JerryLove

From my thread http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=7005&start=0 There are many discussions, at present and in the past, on various aspects of sparring minutia. I'm gonna talk a bit about the varois general strategies, what I feel they offer, and what they limit. Light Contact: Light contact sparring is where one spars at full speed but "pulls the punch", that is to say that control is exercised to avoid putting force into the target. This is pretty common in Japanese arts. Advantages include: The ability to use a wide array of techniques in practice without injuring your partner. The ability to move at speed and react to someone moving at speed. Disadvantages include: The limiting of many techniques which cannot, by nature, be pulled. A limit on what and how much resistance an opponent can offer. The lack of an understanding of hitting and being hit. The training of the bad habit "pull the punch" (commiting the wrong actions to muscle memory" Limited Rules Common in the grapplig arts, this strategy allows opponents to go at near-full speed and with power by severely limiting dangerous techniques and relying on a level of control to "stop" when injury is about to occur. Advantages include: The ability to work at near combat levels with resisting opponents. A gravity dynamic (IE how hard it is to stay up or escape) very true-to life. A realistic sense of trying to apply something to someone who doesn't want it applied. The ability to fight in realistic attire. Disadvantages include: The restriction of certain techniques (anything from fish-hooks to knee kicks). The neccessairy de-emphasis of other common techniques (striking). The likely reliance on some level of padding (I've yet to see this done on standard hardwood or concrete floors) Pad up and go In this strategy, the combatitants attempt to armor their more vunerable areas to allow a higher level of striking. Otherwise, it's very similar to Light contact Advantages Include: Ability to work at speed and reasonably power against resisting opponent. Less bad habit of pulling than light contact. Disadvantages include: Unrealistic abilities and inabilities cause by padding. Unrealistic understandings of damage inflicted and recieved due to padding. A limitation of availiable techniques similar to Light Contact[/b] due to teh limitations of padding. Slow motion sparring Slow motion sparring, done most often in Chinese arts, relies on a control of speed. Combatatiants fight, but at a snails pace. Advantages include: An almost unlimited availability of techniques. The ability to work against a resisting opponent. The ability to "think while fighting" to improve on mistakes. The ability to perform a technique as you would in a fight. Disadvantages include: A lack of exposure to the timing and effect of speed. A lower "fear coctail" level than other sparring methods. An unrealistic understanding of one's ability to respond to sudden changes. So, to address the question that caused me to start this thread... "which do you do". I primarily spar with "slow motion sparring". If prefer the ability to train proper muscle memory, and the ability to employ, and get used to dealing with, an unlimited variety of attacks. We've found that the considered actions of sparring become reflexes and do work at speed even when practiced slowly. Further, that's the one methos that truely allows you to floow-through, even agains sensitive targets... and proper reflexes have served better than most other things we've seen. I've done every method listed above... and I certainly like hitting the others from time-to-time as part of a reality check... but for normal use, I consider slow-motion sparring superior to the other options.

"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulder of giants." - Isaac Newton The issue is twofold. For the above cited reason, it makes sense that someone inventing their own martial art should learn what already exists first. The other problem that having a few thousand practitioners fixes that creating your own art generally fails (unless you are off fighting a great deal) is the problem of inbreeding. The Greeks developed the Hopolite and spent a few centuries perfecting it against each other... when they ran into non-Greeks, they discovered that the Hopolite formation had intrinsic weakness that had been missed because their opponents had all been doing the same thing. Of course someone can come up with their own art... someone can reinvent math from scratch too... I recommend learning what exists and then creating.

Flight training used to begin with days in front of a cardboard cut-out. I agree that any physical activity benifits from having somone to physically interact with / check; but the general principle of "you can't learn from books" is silly... Not the best way to learn this particular field, but do-able.

Against someone boxing with you, the kick shown is a reasonable one. Against someone charging and after a take-down, your weight-back position will make you easy to bowl over; particularly in light of the follow-up you describe (which leaves you extended for a moment, as opposed to snapping out and back)

You walked up to someone. You put your hand on them without their permission. You advanced through kicking, punching, and knee range to be close enough to hit them with an elbow without them taking a swing at you. You then "sucker punch" them with an elbow. Now you, the martial artist, are standing in front of a jury; with a dozen qitnesses testifying that he let you get that close and you swung first, trying to tell them that "you knew it was going to get physical but couldn't escape". Good luck.

Let me make sure I'm envisioning this properly... Youve got someone coming in for the takedown, and you've just put one foot functionally on top of his while leaning back? I'd suspect he'd lift and do a single-leg takedown. If you are dealing with that in your scenerio, I don't see where

Good luck establishing that after you've entered his defensable space first and then taken the first swing. Read state and local law, by your duely appointed representative. Welcom to jail... I've got a better one involving a pre-empting shot to the back of the head from about 30 feet. I go to jail, but unlike your scenerio, I *definately* win the fight.

OK. Chin blast. If you have let an opponent into elbow range without actually egageing him, then you have put yourself in uneccairy danger. Your plan is too slow to be a reaction, and is illegal as an opening action.

