Actually, most self defence systems (such as RBSD groups) don't use sparring at all. They use scenario-based free-response drills, but not sparring (although, confusingly, some use the term "sparring" as it's easier to give people the idea....) The difference between the two (sparring and scenario-based free-response training) will be covered in a little bit.
And both, if used in conjunction, can be as beneficial, so long as they are both done properly.
Actually, I don't think limiting is really the issue, it's a matter of what you're actually testing.
And so stems the issue of Focus.
Honestly, I think that when you see such things, it means that the practitioners themselves either don't understand their own system, or don't have faith in it. As a result, they go to what they see as being successful in sparring, which is a TKD/kickboxing approach for standing, and BJJ for ground. More on this later...
Tis the Focus and the Faith. They assume that theyre not learning what they should literally think, and instead replace it with preconceived notions theyve developed.
Yep. That's the thing, really, the training methods have to be congruent with the ideas of the art itself.
*nods*
Oh, sparring absolutely has benefits, but the form needs to compliment the rest of the training. When it is done congruently, it's great, and I highly recommend it. It's when it isn't that there are issues. Speaking of that....
And this is where I start to come in. Sparring has come to mean something a bit disambiguous of its definition and idealogy. It must be a test of Skill as a Practitioner of Your System. Sparring is not Fighting, even if it can come damn close to it sometimes.
I'll see if I can state it one more time then. The big clue was in my last post where I discussed how martial training actually works (programming your unconscious response).
*Nods*
To be effective, training has to be congruent. There is no two ways around that. If you have two incongruent methods, the only way to get them to work is to abandon one, or change them both to make them fit with each other. And that just isn't possible when the two methods are diametrically opposed.
This can also lead into self deception, causing bad habits. Such as, thinking that something works in Sparring, and will therefore work in Fighting, when the Sparring Idealogy is flawed to begin with, causing a void which You are filling in, which would not otherwise exist.
The issue isn't that you're sparring, it's the way you do it. There are forms of free-form training (which some may label as "sparring") that can absolutely be used to train the Takamatsuden arts, but the way you're doing it just doesn't work. You may get good at the sparring approach you use, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the Ninjutsu skills or if you're any good at that. And you may be fantastic at the Ninjutsu skills and techniques, but not so good at the sparring, and feel that you're not able to "fight" properly, when you haven't even tested anything you're actually good at.
And this is where Im replying primarily. Sparring is not Fighting. Sparring is controlled exchanges of applications. It can benefit Fighting, but it is not fighting. It can be very close to fighting, but it is still, not fighting. The problem that arises, is that if someone continuously loses in Sparring without realising this, it can diminish their confidence in both their System, and themselves. And that is dangerous.
When I'm talking about sparring here, I'm referring to two people squaring off, and trying to outclass/outperform each other. Both are trying to press forward with offense, and handle incoming attacks with defense. It is a contest, even when it's claimed not to be ("The only competition is with yourself... There are no winners..."), due to the structure of the testing method. And, as such, it is not really representative of reality at all.
Aye. It is representative of only one small aspect, and even then, it is but an element of it. Sparring is subjective, and if it is taken out of its relevant subject context, it becomes skewed, and unusual.
Real encounters have an aggressor (or a number of them), and a defender. There is often no preparation time, or very little, the attacks are unfamiliar (as opposed to being similar to what you yourself are responding with), and the encounters tend to be fairly quick, rather than drawn out exchanges. As a result, if you're after a realistic way of testing your skills and abilities, look to methods that mimic that as closely as possible. Sparring just doesn't do it.
Aye again. Sparring can help Your Mindset, and Your Movement, and probably Positioning, and so forth, but as Im saying in support, Sparring aint Fighting.
Reality Based Self Defense uses scenario-based response training, and that's really the way to go. Scenario based training is exactly as it sounds... you set up a scenario, where there is an attacker and a defender. To begin with, the attacks are nominated, but by the end, it becomes completely free form. The defender has an aim to accomplish, rather than just "fight", which might be to subdue, to escape, to prevent a takedown, or anything similar. This way skills are genuinely tested, rather than just "fighting".
Technically, that is Fighting, in its proper context. Much like how Sparring is such a vague term.
The "just fight" approach leads to tactics of staying 'in' the fight, when the tactics of the art tell you to escape. The "just fight" approach leads to an unrealistic expectation of combat, with the reality of attack and defense compromised simply by being aware that you're in a fight already. That changes the effect of the attack, whether or not the attacker is also prepared, or ready to defend themselves, and so on.
Which cannot be simulated in Sparring.
Put it another way, sparring is highly unrealistic for anything other than preparation for sporting systems and their competitive environment. Scenario based training gives all the benefits of sparring, but none of the drawbacks.
Again, Ill say that it can benefit Your Mindset, but it is not representative of Your Actions and Responses, so much as various less pertinent elements.
As said, training needs to be congruent, without that, it's just exercise and wasting time. And that's the biggest problem with the sparring clips that I've seen, and as have been put forth from the Akban organisation. The reason that TKD, kickboxing, karate etc have their sparring methods is that it is congruent with their art. In TKD sparring, you see TKD kicks, postural concepts, distancing, power source, and so on. In BJJ rolling, you see BJJ postural concepts, tactics, techniques, and so on. In Akban Ninjutsu sparring, you see kickboxing/TKD/Karate, Judo, and BJJ, but no Ninjutsu. That's the biggest problem. You're sparring as a way of testing your art, but not actually testing your art in any way whatsoever. Sparring itself isn't the problem, but sparring without using your art in order to show how you can use your art is just pointless.
Optionally, Misinterpriting or 'adding' to Your Art is a bigger problem. The real question should be, that when they Spar, where the hell are they getting all their non-Ninjutsu from? Where did it come from, and what gave them the idea and mindset that it was the right thing to do? If they were freely choosing to use different approaches, that wouldnt be as bad. The fact that when theyre put in that situation and immediately dump their proper System, I cant help but be on the same boat as You are. Which is the second reason Im replying.
I really don't know any way to say it clearer than that, honestly.
You cant. Im voicing agreement to put forward My Views on the matter, albeit the Issue seems pretty clear. They are Sparring, but it is not Ninjutsu as it should be being applied. Its Sparring with a Ninjutsu Label.
