Structure for ringen sparring

[david welch]

I posted this somewhere else, but thought it might deserve a post of it's own to not OT the other post any more than I already have.

We are working on a way to practice ringen in Knoxville. But to make it "ringen" I am having to play with and adjust rules to force it into being something I think you would have seen. We are going to be working on this in our next meeting, and I think Bill is working on something similar. We are also wanting a version of this to be integrated into our longsword sparring. These are just some guidelines to make our sparring a little more "alive" and it is not intended to be a sport. We are trying to have fights to the death... without all that death stuff.

So far:


After the call "fight", you have 3 seconds to engage, or the evader loses. If mutual, it counts as a double kill.

Fighters are assumed to be wearing padded jacks and gorgets, so strikes to the body and neck for KO are off limits. However, chokes are allowed.

It is OK to move someone into position for a throw or submission by kicking and striking.

Daggers can be drawn only after first full contact.( both of you grabbing both arms )

Striking can be started only after first full contact.( both of you grabbing both arms )

It is OK to stomp the back of the knee, but try for the top of the calf.

A fighter can win by throwing his opponent to the ground while staying on his feet.

A fighter can win by chokeing out his opponent while standing.

A fighter can win by a standing submission.

A fighter can win by locking his opponent and forcing him to a three point stance (both knees and a hand)

A fighter can win by getting into a position that allows him to repeatedly and freely stab his opponent. This trumps everything else except the seven count.



If you both go to ground(anything touching but the soles of the feet):

If a fighter is on his back for a 3 count, he loses.

If a fighter is on the ground for a seven count, he loses. If both stay on the ground the full 7 count it is a double kill.

I was going to work on this a little more... but I am open to suggestions that would be in keeping with the spirit of a combat H2H art.

[david welch]

I think my first change will be from daggers to Stun Batons. Thanks Jake!

[JeffGentry]

Hey Dave

If a fighter is on his back for a 3 count, he loses.

I would say any vulenerable position for 3-5 second's.


If both combatant's stay on the ground for seven second's I would introduce a weapon at seven second's, or another person.

Jeff

[Mike Cartier]

If a fighter is on his back for a 3 count, he loses.

If a fighter is on the ground for a seven count, he loses. If both stay on the ground the full 7 count it is a double kill.

I think you are creating an artificial deadly zone on the back, if the other guy doesn't do something considered to be deadly i see no reason to simply assume the the man underneath is dead. After all the man on top is just as tied up as the man underneath. Let the techniques determine the vulnerability.
If the man is on his back and is so vulnerable then it should be easy to apply something incapacitating. Other wise noone will get to work their escapes from underneath.

Introducing a person after a period of time is a good idea, but i would advocate mixing the side the person is on so that the guy on top realizes he is just as vulnerable to attack by an extra opponent as the guy underneath.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Mike

I think you are creating an artificial deadly zone on the back


Introducing a person after a period of time is a good idea, but i would advocate mixing the side the person is on so that the guy on top realizes he is just as vulnerable to attack by an extra opponent as the guy underneath.

i agree with the artificial deadzone on the back, not everyone know's what to do when they get someone on there back.

I left the side of the extra man open because it could be some to help either person, the man on the top or the man on the bottom and he could also be armed, i would probably put a weapon in the area first before introducing an armed helper.

Jeff

[david welch]

Would it be better to just submit rule 2, 3 and 4 from Kano Judo?

2. A contestant shall be deemed to have been defeated when his two shoulders and hips shall have touched the floor, provided that said contestant shall have reached this position on the floor through having been thrown down.

3. A contestant shall be deemed to have been defeated when in such position on the floor, if said combatant cannot free himself from his opponent's arms within two seconds' time.

4. A contestant shall be deemed to have been defeated when from any cause or causes he may become unconscious. But it is not permitted to use serious tricks when the wrestling bout is between friends. Such tricks as kicking and the breaking of arms, legs, and neck are barred.


I wanted to avoid rule 2 because we train outside on hard ground, and I wanted to allow for letting the other guy roll out of a throw so he wouldn't get hurt intead of projecting him down flat at the ground.

I also wanted it to resemble western arts like Glima more than judo.
Glima:
"The basic idea is to grip your opponent in the proper way, and then force them to touch their torso or any area above the elbows or knees, to the ground for the best 2 out of 3 falls. Also, if both of their arms touch the ground, it is a fall. If both players fall together then it is called a “brother-fall” and neither player gets the point"

But I want it for structure for sparring... so I don't want 2 out of 3, or points.

I also don't want to kill the idea of any fighting on the ground, but I do want to encourage getting right back up as soon as possible. A seven count is a long time. If you can "take care of business" and get right back up I say its ok. I don't want to change that much, except maybe go to a 10 count at the most.

I wouldn't mind changing the 3 count though to:
3. A contestant shall be deemed to have been defeated when in such position on the floor, if said combatant cannot free himself from his opponent's arms within two seconds' time.

Or change it to a 3 count pin?



Idealy, what I would like to have is the two fighters, plus 4 swordsmen. Each fighter is assigned 2 swords men, one to defend him and one to try to kill him. And as long as they go to the ground the swordplay is on and it all just sorts itself out.

Edited to add: You could also have just two swordsmen, and have one of them be trying to kill whoever is on the bottom.

[david welch]

Hi, Mike. To me, this is where the goals and reasoning of a sport and for combat go their seperate ways. I am considering the ground "an artificial deadly zone", but not only because of what the other guy can do to you.

For this to make sense, I should have put this in a context of what the Knoxville group wants to do and what our "core assumptions" are. A lot of this is assumption, I am trying to point them out, and I realize there can be valid arguments made for different ones.


