Sparring to win vs sparring to understand

[Earl Weiss]

I don't compete, so I should be stucked in the exploration phase. And my sparring is pointless.
I understand you as a competitor, or as a competitor's coach, but you seem forgetting the non sports side...
Anyway we agree agree that competitors need more competitive sparring, other people not so much... (never closer to a fight, ideally)

People must agree how terms are defined before a meaningful discussion can be had.
It seems the discussion has expanded to encompass 3 separate things:
1. Training. Learning and developing techniques and strategies for use against an opponent or adversary for sparring or self defense depending on training goals.
2. Sparring - Sport combat within a specific rule set where a winner is ultimately determined by points, submission, knockout / unconsciousness or DQ.
3. Fighting. Willing participants engage in combat with no ruleset. Goal is to defeat opponent. Opponent can not or will not continue.
4. Self defense. Otherwise unwilling participant forced to defend (Can involve pre emption) Against an attacker. No rules - Goal is survival / protection of others.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

People must agree how terms are defined before a meaningful discussion can be had.
It seems the discussion has expanded to encompass 3 separate things:
1. Training. Learning and developing techniques and strategies for use against an opponent or adversary for sparring or self defense depending on training goals.
2. Sparring - Sport combat within a specific rule set where a winner is ultimately determined by points, submission, knockout / unconsciousness or DQ.
3. Fighting. Willing participants engage in combat with no ruleset. Goal is to defeat opponent. Opponent can not or will not continue.
4. Self defense. Otherwise unwilling participant forced to defend (Can involve pre emption) Against an attacker. No rules - Goal is survival / protection of others.

You've left out of your "sparring" definition the type of sparring that is done without points or judges and which is not a sport activity by most people's definition. It's a very similar activity, and would be odd to lump it into "training" where so many different activities exist. I'd segment "sparring" from "sport competition", so perhaps have 5 categories. The conversation would be discussing the "sparring" and "sport competition" categories.

 

[Thousand Kicks]

I see people getting hung up on the word "win". When my teacher used the phrase sparring to win, he wasn't referring to a competition where somebody is declared the winner or loser at the end. He was just talking about a competitive or serious mind set. It's just getting in the head space where your telling yourself that you are employing a strategy and trying to make it work.

Fellow students have asked me to watch them spar to give my advice on things to improve. At the end of the round(s), my first question is always "What were you trying to do?" Most times I get a funny look followed by "What do you mean, I was sparring." To get better at anything means you have to assess where you are and determine the goal. Simply saying I want to get better is not going to help much. Get better at what, your defense, your offense, yout footwork?

The root of his question is how are you trying to improve yourself.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Let's compare "sparring" with "wrestling".

In

- wrestling, you try to take your opponent down, and not to be taken down by your opponent.
- sparring, you ...

Why should people treat "sparring - test your striking skill" and "wrestling - test your grappling skill" any different?

 

[marques]

4. Self defense. Otherwise unwilling participant forced to defend (Can involve pre emption) Against an attacker. No rules - Goal is survival / protection of others.

Self defence is plenty of rules. Otherwise, it is free violence.

But, while I don't agree completely with the definitions, you touched the point: we are not talking about the same, since sparring, training, fighting, self defence have different definitions and interpretations. Anyway, we get something from these discussions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Self defence is plenty of rules. Otherwise, it is free violence.

But, while I don't agree completely with the definitions, you touched the point: we are not talking about the same, since sparring, training, fighting, self defence have different definitions and interpretations. Anyway, we get something from these discussions.

There are no rules during self-defense. Attackers don't follow a rule book. If they did, they wouldn't be attacking.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Self defence is plenty of rules. Otherwise, it is free violence.

Examples of "Rules" for self defense please.

 

[marques]

From the beginning, self-defence is a legal term. If it is not legal, it is not self-defence, in a strict sense. I know a lot of people use their own definition. But the rules of self-defence are written.

For instance, Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service . I did not verify the content, but the source must be trustable. It was just the first I found.

Ok, no rules from the side of the attacker. Anyway he will avoid bad consequences for him... So some limitations also for him.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Anyway he will avoid bad consequences for him... So some limitations also for him.

I never assume that my attacker cares about the bad consequences for him. People get murdered, stabbed, shot, jumped by multiple attackers, sucker punched, and stomped every day. The only thing I can assume is that I could easily be included in one of those groups. My job is to defend myself in a way that doesn't put me in one of those groups. Because I don't want to go to jail or prison, I must make sure that my response is reasonable within the law. This means that certain requirements must be met before I can go to the extreme of defending myself.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Fellow students have asked me to watch them spar to give my advice on things to improve. At the end of the round(s), my first question is always "What were you trying to do?"

I ask my students this as well, so I don't give them a lecture about why they ate so many punches. If they tell me that they are working on trying to use a specific technique then I can guide them and help them out. If they say something like "I was just trying to hit him," then they will get a lecture from me.

