Sparring and My Difficulty Against Kicks

[Jaeimseu]

If you can't do TKD technique applications in point sparring then are you really doing TKD or learning TKD?

Even if you’re not using every technique in the system, you’re still using the system. I hear BJJ guys all the time say that the more advanced they get the simpler their game becomes. Taekwondo sparring is similar, especially competitive sparring. Techniques tend to be limited because people gravitate toward what is proven to be most effective for a given situation. If you’re training for competition, it’s just common sense to work on the things you’ll need under your particular rule set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you can't do TKD technique applications in point sparring then are you really doing TKD or learning TKD?

I'm missing something here, JGW. He's training TKD for fun and point sparring. I presume that means he's doing TKD during his point sparring.

 

[Dirty Dog]

No, that's your purpose for sparring.

No, that is THE purpose of sparring. Rules that allow scoring with techniques that are not effective or encourage behavior that would be foolish in a fight are the biggest problem with the sport side of martial arts.

One could draw a parallel to target shooting only ever being practice for killing things...

Only if one were being a silly doofus. Target shooting, unlike what you're describing, doesn't make your shooting ineffective for hunting or self defense. Which means target shooting is a good thing to practice for it's own sake, even if you have no intention of ever killing anything.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

No, that is THE purpose of sparring. Rules that allow scoring with techniques that are not effective or encourage behavior that would be foolish in a fight are the biggest problem with the sport side of martial arts.

This is your perspective because you view TKD as a martial art. Those who practice strictly as a sport or a cultural activity have a different view.

We have a similar tension in BJJ between those of us who view it as a martial art and the increasing number of practitioners who participate solely for the sake of sport competition and have no concerns with whether a given technique is appropriate for a real fight.

 

[Dirty Dog]

This is your perspective because you view TKD as a martial art. Those who practice strictly as a sport or a cultural activity have a different view.

TKD is a martial art. Full stop.

We have a similar tension in BJJ between those of us who view it as a martial art and the increasing number of practitioners who participate solely for the sake of sport competition and have no concerns with whether a given technique is appropriate for a real fight.

Those people are wrong too.
In both cases, the sport is a subset of the art; a training tool. And insofar as it encourages the development of the skillset used in that art, it's a good thing. When it encourages the use of ineffective, useless, or outright stupid techniques, then it should stop pretending to be something it's not. Stop calling it TKD. Call it foot pattycake. Stop calling it BJJ. Call it advanced wedgie administration.
This wouldn't even be an issue if the governing bodies of the various sports would use rational rulesets.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

TKD is a martial art. Full stop.



Those people are wrong too.
In both cases, the sport is a subset of the art; a training tool. And insofar as it encourages the development of the skillset used in that art, it's a good thing. When it encourages the use of ineffective, useless, or outright stupid techniques, then it should stop pretending to be something it's not. Stop calling it TKD. Call it foot pattycake. Stop calling it BJJ. Call it advanced wedgie administration.
This wouldn't even be an issue if the governing bodies of the various sports would use rational rulesets.

From a prescriptive point of view, I’d like to agree with you. I think much of the richness and value of a martial art is lost when it is reduced to just a sport.

From a descriptive point of view ... neither TKD nor BJJ nor any other martial art exists as a Platonic ideal with a singular existence in of itself without regard to its practitioners. If there are no practitioners, there is no art. Full stop. If there are practitioners, but they have significantly different concepts and goals for their practice, then we risk falling into “no true Scotsman” territory when we decree that only those who share our perspective are training the real art. (We see the same thing with certain followers of religion when they announce that such and such a group of their coreligionists with whom they disagree aren’t really Christian or Muslim or whatever.)

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

We have a similar tension in BJJ between those of us who view it as a martial art and the increasing number of practitioners who participate solely for the sake of sport competition and have no concerns with whether a given technique is appropriate for a real fight.

It's sad to see the future of BJJ may be like this.

We MA lovers do have the responsibility to "guide" the MA toward the right direction even if it may upset a small group of people.

If sport can hurt combat, it's the wrong sport.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

TKD is a martial art. Full stop.



Those people are wrong too.
In both cases, the sport is a subset of the art; a training tool. And insofar as it encourages the development of the skillset used in that art, it's a good thing. When it encourages the use of ineffective, useless, or outright stupid techniques, then it should stop pretending to be something it's not. Stop calling it TKD. Call it foot pattycake. Stop calling it BJJ. Call it advanced wedgie administration.
This wouldn't even be an issue if the governing bodies of the various sports would use rational rulesets.

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?

