sparring

[Cyriacus]

My students are encouraged to utilise the principles and tactics that we're exploring. This week, we covered a lead-hand fake followed by a lead-leg kick, then we covered a rear-hand fake followed by a rear-leg kick. In pressure testing and scenario training, provided a high fake and low kick were used, whether it was lead/rear, rear/rear, lead/lead, or whatever, that's considered success. Letting the other guy get too close is considered not a successful usage of the tactic being taught, and would necessitate moving onto the next stage (defensive actions).

So while they're not encouraged to improvise if there's a mistake, they're not given "techniques" at that point either. The only aim is to drill (with success) the tactic being taught. And in that vein, there's a lot of freedom as to exactly what they do. I tend to not even give them a specific kick, as that will change each time, depending on the distance after the fake, the opponents height, your height, the angle you've taken, and more. I'll give a range of ideas, and maybe something specific for the beginners, but that's it. It's not about techniques, it's about being able to employ the strategies and tactics.

In the "martial art" portion, I get them to do exactly what is shown, or as close as they can, as that is where that form of precision is needed and beneficial, learning to do things that you wouldn't necessarily do yourself, and extending your personality that way. But for self defence, I want my guys to have a range of skills that they can depend on, based on what they are confident in and feel strong with. So provided they keep to the tactic being shown, there's no "wrong" way. Although I do often show an "easier", or "better" way for them to achieve the results....

Hmm, did that make sense?

Yes it did, thankyou kindly.
Ill comment that I approve of Your Methodology, even if I am probably biased by having little to directly personally (from my own experience) compare it to, and therefore hold it in higher regard.

 

[Chris Parker]

Thanks. A hell of a lot of years of research, study, observation, and insight have gone into it's development, of which I can only take a small degree of credit for the way it's done in my schools. And yeah, I'm kinda fond of our methods myself....

 

[Cyriacus]

Thanks. A hell of a lot of years of research, study, observation, and insight have gone into it's development, of which I can only take a small degree of credit for the way it's done in my schools. And yeah, I'm kinda fond of our methods myself....

Well, as it was explained to Me (This is not an exact quote. This was months ago): "Trying to do something precise and specific assumes theres anything precise or specific about hitting someone. Because they are trying to hit you. If you are trying to do something specific, you are trying to do THAT. Not hit them, but do the movement. And that is not Fighting."
In short, trying to adopt a "Someone will do this so you will do this to there like that" is *MOSTLY* ineffective. Of course it can be done right with certain things, like Grabs, wherein You may benefit from nullifying it with a basic motion, but Im referring to trying to use overly intricate combinations. Saying "Someone will attack you and you will react, heres some fantastic ideas", will usually work swell. Ill cite your example, of fake high hit low. The fake may well connect as well. It doesnt matter. Because the low one is whatll probably work. An example of my own would be to fake high with the back hand, then attack low with the front. If its done whilst offset slightly, it can be great for barraging into someone. But the important thing is, that it doesnt matter one bit which punches I use.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yeah, pretty much. What you need is simple, gross motor, reliable concepts that can be easily adapted to the needs of any particular situation. With the fake, at both the Tuesday and Thursday night classes, there were occasions where the "fake" DID connect... which I pointed out was fine, as it still achieved the result I was after. All the fake needed to do was raise their attention high... which it did. It didn't even matter what their reaction was, it could be a skilled attempted deflection, or cover, it could be a flinch back, it could be getting anxious (if on drugs, for instance, as you're then "attacking" their perception via their eyesight), or anything, provided their attention was brought up high, it gave the opening for a low kick to any open target. If you didn't get that reaction, don't go for the kick, get distance again, and do something else.

In regards to the kick, there was some correction to some of the newer guys as they were doing things like forms of roundhouse kicks... which can be very effective and powerful, but the way we set our bodies up with the footwork to move in with the fake means that they aren't very powerful for us. So they still need to use "ninjutsu" kicks... which is fine, as they are very natural and direct. Typically I'd point out that the kick they'd used (if they tried the roundhouse kick, for instance) wasn't giving them the result they'd need, and why, as well as showing our form and explaining why it is the way it is. So there's still that level of "correct" and "incorrect"... and again reinforces my point on training a single art and approach, whether it's traditional, scripted, or more free-form.

