Martial D
Senior Master
And what, precisely, is the difference between 'too destructive for sparring' and 'too deadly for sparring' ?
Looks like two different ways of saying the exact same thing.
Wing Chun As An Art
- Thread starter wayfaring
- Start date
And what, precisely, is the difference between 'too destructive for sparring' and 'too deadly for sparring' ?
Looks like two different ways of saying the exact same thing.
Too destructive for sparring or too deadly also means the same thing for self defense.
One can not claim a style does not work in non lethal context unless they are trained for military service. Simply put we can not take a chance that our natural instinct becomes killing or maiming. Instead we should be ready to knock people out for their own protection or make them not want to fight anymore... (see Lomanchenko here)
Something can be destructive without being deadly. For example, any lock that breaks/separates/tears.
In the preying mantis system, there are "8 points to hit" for "sport".
八打為：「一打眉頭雙睛、二打唇上人中、三打穿聰耳門、四打背後骨縫、五打脅內肺腑、六打撩陰高骨、七打鶴膝虎頭、八打破骨千斤」
1. Point between the eyes
2. Center point of the upper lip
3. Cheekbone under the eyes
4. Collarbone
5. Kneecaps and shins
6. Pubic bone
7. Ribs of the two flanks
8. Joints of the spine
Also there are "8 points NOT to hit" for "street".
八不打為：「一不打太陽為首、二不打正中鎖喉、三不打中心兩壁、四不打兩肋太極、五不打海底撩陰、六不打兩腎對心、七不打尾閭風府、八不打兩耳扇風。」
1. Temples
2. Throat
3. Sides of the diaphragm
4. Thoracic region (either the top of the spine between medulla and spinal cord, OR the sacrum/tailbone)
5. Groin
6. Center of the back kidneys
7. Center of the back.
8. Ear Drums
In Judo, "legal techniques" are for "sport". "illegal techniques" are for "street".
八打為：「一打眉頭雙睛、二打唇上人中、三打穿聰耳門、四打背後骨縫、五打脅內肺腑、六打撩陰高骨、七打鶴膝虎頭、八打破骨千斤」
1. Point between the eyes
2. Center point of the upper lip
3. Cheekbone under the eyes
4. Collarbone
5. Kneecaps and shins
6. Pubic bone
7. Ribs of the two flanks
8. Joints of the spine
Also there are "8 points NOT to hit" for "street".
八不打為：「一不打太陽為首、二不打正中鎖喉、三不打中心兩壁、四不打兩肋太極、五不打海底撩陰、六不打兩腎對心、七不打尾閭風府、八不打兩耳扇風。」
1. Temples
2. Throat
3. Sides of the diaphragm
4. Thoracic region (either the top of the spine between medulla and spinal cord, OR the sacrum/tailbone)
5. Groin
6. Center of the back kidneys
7. Center of the back.
8. Ear Drums
In Judo, "legal techniques" are for "sport". "illegal techniques" are for "street".
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Sorry, I guess I just can't take you seriously. I'm not gonna try.I was pointing out, and I believe I clarified this at the end of my post, that this is a nuanced issue. It isn't all black-and-white. I was describing some of the nuances. There are reasons why some people see less value in sparring than other people do.
---You described one nuance and implied that it was a good reason not to spar. It didn't seem like a good one to me, so I point that out and was seeking some clarification.
If you come back with a dismissive attitude and tell me my reasons are just a "cop out", then you are not worthy of my time and further discussion.
---Well, sorry that you are so sensitive to someone questioning your somewhat ambiguous post. And very ironic that you are accusing me of having a "dismissive attitude" when you are the one that has declared that I "wasn't to be taken seriously" and just stated that I am "not worthy of your time and further discussion." I just questioned one point that you made, and you have come back and dismissed me and anything I have to say entirely!!! And you want to talk about a "dismissive attitude"????
If you can't understand that other people have reasons for seeing it differently,
----Well, I provide more examples of good reasons not to spar than you did. And I noted that I agreed with what you posted except for that one idea.
and you can't disagree with a modicum of respect for a different point of view, then we cannot have a discussion, or even share ideas in passing even if a deeper discussion does not build.
---So you are so sensitive that you think someone telling you that "dialing back techniques" as a reason not to spar is a cop out (meaning an invalid reason)....that you think you have been disrespected and have gotten all "bent out of shape" over it?Dude, you should know better than that after being around in the forums for as long as you have! Lighten up!
Martial D
Senior Master
Ya but when people use the (cop out) reasoning for not pressure testing;'too deadly for sparring' they do not always mean they know the dim-mach death touch. That's why the next line uttered is usually 'my style is for killing or maiming, not for sport'.
What we have here is a semantics difference, at best.