NGA is specifically intended to be a self-defense art for civilians (it's actually in the name of the art). But I know a few folks who study it to work on the principle of aiki, to create more flowing movement, and for the fun and relaxation of it. Those things aren't really aligned (IMO) with practice specifically for defensive use, but they certainly move well and flow nicely. They won't practice some of the applications I do - just not very "aiki" - but I'm not the NGA police. They can put the movements to whatever use they see fit - kind of like the folks who use Tai Chi's slow movements to develop their bodies. No harm, no foul.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's sad to see the future of BJJ may be like this.

We MA lovers do have the responsibility to "guide" the MA toward the right direction even if it may upset a small group of people.

If sport can hurt combat, it's the wrong sport.

I think it's more realistic to say the future of one branch of BJJ might include things like this. As long as folks within BJJ recognize the difference between that and what folks like Tony do, I don't see a problem with it. I think it's silly, and wouldn't do something like that even in competition where rules might make it make sense, but if it works for someone competing, why would I care?

EDIT: How can a sport "hurt combat"?

 

[pdg]

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?

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

 

[_Simon_]

It's sad to see the future of BJJ may be like this.

We MA lovers do have the responsibility to "guide" the MA toward the right direction even if it may upset a small group of people.

If sport can hurt combat, it's the wrong sport.

(Interjection: THANK YOU for posting that gif again XDXDXD)


But yes I think it's an interesting topic, and possibly one that won't find resolution, simply because it's not black and white.

Just depends on the viewpoint one is coming from. Yes, martial arts are designed for self defense in mind. Yes martial arts techniques can be practiced in a variety of ways and for a variety of purposes. Just because karate techniques are performed in a competition does not necessarily make it 'less' of karate.

Does it actually cheapen martial arts as a whole or take anything away from the self defense aspect? I just don't think so.. sure it can lead people to thinking that certain martial arts are just for sports, can bring about more people training and opening up dojos with this solely being taught. But the people who are doing it for self defense are still gonna keep doing that, it's not deterring them, and those interested in keeping it for that purpose will just keep doing their own thing. Just as the others will keep doing theirs. Seems like this is a definition thing, or making sure that people see it in a certain true light..

To me it just all doesn't matter so much.. no injustices are being done, nor any harm. Only if we attach yourself to a name/original intention then will things go funky. I don't practice martial arts for self defense, I couldn't honestly tell you why I do. But I love doing it. And it is nice to preserve the original intention of martial arts. I guess I see it as evolving to suits people's needs, and that's a beautiful thing.

 

[jobo]

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?

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

It's a ( reasonable ) point of view i supose. It's fighting after all, but then most TMAs are filled with Low %ineffective techneqes, so most of them wouldn't count to DDs definition of only being a ma if they give you the ability to dismember someone with your bare hands. Then there the question of why punching bits of wood and kicking rubber dolls is considered to give you practical skills, but learning to accurately hit a Moving target is not?

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'm missing something here, JGW. He's training TKD for fun and point sparring. I presume that means he's doing TKD during his point sparring.

Follow me on this. This is how my brain sees it.
TKD teaches TKD fighting techniques.
TKD fighting techniques are in the forms.
TKD Fighting technique application is done as part of the drills.
The only real way to understand how to apply the techniques is through sparring because it includes things like, timing, distance, speed, baiting etc.
If you are using TKD techniques during sparring then you are using TKD fighting techniques during sparring.
If you don't use TKD techniques during sparring then you aren't using TKD fighting techniques.

If the purpose of sparring isn't used to learn how to apply the TKD fighting techniques, then what techniques are you applying? If the purpose of sparring is only to win then you can basically just do any sort of thing that doesn't have to be TKD. For example, those long diving punches to tap an opponent on the head, which is a Point Sparring technique but not a TKD technique, because diving punches are not in the TKD forms nor are they a part of it's fighting concepts.

If you don't train to learn how to apply TKD techniques (which are fighting techniques), then how can one say they are doing TKD in sparring? My point is that there is no way you can do TKD sparring without learning how to apply TKD techniques in sparring.

I'm making this comment because someone stated (can't remember off the top of my head), that they do sparring to win. So if that person isn't using sparring to learn how to apply TKD techniques then what is that person winning with?

 

[pdg]

TKD teaches TKD fighting techniques

Yes.

TKD fighting techniques are in the forms

Some - not all are contained within the patterns.

TKD Fighting technique application is done as part of the drill

Yes.

If you are using TKD techniques during sparring then you are using TKD fighting techniques during sparring.

Yes.

If you don't use TKD techniques during sparring then you aren't using TKD fighting techniques

And you don't (shouldn't) score using them.