 

[Cyriacus]

Yeah, pretty much. What you need is simple, gross motor, reliable concepts that can be easily adapted to the needs of any particular situation. With the fake, at both the Tuesday and Thursday night classes, there were occasions where the "fake" DID connect... which I pointed out was fine, as it still achieved the result I was after. All the fake needed to do was raise their attention high... which it did. It didn't even matter what their reaction was, it could be a skilled attempted deflection, or cover, it could be a flinch back, it could be getting anxious (if on drugs, for instance, as you're then "attacking" their perception via their eyesight), or anything, provided their attention was brought up high, it gave the opening for a low kick to any open target. If you didn't get that reaction, don't go for the kick, get distance again, and do something else.

In regards to the kick, there was some correction to some of the newer guys as they were doing things like forms of roundhouse kicks... which can be very effective and powerful, but the way we set our bodies up with the footwork to move in with the fake means that they aren't very powerful for us. So they still need to use "ninjutsu" kicks... which is fine, as they are very natural and direct. Typically I'd point out that the kick they'd used (if they tried the roundhouse kick, for instance) wasn't giving them the result they'd need, and why, as well as showing our form and explaining why it is the way it is. So there's still that level of "correct" and "incorrect"... and again reinforces my point on training a single art and approach, whether it's traditional, scripted, or more free-form.

I can see the sense in that.
Ive learnt to generally use Roundhouse type kicks either as a Leg Sweep with the Shin, a Leg Kick with the Ball of the Foot, or a Power Kick to the Ribs, or a Head Kick in one particular combination. Its also the only one that uses it like that. It is also the most uncommon Kick (This is a small list where looking at here, so dont look at that as an insult, anyone). While it is Powerful, and Fast, it can be hard to get a good angle on it, and as such goes on the backburner. Of course correcting things which will be ineffectual is important. It prevents people from teaching themselves to, say, roundhouse someone in the midsection and expect it to wrench them over, only to hit with a weaker part of the leg and wind up slapping them, in place of better words. And from what Ive seen of Ninjutsu Stances, this is especially true.
Logic aside, I personally prefer Straight Kicks anyway.

 

[Chris Parker]

It's more that it requires a completely different set-up with the hips, and a completely different sense of power development, so it's really not a part of our methods at all. Imagine pulling your right hand back, as if for a big haymaker/hook, then trying to backfist from there. A backfist is fine by itself, but it needs the right set-up, same with the roundhouse. And this is coming from a guy with a number of years of karate and TKD behind him.

 

[Cyriacus]

It's more that it requires a completely different set-up with the hips, and a completely different sense of power development, so it's really not a part of our methods at all. Imagine pulling your right hand back, as if for a big haymaker/hook, then trying to backfist from there. A backfist is fine by itself, but it needs the right set-up, same with the roundhouse. And this is coming from a guy with a number of years of karate and TKD behind him.

Yep - Thats more or less what I gathered. Though to be deliberately snarky Im going to say that You could do a Horizontal Midsection Backfist from that Chamber reasonably well
I can relate to why it isnt a Method at all - We dont do Roundhouses with the Instep at all ever. I am positive it works with a stance befitting it, but from the positions and methods Ive learnt, it just doenst make sense at all, and there are better options anyway.

 

[Chris Parker]

If you've really pulled your hand back (so your elbow points backward, and your fist is near your right ear), the only backfist you can do is behind you... but that's probably off topic! Mind you, so is the roundhouse kick discussion, come to think of it...

 

[Cyriacus]

If you've really pulled your hand back (so your elbow points backward, and your fist is near your right ear), the only backfist you can do is behind you... but that's probably off topic! Mind you, so is the roundhouse kick discussion, come to think of it...

Well, yeah. But turn your hips to the left (Assuming its your right hand), and snap your arm in to the side, then open the Hip.