Martial D
Senior Master
The thing is, once you strap on the gloves you realize that people aren't so easily killed by techniques you've never even really tested.
A technique can easily be too destructive for sparring. I could probably put together a complete system of such things, but it would be pretty limited - lacking all the usual bits that can be used in live sparring, both grappling and striking. So, when someone believes their style is too destructive for sparring, they are not trying very hard. They could almost certainly spar with what's not so destructive.
Are you saying that something too destructive for sparring is also too destructive for defensive use, or did I misread your post?
Martial D
Senior Master
I doubt you could. Even krav guys spar and every other move is a kick to the nuts or an eyepoke.
You can create one 'in theory' but I think you'd find all those super deadly moves were quite a bit less deadly than they looked in drills with compliant partners than they were in actual practice.
I guess if you never test neither of us will ever know.
I am not a believer in deadly tricks. They exist but not that they are necessary components of a real martial art.
Secondly you can not claim a deadly technique is for self defense anymore. It is not self defense to ruin your own life and go to jail. Instead self defense has to be having the choice of being deadly or not. Not having the choice is like strapping explosives to yourself just in case.
I believe we all have the possibility of doing non deadly reactions. What I also believe is that some think those non deadly things will destroy a person.
Sparring is drilling just like everything else. You can chose not to use techniques. You are not competing so it does not matter if that makes it harder for you. Instead to you learn not to kill someone from destructive techniques if that is what you think may happen. All about control.
I sadly dont believe in the hype of deadly techniques too much. The most deadly technique is most likely a regular punch, causing a person to fall to the ground and hit the back of the head on the curb. Of course some techniques are not good to use but all in all it seems silly that people say sparring can not happen because of dangers... and yet claim to study a martial art trying to become a master in self defense scenarios. How can you master self defense if you have no possibility of being non-lethal in your own view.
I never said deadly. I said destructive.
So, if I use
- standing arm bars without a base for submission (it's a takedown occasionally, but not dependably if someone resists, and intended to break)
- small binding wrist locks
- shoulder lock takedowns that expose the shoulder to injury
- finger locks
Okay, again, there's a difference between "deadly" and "destructive". Destructive techniques are those that cause breaks, etc. (destroy a joint). Deadly techniques would be those that cause death.
Yes, you can choose not to use them. That's rather the point. But that doesn't mean they can't be rolled out for SD, where a destruction (break) may be appropriate.
Good points. How about an example from Historical European Martial Arts? Back in the day there was a component of "knightly training" called "Kampfringin" or "combat wrestling." This included lots of throws, but each throw was designed in such a way that the person landed on their head, or on a joint, or in some way that would cause damage when they hit the ground. Throws were purposefully done so that the person being thrown would have a hard time breakfalling or "rolling out" to avoid injury. But there also existed "Ringkunst" or "Ringen" which was wrestling/grappling with a more sportive intent. This was done as competition at faires and other events. As you can imagine, it had very similar throws....but they had been modified to make them less injurious. But someone that was well-versed in both could easily switch back and forth between them at will.....destructive when needed, less destructive when not. I've never studied old school Judo or other Japanese grappling arts, but I would assume there was something very similar there as well.
I have only a light (and long-ago) exposure to Judo, but I recall my instructor talking about how to make throws "harder" than you would use for competition. It was sometimes an adjustment to add energy, and sometimes an adjustment to make them fall more awkwardly (like the Kampfringin). The same applies within NGA. Most of how we train in class is softer, but we stop to examine how the throw can be adjusted to make it harder. We also look at submissions and how to take the slack out of them faster, in case you need a destruction without the time for them to tap.
What's the disagreement, @Steve ?
Steve
Mostly Harmless
@gpseymour I think it's a meaningless distinction, and a red herring. Destructive or deadly, either way, it's untrainable unless you Are in the profession of violence.
Last edited:
Not meaningless, at all. I teach almost nothing that is designed to kill (a few things I was taught, which I will cover eventually, but aren't part of my normal curriculum). Many of the things I teach can be used for destruction (like the small-bone bind I mentioned earlier). It's not even remotely untrainable. I've seen it executed at speed in response to an attack with intent. That only works, however, if the partner ("attacker") is willing to acknowledge the danger and drop out of the technique and tap, rather than fighting against it. There's a less destructive move that works a bit further up the wrist, and this can be used on a resisting opponent, but must be abandoned if it slips lower. We often use that one for training with speed, as the movement is nearly identical. And when we train the exact movement of the destruction in drills, we just slow it down to expand the time the pain exists, so there's time to tap out. Putting those two parts together allows us to train the full range of the technique (slow) and the motions at speed (the alternative further up the wrist).
Training a technique doesn't require exact replication every time. If it did, shadow boxing would be a useless exercise.
Similar threads
- Locked