I'm making this comment because someone stated (can't remember off the top of my head), that they do sparring to win. So if that person isn't using sparring to learn how to apply TKD techniques then what is that person winning with?

I said that I spar for the sake of sparring, and to score points - which I consider slightly different to the mindset involved in sparring to be "combat ready".

For example, those long diving punches to tap an opponent on the head, which is a Point Sparring technique but not a TKD technique, because diving punches are not in the TKD forms nor are they a part of it's fighting concepts.

Depends how you define "diving" really.

If you mean a jumping (/flying) punch, then they don't make much of an appearance in the patterns to my knowledge, but that doesn't mean they aren't part of the art.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Rules that allow scoring with techniques that are not effective or encourage behavior that would be foolish in a fight are the biggest problem with the sport side of martial arts.

These rules also encourage techniques that aren't part of the the martial art system that is being claimed. It no longer becomes martial, and it no longer becomes a technique from that system.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Follow me on this. This is how my brain sees it.
TKD teaches TKD fighting techniques.
TKD fighting techniques are in the forms.
TKD Fighting technique application is done as part of the drills.
The only real way to understand how to apply the techniques is through sparring because it includes things like, timing, distance, speed, baiting etc.
If you are using TKD techniques during sparring then you are using TKD fighting techniques during sparring.
If you don't use TKD techniques during sparring then you aren't using TKD fighting techniques.

If the purpose of sparring isn't used to learn how to apply the TKD fighting techniques, then what techniques are you applying? If the purpose of sparring is only to win then you can basically just do any sort of thing that doesn't have to be TKD. For example, those long diving punches to tap an opponent on the head, which is a Point Sparring technique but not a TKD technique, because diving punches are not in the TKD forms nor are they a part of it's fighting concepts.

If you don't train to learn how to apply TKD techniques (which are fighting techniques), then how can one say they are doing TKD in sparring? My point is that there is no way you can do TKD sparring without learning how to apply TKD techniques in sparring.

I'm making this comment because someone stated (can't remember off the top of my head), that they do sparring to win. So if that person isn't using sparring to learn how to apply TKD techniques then what is that person winning with?

Techniques can be applied different ways. I can deliver virtually identical front kicks - both correct by description to NGA standards. One will have power and be useful for slowing down or injuring an attacker. The other will be a tag, useful for point sparring. If it is useful for SD, it's only really as a feint. But it's the same technique. I could teach that (and other) techiniques specifically for a point-sparring type of environment, and the people learning them would not be learning useful fighting techniques. They'd still be learning NGA strikes, but learning to apply them (and strategy) to a context that doesn't require power and combat effectiveness.\

But it would still be NGA strikes. Their understanding of those strikes would be appropriate to the context for which they are meant. A fast, light kick is more effective for point sparring than a more powerful kick, so they'd be improving their ability for the context they intend. And their sparring would be the ultimate point of their training, rather than just a training tool.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

These rules also encourage techniques that aren't part of the the martial art system that is being claimed. It no longer becomes martial, and it no longer becomes a technique from that system.

I'm not a fan of defining a system by its techniques.

 

[pdg]

I'm not a fan of defining a system by its techniques.

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

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

Then, they look in the single volume condensed encyclopedia and discover possibly hundreds more techniques and variations - better expand that list.

Then, they have a browse through the 15 volume encyclopedia - hopefully they'll read the part about it not covering everything that is TKD.

So, it does actually become very difficult to say that such and such move isn't a TKD technique, because it might very well be.


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.

 

[JowGaWolf]

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

The damage that your technique puts out should only be managed by the power you put into it, not by the technique that you do (with the exceptions of the illegal techniques)

For example, a punching or kicking technique can be done with full power or low power without having to change the technique. I train my power punches all the time when I spar without hurting my training partner. The only reason know one is knocked out is because we don't put all of that power into the punch. To be honest we are basically point sparring with the exception of hits that we are willing to take if it means we can deliver a better strike.

A jab is a jab. If you learn how to jab correctly then your jab is "combat ready" how much power you are willing to put in it will determine if you are using it for combat and not point fighting. The technique is "combat ready"

If you are doing techniques that are specifically for point sparring then 9 times out of 10 you aren't doing TKD. The same techniques you train in TKD are the same techniques that you should be using in point sparring but at a lower power.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I said that I spar for the sake of sparring, and to score points - which I consider slightly different to the mindset involved in sparring to be "combat ready".

The technique itself is "combat ready" the only variance should be the power that is put into applying it. The mindset shouldn't have any baring on the technique itself. The mindset will have baring on the power that is put into a technique. For example, a jab in point sparring is not the same power as a jab in a street fight or full contact. It's the same dangerous technique but not the same power.