You were hopeing for the "blind faith in anything you tell me" forum? I suppose the hypocracy of you, supposedly with the information at your fingertips, being too lasy to make actual reference while calling others "lazy" eludes you? Of course, it's more likely you simply lack any support and so are putting up a red herring. I'd call that an "appeal to authority" fallacy, but you don't even manage to have an authority. As to the comment itself, assuming the emperical worldvire is correct, there is plenty of proof; but the proof can only be experienced through subjective perception.

As a response to someone just laying on attack-after-attack without really committing his body? It doesn't realy work. You deflect and the next hit is already on its way. You can side-step, but if they have any ability to pivot at all, they will just do so. Because you've given no regard to defense and will loose to someone who picks their strikes. I think being in a fight is exciting enough regardless of how you win. Are we talking about fighting or sparring? No, Tyson through skilfull, controlled punches. He basically just "turned up the energy" and came in very hard and aggressive. He fell to fighters capable of defending till he wore down (I believe Ali called the strategy "rope-a-dope") It vareis a little. Just wild punching? Kick them, or wade in close and change the game, or stay out and damage their hands.

I try my best to avoid these discussions and instead focus on real and useful Chi-related-stuff... sometimes my sense of indignation gets the better of me. While I agree with the statement, I note your complete lack of support for it. Please prove your two claims. Known by whom? Where can I go witness this? Who performed a controlled study? Where is the study published? Who has repeated the experiment? What amazing feats have been accomplished? What can you provide to show they occured? How can you established their cuase? Such as who? When? which Earthquake? Under what conditions? Reliably? Ever been tested for? By whom? Published where? Reviewd by which body? Support.

Well, it's a poor example. The frequency of the wave changes from doppler shift; the object does not appear functionally "different". Please be more specific... what error has occurred in reading the output from a clock?

Exactly. Since the source ad the measuring divice are moving together, there's no doppler effect between the two.

Actually, there are some arts that do a variation on just that (constant attack). I've seen this as a *very* successful technique. Its hazard is that someone more capable (or rugged enough to just take the hit) moves in to an adventageous position (particularly a grappler).

Even moreso... Four armed attackers are threatening bodily harm... what's too much?

Can you offer even a workable hypothesis on what other phenomina might explain it?

It depends, and that's the problem. Relativity does talk about time dilation (which holds some similarity to the dopler effect); but for that to occur, time must "exist" and speed must effect how time effects you; which is the anthesis of Warp's position.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,12576,1061765,00.html

Of course, the movement of the source of a wave enlongates o rshortens a wave-cycle because it's moving toward or away from the observer. The net result is that peaks hit with a different frequency than they were created at. You cannot tell the frequency with which a wave is created without more information than its arrival frequency. So the clocks have seen a different amount of time because they have been moving relative to time causing time waves to peak at a different relative frequency? That sounds pretty much like special relativitiy.

I don't see how this interacts with the experiemental data at all. Nothing was moving faster than light in the experiement. So it's just a big coincidence that, for reasons you cannot even form an hypothesis over, that clocks moving in opposite directions fall out of sync and do so in the manner and degree that was predicted by relativity before the experiement was performed? And you assert this with absolutely no evidence which offers even a reasonable cause to dispute relativity?

Erm... Firstly, all advice from everyone is always biased. Secondly, the post is a joke which plays off, among other things, the idea that a strategy (more properly a tactic) that I post on the internet is hardly "secret".

Just because it can be demonstrated as true doesn't mean that it's true? So, if I gleen your hypothesis correctly, it was predected that faster moving objects would percieve time more slowly, and in fact, clocks moving at the same relative speed but different absolute speeds do show the time differences predicted by relativity, and you have no plausable explanations that can explain the difference which relativity explanes quite will, and you have no conter-indications for relativity, and every other prediction it has made has proven true, but you don't think it's right becuase it doesn't fit your hunch? Sorry, I can't accept that as a useful argument.

Actually, it shows that mass curves time-space; which is an underlying point of general relativity. Since inertial mass and speed are connected, and mass and time-space are connected; so speed and time-space are connected. "The stretching of time by relativity has been felt and measured by other orbiting clocks -- GPS, for example -- but PARCS will measure the effect with errors one hundred times smaller than its predecessors did." - NASA - http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/08apr_atomicclock.htm "During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flyng clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 4023 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 27521 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 5910 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 2737 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks" - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html Google gives me 6,680 hits in regards to "test relativity atomic clock"; how many emperical tests would you like?

Ahh. I understand where my point missed its mark. Tyson is our poster-child here for strength over tactics. His strategy was to blitz (come in hard and fast). When he won, he won by knockout. When smarter fighters came up against him, their tactical advantage defeated his strength advantage. True, they often won point-victories.. but they also clearly won the fight; and that is what we are interested in, is it not?

And it's a theory because it makes predictions, the predictions have been tested for, and the tests have proven to bear out the predicted results. http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=test+relativity Definately... but it also appears to be true.