.

Second time my opponent landed a punch - maybe jazz hands weren't required... But hey, he laughed so much he fell over.

(Did I mention I don't always take it 100% seriously? There's a few of us that'll play about a bit.)

Examples?

For "direct effectiveness" and exactly as performed, anything in slow motion for a start.

Given the specific example, you said yourself that it was useless for anything other than scoring a point under a messed up set of rules.
Shame on me for taking you at your word.

Ah there we go - I assumed you meant what good was it, in isolation. For that, it would have scored, not much more.

Secondarily though, it obtained a release and got me through to a different position where I was in a position to attack and he wasn't without moving.

 

[Dirty Dog]

For "direct effectiveness" and exactly as performed, anything in slow motion for a start.

Doing the movement in slow motion during a form doesn't mean the movement is ineffective. The purpose of the form is to teach the movement, and doing it slowly can be beneficial.

Ah there we go - I assumed you meant what good was it, in isolation. For that, it would have scored, not much more.

And I will continue to maintain that it shouldn't. Ineffective strikes are just that - ineffective. And should not be rewarded with points.

Secondarily though, it obtained a release and got me through to a different position where I was in a position to attack and he wasn't without moving.

I don't have any problem with this. Do a backflip with a double twist if you like. But you shouldn't get points. Unless it's a gymnastics competition.

 

[pdg]

Doing the movement in slow motion during a form doesn't mean the movement is ineffective. The purpose of the form is to teach the movement, and doing it slowly can be beneficial.

I didn't say it couldn't be beneficial, just that as it's performed in the pattern it has no directly applicable use.

How often does anyone do anything exactly as it appears in a pattern anyway? I'm talking position, stance, entry and exit - the lot.

You might do something that can be interpreted as "x move from y pattern", but if it's using a different stance or a different reaction hand position (for instance) then it's technically not that move and not from that pattern.

My point was that I consider them to be an important part of the art, but that they don't constitute the entirety of it.

And I will continue to maintain that it shouldn't. Ineffective strikes are just that - ineffective. And should not be rewarded with points.

Honestly, it doesn't bother me either way whether it scores or not. If I'm doing something for a particular purpose and it scores, bonus. If it doesn't score, it doesn't mean I discard it if it still has another use (like a backflip, which I can nearly do...)

If there's something ineffective that scores, work on defence against it to reduce the percentage - if you can't defend against it then really it deserves to score.

 

[JowGaWolf]

And while they're eating it, sucker punch them?

sounds like a plan

 

[JowGaWolf]

How often does anyone do anything exactly as it appears in a pattern anyway? I'm talking position, stance, entry and exit - the lot.

Depends on who you are talking to when asking that question. The application of position, stance, entry and exit however is often developed during sparring. In terms of movement. I would have to say that many times it's exactly the same, it just doesn't look the exactly the same because the resistance changes it look. There has been an increase of videos like this.

Keep in mind when people do forms there is no resistance. It's been my personal experience that the movement starts off like it does in the form but when resistance hits (about halfway through the drive of the movement) the look changes. If you don't get the initial movement correct at the beginning of the drive then you risk having an inefficient technique. You can often mess up and counter your opponent's techniques simply by changing how that technique begins. Stopping punches and kicks at the beginning or taking away a person's root would be an example of that.

but if it's using a different stance or a different reaction hand position (for instance) then it's technically not that move and not from that pattern.

This is correct technically but in fight application, fighting like you are doing a form will get you killed. Think of forms as a library of techniques from which you can use and apply in various situations. Resistance will change how deep a stance is but the understanding of how to keep the root while applying the technique will be the same as when practicing the form. A bow stance can be deep or shallow. As you train your stances you should be aware of how your balance shifts while holding the stance and how the weight feels on your feet. Once you have developed the ability to detect those slight shifts and correct the slight shifts, then you will be able to use that same ability in fighting. This is what stays the same and not the look of the stance.

There's a lot about martial arts that won't make sense until you spar and actually try to use the techniques. Trying to use the techniques in sparring will help you better understand what is going on in the forms and how the non-sparring training is really benefiting you. But you have to try to use the techniques instead of just trying to use only what's easy to do.

 

[pdg]

@JowGaWolf - that's agreed in a way.

Some people will see things I do and be able to link them to moves in a pattern.

Other people won't make the connection because it looks different.

Someone who says that only things contained in patterns/forms (with only superficial knowledge) could look at me and state that I'm not doing TKD.

A few things from the patterns I've had exposure to are directly applicable and look the same, other things change with resistance and look different, other things I just can't get to work at all (but someone else might).

Arguably, there are also some that I need to tweak to suit my movement and capability, which technically makes it something not "in the library of moves" (without significant research and reinterpretation) - is it any less part of the art?