Spontaneous action, sensitivity

[tonydee]

Two extremely important practices in my sparring - whether slow or fast - are:

1) Attempting to make a quick and decisive attacks at any arbitrary moment - just exploding or flowing at an opponent, removing, trapping or bypassing the guard, and making a good solid, mechanically-sound strike to a suitable target without getting hit concurrently.

2) Engaging much more than is really necessary: staying squarely in range - in the "danger zone" so to speak - and relying on yourself to spontaneously manifest a suitable reaction to whatever may happen, flowing from attack to attack in an opportunistic way unbound by the traditional stances, tactics or movements. This can be contrasted with safely staying back and picking off the opponent's mistakes in a predictable tit-for-tat fashion.

1) is crucial for learning to finish a fight quickly, especially against multiple opponents, whereas 2 is crucial for developing good instincts, reactions, maintaining the guard in motion, complex footwork etc..

Nothing new or dramatic about either, but given they're at the heart of much of my thinking and practice, I'm curious whether other people see them in the same way, or think it's actually better just to "play it safe" and avoid less controlled and predictable ranges.

Cheers,

Tony

[StrangeBacon]

I dont so much stay in the "Danger Zone" constantly as much as im quite light and agile (75kg) so i tend to "snipe" as it were, skirting in and out of that zone and taking shots as they present themselves, im only 5'8" but i've got long legs so i tend to keep just within mae distance and bait the opponant, reacting accordingly.

[joesteph]

1) is crucial for learning to finish a fight quickly, especially against multiple opponents, whereas 2 is crucial for developing good instincts, reactions, maintaining the guard in motion, complex footwork etc..

Tony, I did read that this was introduced by a sentence on sparring, but would you say that 1) is more applicable to actual altercations, and 2) more towards sparring in class or in a tournament?

[Jay]

I would say the same as joesteph. We do a fair amount of trapping hands type stuff. We tend to go with the trap and destroy argument, so thats like your number 1

We spar more like number 2. However we always stay out of range. The opponent has to significantly move to reach us and when this happens they usually get stop kicked. We tend not to engage more than necessary.

I don't know if this is better or worse but its generally how we do things.

[tonydee]

1) is crucial for learning to finish a fight quickly, especially against multiple opponents, whereas 2 is crucial for developing good instincts, reactions, maintaining the guard in motion, complex footwork etc..

Tony, I did read that this was introduced by a sentence on sparring, but would you say that 1) is more applicable to actual altercations, and 2) more towards sparring in class or in a tournament?

Keen point. By way of background, I spar only to develop skills for the street, so both aspects are done purely to improve my ability in real conflicts. But I think your point ties in to 1 being a preparation/practice for something that you might proactively choose to do on the street. For example, if you see another opponent's coming, you decide you need to close and knock down the one you're currently keeping on the edge of your range. Whereas 2 is more preparing for being in the thick of things - letting the distances vary and the sparring flow as it may - and it would be a bit foolhardy or arrogant to deliberately throw yourself in there in a real fight if you hadn't exhausted the options at your favoured distance, or with your most reliable techniques. My interest in 2 is that you're training yourself to cover all the bases - close enough to be hit or grabbed with no telegraphing inward step they have to make first. You quickly learn to proactively cover all their options with your defensive tools... this arms there in case he does this or that, that leg will lift if she kicks there, if his arm moves from there then this tool's got his ribs. It's great training, packing a wealth of experience into less sparring hours, and teaches you to pull something out of the air - whether defensively or offensively.

Cheers,

Tony

[tonydee]

I would say the same as joesteph. We do a fair amount of trapping hands type stuff. We tend to go with the trap and destroy argument, so thats like your number 1

We spar more like number 2. However we always stay out of range. The opponent has to significantly move to reach us and when this happens they usually get stop kicked. We tend not to engage more than necessary.

I don't know if this is better or worse but its generally how we do things.

I've sort of been there and done that in the past, but now I figure you end up polarised - either everything works just wonderfully, or something unexpected happens and everything unravels for you. So, I try to actively challenge the sparring partner to make me unravel however they can, and then make sure it's harder to unravel me the next time .

