Opinions please

[SBN Doug]

 

Oops, sorry.

[Ripper]

The way I read your post, you said that you can't teach or train a lot of things doing it semicontact. I say you can

Then you read it wrong, because that's not what i said.

 

I did?

During low/semi-impact practice, many flaws are apparent and they can be pointed out to the sparring partner. But, there are flaws that only present themselves when a person is being pressured with full-on attacks.

Sounds pretty much the same to me.

 

 

In practice it is much less complicated.

 

To me it sounds much to complicated and ellaborate so I have a hard time believing it.

Well, as you said, you "haven't really thought about it."

 

Taking things out of context, are we?

I'm not here to convert you, so... frankly, i don't care whether you believe or not. No more than i care whether you believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.

 

I'm not here to get converted either. I'm just trying to give you arguments of how I think things work and I'm always interested in arguments of others. That's why we are here in the first place, right?

[White Warlock]

First off, let me say i am not keen with the derogatory manner of your posts. Moving on...

The way I read your post, you said that you can't teach or train a lot of things doing it semicontact. I say you can

Then you read it wrong, because that's not what i said.

I did?

 

Yes, you did.

During low/semi-impact practice, many flaws are apparent and they can be pointed out to the sparring partner. But, there are flaws that only present themselves when a person is being pressured with full-on attacks.

 

Sounds pretty much the same to me.

Read it again. I did not mention training or teaching in that line. In fact, in another line, which was in response to one of your queries, i clearly stated, "These are things that get worse if you push it in a fight, so full contact is applied to make these problems apparent, but not to get rid of these problems. The practitioner needs to spend time working these things out of their 'habit,' in low/semi-contact before they can full-on spar again."

 

I.e., expose the flaws during full contact... and train/teach during low/semi-contact.

Taking things out of context, are we?

No, i wasn't. You stated very clearly, while discussing this exact same thing, you had not really thought about it.

I'm not here to get converted either. I'm just trying to give you arguments of how I think things work and I'm always interested in arguments of others. That's why we are here in the first place, right?

No, we're not here to argue, but to share and discuss. I can argue with a turnip, but it gives me no lessons.

 

As to the reason for my snippitiness, it had to do with your comment about how you have a "hard time believing it." I took offense. Not merely because you said that, but because you essentially said, "it sounds much to complicated and ellaborate" as a basis for argument as to why you don't believe. And this after i already stated that, "In practice it is much less complicated," which caused your response to seem facetious.

 

There are some things that are just too hard to explain with words. They must be practiced and pointed out. You know this. Yet when you asked for an explanation and i made a reasonable effort to provide one, despite the fact i didn't need to, i received for my troubles a backhanded response.

 

Anyway, here's something for you to work with that is along the same lines and is one of the training tricks. When you get hit in the solar plexus next time... don't try to regain your wind. Don't try to inhale. Instead, with all your force, repeatedly and quickly push out the remaining air in your lungs. By forcing your diaphragm to contract further than it intended, you uncramp it and you recover almost immediately.

 

Now, please... chill with the attitude.

[SBN Doug]

Speaking as a non-bias reader, I haven't seen any comments over the last couple pages that I would deem insulting. Otherwise, the guidelines would have been enforced.

 

So, please do not read more into another member's post than is really there. And everyone try to make sure you're not wording a comment in a way that someone could mis-read as insulting.

 

Thanks.

 

[embm]

I see a lot of people who go "all out" and take pride in making TKD sissies howl like little girls and scream "that's not fair"

 

We do old school TKD - absolutely no relation to the "olympic sport." My instructor was taught by Fred Wren, who was a student of Alan Steen, who was a student of Jhoon Rhee. For those who are interested:

 

http://www.akbba.com/hof/steenhof.html

 

Unless we are getting ready for a tournament, we fight with pads, but it is free-for-all with multiple attackers and ground fighting/submission fighting - definately not for sissies.

[GrrrArg]

Embm, read the post above yours. The second paragraph applies here.

 

tommarker remark reads as a tongue in cheek comment to me, don't take offence where none is meant.

[White Warlock]

Speaking as a non-bias reader, I haven't seen any comments over the last couple pages that I would deem insulting. Otherwise, the guidelines would have been enforced.

Doug, no insult was posted by anyone. I said i took offense, which is quite different.

[PrideampPoise]

The way I look at it is that the more practice you do with anything, the better you will get at it.

 

So, all else being equal, someone who fights a lot is going to be more skilled at it than someone who doesn't.

 

Also, all else being equal, someone who at least practices something closer to true fighting is going to be more skilled at fighting than someone who practices something not so close to real fighting.

 

I can't see anyway to really refute that, regardless of the subject.

 

The thing is, though, all else is never equal. That's why somebody who has never been in a fight before, or never picked up a tennis raquet, or whatever, can go out and defeat an opponent who has practiced a lot.

 

So, sure, if you want to be the best you can be at something, you should practice it a lot, and that would include fighting. But you can't make blanket statements that those who don't practice it, or who don't even do full-contact, can't be darn good fighters, when the time comes.

 

The only caveat with fighting is that you do run a greater risk of getting injured if you fight a lot, and ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, it will wear on your body. Just like football, running, etc wear on the bodies of participants in those activities. And if you are seriously injured, then find yourself in a situation where you have to fight, you have added a disadvantage for yourself to the equation.

 

But as others have indicated, what path you take also depends on what you are looking to get out of your training. If fighting is you primary goal, you need to take a serious look at full contact sparring.

 

If improving your fighting ability is merely one of your goals, then your method of practice might be different.

 

Most folks can significantly improve their fighting ability without full contact practice, provided they understand that the rules they practice with are only for practice.

[White Warlock]

Good post P&P

[markusan]

I agree with Pand P too especially the reference to injuries. Unlike some of the earlier posts I think there is a big problem with full contact sparring. You do get injured. When you're young most of the injuries heal, but not all of them, and less of them heal as you get older. I've learnt some important lessons about defense during sleepless nights laying on my back with broken ribs. It's not a learning method I'd recommend. The same goes for doing lots of breaking techniques and hand and shin conditioning. If you are making an informed decision to go full contact then fine, but make that decision knowing that you may be spending your twilight years in constant or recurring pain, and consequently shortening your martial arts career