And yeah, this is a bit off topic. But I didnt really see much sense in doing it by PM originally. That being said, alot of this Topic has been vaguely off topic.

 

[Chris Parker]

It'd be fairly weak still....

 

[Cyriacus]

It'd be fairly weak still....

Never implied otherwise, Good Sir!

 

[Haikuguy]

Just a wee question pertinent to the "analysis of Koto Ryu" mentioned earlier and referred again to above; what relevant qualification does the AKBAN member in question have to make a critical analysis of koto Ryu? Menkyo? Menkyo kaiden? Something else?

I realise this may sound like a loaded question but honestly I'm just aking to get an idea of where you guys are coming from with some of the analysis here.

Hi Indagator!

You can read about Yossi here and contact him yourself- he's a nice guy and he'll be happy to answer any questions.

I thought this thread is about sparring, not about things like "the purity of Ninjutsu" or "what makes Ninjutsu Ninjutsu"...
which are interesting questions, I have to say, but honestly, I'm not too bothered by it like other members of this forum obviously are.

I don't know- is Hip Hop today still Hip Hop? do the changes of time made it less Hip Hop or more?
and what's the "better" Hip Hop? how do you decide what's the "better" Hip Hop? should there be?

I don't know, and if I liked Hip Hop I probably wouldn't care- I would be excited to witness the evolution and just listen to good music.



In AKBAN we don't "own" Ninjutsu and don't want to (which is kind of obvious if we have the biggest martial arts online data base in the world, for free...)


And Chris, I understand that this issue is very important to you, and you have invested a lot of time in writing here and responding, but I still don't understand what's wrong with different approaches.



In regards to "what's better for real life situations", a lot of AKBAN veterans are teachers in counter-terrorism schools in Israel after a service in the special forces there- I think they'd know....

Anyway, I think I said everything I can about why I think sparring is important, and honestly, I would rather spend this time on the mat than trying to convince the un-convinced hunched over a computer...



Peace, friends!

 

[Chris Parker]

Yeah, the topic is sparring, but it's in the Ninjutsu section, so it's about sparring in a Ninjutsu context, not just in general. And there isn't an issue with the idea of different training methods, the question has been a simple one.... why, if you're teaching and training Ninjutsu, is your sparring method showing no ninjutsu methods at all? Not why are you sparring, not what are the benefits of it, just why are you sparring using methods that are completely removed from the actual art? And if you can't see how far removed they are, what criteria do you use to classify Ninjutsu's combative methods, as it would indicate a huge gap in understanding?

 

[johnmills]

One note about the scenario training videos- which I find quite interesting- it looks like it is all done at half speed with little power. I still see the value of those types of drills as a training tool, but I'm not certain I would call them more 'realistic' than full contact sparring, which I also don't see as simulating reality, but more about honing skills, techinques and reflexes at the kind of speed a real conflict would play out.

 

[Chris Parker]

That's the beginning phase in JWT's training methods. If you go to the you-tube pages themselves, the scenarios and training method (including up to full pace and power training) is covered in the descriptions. Quite interesting reads, really.

 

[johnmills]

Thanks for the response. I will indeed check it out.

Spent a few years bouncing at a club in Atlanta then one in Los Angeles so I can't say I'm really interested in doing that type of training, but I love to sort of mentally compare notes to some of the wakiness I've born witness to ;p

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Actually, that type of thing can be trained quite easily in Scenario training as well (in fact, a lot easier than in sparring). For example, this month I'm taking my guys through "entry" techniques (use a fake to create an opening, and follow with your attack). The way we train it is to first go through the principle as a "technique", looking at how to make it work (how to sell the fake, principles of fake high, strike low etc), then we put it into a scenario. For instance, from a talking situation, the "bad guy" gets angry, you bring your hands up in a "fence", they shove you back (this is following on from our look at pre-emptive striking last month, and assuming that, for whatever reason, you don't get your first strike off in time) and quickly follow in to strike themselves. As they approach, you throw your fake and strike, then escape. As it is continued, a range of fake and enter concepts are drilled, and the response, while always being a "fake and enter" in this scenario, becomes a free-form expression of that. The pace is increased to realistic pace and pressure as we go.