I also ask them what were they thinking about when they were sparring. A lot of times they say "nothing" so then I ask them what were they noticing about their opponent during the sparring. If they say "nothing" again then I give them a lecture.

There always has to be a goal or an awareness of the opponent beyond "trying to hit."

 

[marques]

I never assume that my attacker cares about the bad consequences for him.

You should not assume it, don't get me wrong. But you can use it to your advantage. Guys that want to kill or so don't like witnesses (and it is a good excuse in the court to be aggressive if you are attacked in an isolated place - if you can justify you could not run away). So just screaming and running may be a good solution. A 'bar fight' only make sense with witnesses and the same strategy does not apply...
Here I am going a bit far from 'rules', but the 'everything goes' is also far from the reported facts. Yet, we must be ready!!

Because I don't want to go to jail or prison, I must make sure that my response is reasonable within the law. This means that certain requirements must be met before I can go to the extreme of defending myself.

You know what self-defence is. It should be nothing special in the martial arts niche, but sadly it still is...

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Because I don't want to go to jail or prison, I must make sure that my response is reasonable within the law.

One of my students got into a bar fight. in that 10 minutes, he played 100% defense. His opponent's punches could not land on his body. After 10 minutes, his opponent sat down on the coach and didn't know why he could not hit on my student. That fight ended right there and nobody got hurt.

IMO, if you can show your opponent that he can't hurt you that easy, he may not want to continue that fight.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

From the beginning, self-defence is a legal term. If it is not legal, it is not self-defence, in a strict sense. I know a lot of people use their own definition. But the rules of self-defence are written.

For instance, Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service . I did not verify the content, but the source must be trustable. It was just the first I found.

Ok, no rules from the side of the attacker. Anyway he will avoid bad consequences for him... So some limitations also for him.

Self-defense is a legal term, when it is used as a defense against legal action. That, however, is not the only usage. In the sense it is most commonly used here, it refers to physical action taken to defend against imminent violence. In that context, there are no rules.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok, no rules from the side of the attacker. Anyway he will avoid bad consequences for him... So some limitations also for him.

What bad consequences do you see him avoiding that place a limitation on him? And how will the potential victim recognize those limitations during the attack?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

One of my students got into a bar fight. in that 10 minutes, he played 100% defense. His opponent's punches could not land on his body. After 10 minutes, his opponent sat down on the coach and didn't know why he could not hit on my student. That fight ended right there and nobody got hurt.

IMO, if you can show your opponent that he can't hurt you that easy, he may not want to continue that fight.

If the attacker was completely ineffectual, that may have been a reasonable response. If the attacker was giving attacks that would otherwise have been problematic (could cause real injury), then 10 minutes is far too long to stay in that danger zone. It only takes one stone on the ground, one spilled drink, or one stupid mistake to give someone an opening. If it was a clear case of out-matching the other guy, then some method of restraining him would have been a wiser choice, in my opinion.

 

[JowGaWolf]

One of my students got into a bar fight. in that 10 minutes, he played 100% defense. His opponent's punches could not land on his body. After 10 minutes, his opponent sat down on the coach and didn't know why he could not hit on my student. That fight ended right there and nobody got hurt.

IMO, if you can show your opponent that he can't hurt you that easy, he may not want to continue that fight.

What would your student have done if someone was more than content to attack his limbs?

 

[drop bear]

There are no rules during self-defense. Attackers don't follow a rule book. If they did, they wouldn't be attacking.

Not that it really matters for sparring.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What would your student have done if someone was more than content to attack his limbs?

To play defense in the beginning to let people know that you didn't start this fight can be important in court if legal issue is what you are worry about.

 

[marques]

Fr

What bad consequences do you see him avoiding that place a limitation on him? And how will the potential victim recognise those limitations during the attack?

From one side, I understand the question. I try to say everything, and more, in two sentences. From another side, I just give the clues that the reader may explore or not. I will not lecture you (the readers).

Another clue: People interested in self-defence should know about violence dynamics and may, as an intellectual exercise, read (choose?) all the environments he gets in identifying threats and possible exits. It may seem extreme for some, but is what we do naturally when driving. To finish, during the attack anything is a bit late if you missed all the precedent steps...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Fr

From one side, I understand the question. I try to say everything, and more, in two sentences. From another side, I just give the clues that the reader may explore or not. I will not lecture you (the readers).

Another clue: People interested in self-defence should know about violence dynamics and may, as an intellectual exercise, read (choose?) all the environments he gets in identifying threats and possible exits. It may seem extreme for some, but is what we do naturally when driving. To finish, during the attack anything is a bit late if you missed all the precedent steps...

Instead of providing "clues" in a discussion, why not simply communicate what you want others to understand? You made a statement that doesn't make sense to me. I asked for clarification.