Puts me in mind of a visit back to my original TKD instructor's dojang a couple years ago (closed since *sob*). Was sparring a talented, fiesty young black belt who the seniors were in the habit of standing back from and taking apart at their leisure (what a waste!). I've no recollection of having sparred him before then, so his quirks were all nicely "new" to me. Of course, something that can happen when you're significantly more senior than the person you're sparring is that they assume they simply can't hit you, and feel free to try as hard as they like (while you're still pulling your moves as necessary). When you choose to give up the advantage of using your experience at a comfortable distance, and match it move for move at prime striking distance, it reminds you that you're alive . We don't wear any protective gear.

And yes - you do spontaneously manifest movements. For example, that night I saw him swinging a leg across for a crescent kick, and I realised from the strange position we were in it would actually be easiest to block with a front kick to his kicking leg. Not something I'd done before or since - but was what was needed at the time (except I paid for it - at a dojang dinner that night I commented that I didn't recall having hit anyone hard accidentally in my years at that school, and he said "you hit me pretty hard tonight" - everyone looked around and I had no answer ready. Still, it's weirdly different - a defensive kick - I had to kick hard enough to reverse his hip movement - a practical consideration not there when pulling a normal attack).

Separately, I've no idea if he thought me less skillful for strangely (compared to the others around my level) being there in front of him where he could really have a go, but I suspect he was still used to that in-your-face availability and intensity from sparring others his own age/rank, and he might not have consciously noticed my choice.

Ahhh... the anecdotes of martial arts training... I assume we must all treasure them in our ways, as they capture the experiences that have fed our development, and that we can return to reflect on for truths as new ideas come along.

Cheers,

Tony

[tonydee]

I dont so much stay in the "Danger Zone" constantly as much as im quite light and agile (75kg) so i tend to "snipe" as it were, skirting in and out of that zone and taking shots as they present themselves, im only 5'8" but i've got long legs so i tend to keep just within mae distance and bait the opponant, reacting accordingly.

Moving in and out of range against larger opponents involves quite a lot of 1 - having to bypass whatever they throw at you to get close enough to hit - and 2, when they throw something you can't bypass and all hell breaks loose . I think being short (not that 5'8" is particularly short, but whatever's short at your club), tends to take away some of the easy options and makes you a better fighter. At 180cm / 5'11", I sometimes feel too tall, but only when I'm sparring shorter people . My original instructor is about 5'9" - great combination of mobility and power with incredible dexterity (ambidextrous too) - maybe that's why I've always thougth of that as being the optimal height....

Cheers,

Tony

[bushido_man96]

After thinking a bit, and reading all the posts, I like both.

At first, I was thinking that 2 is great, because so often in MA training, with one-steps or self-defense applications, we still do not get inside that danger zone, yet remain outside where the techniques still will not hit. This is something I have tried to work with in Combat Hapkido, and is more realistic being inside that danger zone....that is where the hitting in fighting has to happen.

Then, I thought about 1, and realized that you can't really have 2 without being decent at 1, in being able to stand without, and then close in at will to engage 2. As I think about my own abilities, 1 is what I need more work at, and then add to my abilities in 2.

Thanks for this thread, Tony. Good thoughts!

[sensei8]

Man oh man, I'm a 1 thru and thru, even though, from time to time, I can be a 2 as well. I'm sick that way..."Go ahead, keep hitting me, but, boy oh boy, when I get a turn, it's on like donkey kong!" Besides, Shindokanists love to stand toe to toe and let the chips fall where they may; we invite and create close quarter engagements.

[mr_obvious]

I tend to favor rapid-fire, blitz-type-combos.....then getting the heck out. In real life, hopefully the opponent would be neutralized. Of course in kumite, the force is reduced and combined with safety gear, the opponent is usually still standing; so the objective is to regroup for the next blitz.

I've tried the "sniper" or "surgical" approach, and all I end up doing is training my bounce more than anything. Other people are the opposite, and work best with a "one-shot, one-kill" practice.