BallistikMike said:
Mr. Chapel (Playing the devils advocate) if that is the case.
How come Mr. Parker had so many "Sparring" techniques and also the Internationals for competition?
LOL... I wrote about 5 minutes worth of stuff trying to explain what I felt and why? It all sounded so argumentative and that is the furthest thing I wanted. So I'll just let my question stand alone and maybe you could run with it for awhile.
How you doing buddy? Well to understand you really have to look at the popular history of the Martial Arts in America. Much of the roots and popularity of the arts is grounded in the sport aspects because we, as American understand and enjoy the competitive nature of these type activities. Sports at all levels, from child amateurs to adult pros is big business.
Early American martial artist usually learned while in the military, studying for a relatively brief period under Asian Instructors and achieving black belts quickly with limited punch/kick skills and comensurate knowledge. The competitive nature of Americans fit this aspect of study perfectly and instructors gave them what they wanted.
Coming back to the USA they pioneered the competition circuit and thus indoctrinated generations to believe that was what Martial Arts is and was. Much like today when everyone wants to know "Do you teach NHB grappling?" The general public and many practitioners themselves believe this is all there is to the art.
Although certain aspects of "sparring" can be positive, it is important to take note the progenitors of most of the older arts like Ed Parker himself, did not engage in or believe in contest sparring. Most tend to forget that even more modern icons like Bruce Lee also did not believe in or engage in contest sparring for points, prizes, or trophys.
Sparring can introduce the physicality and the dynamics of human interaction on a competitive basis. However by its nature, it also must exclude the majority and finer points of combat, reducing these exercises to exhibitions of blunt force trauma and endurance.
Parker believed that sparring best helped to foster the warrior spirit or mentality in Americans in preparation for combat, but should not be considered to take the place of training for actual confrontation because of its extreme limitations relative to an actual street encounter.
Today that even holds true in the military where they teach "grappling" not as techniques to be used in warfare, but as character assessment exercises and to build a measure of mental tougness. But sparring leaves out 99% of what happens in real combat, and the better you get at that 1%, the more the other 99% is neglected, never learned, or diminishes.
Many, many schools today utilize sparring as their base curriculum, and that is not necessarily a bad thing - as long as you recognize it can be an aspect of the art, and is not necessarily all the art. But the practice of giving belts for sparring ability and contest successes also has systematically watered down many interpretations of the arts. Persons achieving status or rank in this manner inevitably, through no fault of their own, teach and award rank in the same manner thus exacerbating the lack of desimination of more technical knwledge and subsequent street skills. Sparring ranks are just that, belts awarded for competition skill and success. When I ran the Internationals there were a bunch of guys who always lost every year, who you wouldn't want to fight in the parking lot.
Ed Parker created, introduced, and conducted the first and largest competitive tournament in the world. You don't really thing he would discourage sparring do you? It was/is good business not only in competiton venues, but in the martial arts business schools as well.