That's basically our way of drilling everything in our "street" work, and the result is that there are a range of solidly drilled concepts for all stages of combat (de-escalation before the physical, pre-emptive strikes, fake-and-enter patterns, defensive responses, weapon defenses, ground escapes, and so on). At the end, the students should be able to be put in any scenario training situation and be able to use any of the tactics they've drilled to successfully escape with complete free-form training, as in the clips above. They should be able to attempt to talk their way out of the situation, then, if that doesn't work, there's a range of fail-safes after that. But each training method is geared up to the exact result we want, and there's no point training a method that counter-acts it.

Hey Chris,

While I agree that you can do the above and when utilizing Scenario Based Training myself we do the same exact thing. Still not quite exactly the same as free flowing unpredictable sparring or grappling with no prearranged drill ie. scenario worked out. There is a difference! I am all about Scenario training but feel that one on one or two on one sparring is also beneficial as stated above. I totally understand your point but feel that you gain a lot from sparring/rolling and the benefits when a person also trains in Scenario Based Training are numerous. I think you can make them easiily work together. I do not see them as mutually exclusive!

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Love JWT's training and video clips by the way!

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Chris,

While I agree that you can do the above and when utilizing Scenario Based Training myself we do the same exact thing. Still not quite exactly the same as free flowing unpredictable sparring or grappling with no prearranged drill ie. scenario worked out. There is a difference! I am all about Scenario training but feel that one on one or two on one sparring is also beneficial as stated above. I totally understand your point but feel that you gain a lot from sparring/rolling and the benefits when a person also trains in Scenario Based Training are numerous. I think you can make them easiily work together.

Ha, absolutely, it's not the same! If they were the same, there really wouldn't be any argument of one over the other, would there? As I've said, I'm only concerned with forms of training that take me towards the results I need or want, which, in self defence training, means taking it as close to a realistic experience (including the realistic actions and aims of both the attacker and defender) as possible, and only training those responses that I want to have and rely on. Scenario training gives that to me in a way that sparring just doesn't.

But to flip this a bit, can you talk about the advantages of sparring training over the scenario training methods as you see them? I can see a couple that might have some validity to their argument, but honestly, they're rather small in number, and minimalist in their overall benefits, so I'm curious as to what you see that means you'd want to keep what is, honestly, a far less efficient or effective way of training for self defence in your repertoire.

Love JWT's training and video clips by the way!

Ha, me too.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Sorry I got pulled away by the pool guy!


Hey Chris,

Let's look at Submission Grappling (a form of sparring). I have put in ton's of hours on the ground. (even more standing up) The constant linking together of techniques while grappling is harder to replicate but not impossible in Scenario Based Training. Now even though I spar and submission grapple that does not negate that I know to get up as quick as possible if I am in a violent situation. (I am going to get up as fast as possible unless in a totally one on one situation with no possibilities of extra people joining in) The linking of technique, relaxation that occurs and the ability to develop your "go to" moves are just some of the advantages of sparring. Not to mention the mental strength and all the other athletic benefits involved as well.

Where I will agree with you is that the Takamatsuden arts are not that great to spar with. (at least empty hand) That is why when you see an off shoot "sparring" they invariably incorporate techniques not found in the system. I do not necessarily see this as a weakness but more as a strength. (ie. the cross training)

I do not see this as an either or situation. Meaning, you can Spar, Roll and practice Scenario Based Training and it will only add to the depth and quality of your training. Just like I feel a Takamatsuden Art practitioner will benefit also from practicing in a Iaido Dojo, Kyudo Dojo as well as a BJJ or Judo School. They can still primarily be a Takamatsuden Practitioner but gain benefits from practicing in other systesms. I do not believe any one system has all the answers and that a well rounded practitioner needs to experience other systems and their views on dealing with conflict. However, that does not mean they have to give up their "core system".