Knoxville is working on a battlefield art. If someone else want to do theirs in a framework for a one on one duel, or a judicial combat in a prepared ring, that is OK. I would love to see what that sparring framework looks like, and how they came to their decisions.


Our battlefield is assumed to be an unprepared field with the possibility of the ground having stumps, rocks, bodies, and an unsure footing.


Our battlefield is assumed to have other people fighting nearby at a reasonably close proximity, but they are not right on top of us and are currently engaged.


After someone on the battlefield is incapacitated, the winner is assumed to have been smart enough to take the losers weapons and toss them back behind their line. So weapons are close at hand, but the front line is not littered with them. I am assuming that if I can figure out I don't want to leave spare weapons where the enemy can get to them easily, so did they.


We are assuming we find ourselves unarmed on the skirmish line and that we are in close proximity with an unarmed opponent. We could even be reversed, and will have to go through the other guy to get back to our side.

We can make assumptions on what we need to do to survive, and assumptions on what we are obligated to do to help the battle.


The best case thing that can happen to me is that I can run away and re-arm myself without having to close with the enemy, or draw my dagger before closing with him. For our sparring structure, we are going to assume this is not feasible.


The next best thing for me is as soon as we close, I can draw my dagger and end it right then.


The next best thing after that is for me to throw my opponent and remain standing. That way I can run back and re-arm myself while hoping someone armed can finish my opponent off for me, or that I have injured him enough that I can come back and finish him myself.


After this, the least worse thing that is assumed can happen is when I throw my opponent, we both go down together, and I can finish him off quickly and get back up before someone notices us on the ground and kills me.


The next worse thing, is we both are able to get back up and resume fighting.


The worse thing is he can be able to hold me down while somebody kills me, or neither one of us can get free and back to our feet and somebody eventually comes over and kills one of us.


From this, I have decided my highest priority is to not get killed.

One of my chief concerns is to be able to avoid his armed companions. If I let myself get to where I can't break contact and flee, and if I am in that condition for a reasonable amount of time, I can consider myself dead.

Of course, I don't want to be killed by him, either.

My last concern, and my lowest priority... but a priority none the less, is I don't want my enemy to be able to re-arm and get back in the fight.

Therefore, I can win if:

A fighter can win by throwing his opponent to the ground while staying on his feet.
A fighter can win by choking out his opponent while standing.
A fighter can win by a standing submission.
A fighter can win by locking his opponent and forcing him to a three point stance (both knees and a hand)

A fighter can win by getting into a position that allows him to repeatedly and freely stab his opponent. This trumps everything else except the seven count.(because if I kill him with a dagger I can then flee, no matter what he was doing. But if I take too long it doesn't matter because his friends are assumed to be able to now kill me.)

However, I lose (and the other fighter wins by default) if he can hold me down on my back for a 3 count(because I can't get up and flee while his armed friends kill me.)

I also lose if he can keep me in a position on the ground where I can't flee for a 7 count, because someone is assumed to be able to have noticed us by then, killed the guy he was fighting, and wandered over and killed one of us. since we don't know who, it is assumed to have happened to both of us if neither one of us can get to our feet.

The other rules are for safety, and to control flow and tempo.


Does this make sense now, and what can be done to improve it?

[Rey Garcia]

Hi dave I dont want this to come wrong but somone is gonna get seriously hurt . First off if your going to prefom ringen sparring you would have to modify the tecniques . The submission and breaking done in conditions you are discribing are intended not only to submitt your opponent but to cripple or kill . as somone suguested substituting modern sport judo rules (I think he's on the right track) but without the proper training on how to fall and modifications on certain teqniques somone is going to be seriouly injured ,Especially if you are going full speed without mats . Dislocated sholders ,broken bones ,sprains even broken necks have still happened in both wrestling and judo contests were the contestants are under strict rules and have proper saftey equipment ie mats .In fact the first contests Judo vs Jui-jitsu and judo vs judo the rules were simple the match ends when somone is either knocked unconcious by a throw or a choke or is subbmitted . Please be carefull.
Fratternaly yours Rey World Masters hvwt champ (1999) SI ARMA

[david welch]

Yeah, that is one thing I'll give wrestlers... submissions are way safer if you do them on the ground instead of standing up.

We are modifying techniques where safty is concerned, like palm down instead of palm up and going ahead and dropping to a knee for a shoulder throw, etc.

The fact is, when you start embraceing the idea you have to stay standing you wind up just mostly using osoto-gari, hip throw, and leg reaps.

[leam hall]

I think the core assumption you're making that I worry about is that you can safely transition from one level (Standing, throwing, on the ground) of combat to another. My recommendation would be to practice them seperately and stop whena transition is made. For example, if you're using swords and one person goes to contact, stop the fight as soon as someone loses balance. Practice take-downs and falls specifically and on a proper surface. Practice ground work seperately.

It's nice to think of ourselves as trying to be ready for anything but one good injury can put you out of a paying job for months or leave you crippled for life.

[Shane Smith]

I don't know about the stop the action theory. Here in VAB, if we close to grapple from a bind, we do the throws or whatever comes next. We will grapple on the ground until someone is either submitted or has a blade stuck in their side or a finger obviously able to gouge the eyes unopposed. I think continuity of the bout is crucial to learning competency in all aspects of the WMA.

All the above said, if we are speaking of teaching newbies, I am with you 100 percent as newbies are the ones who can hurt you by doing stupid things if you let them <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Jake_Norwood]

I'm with Shane and David on this one. In every group I've been in we've gone from swords to standing grappling to the ground in the blink of an eye, and never with injury. Sure, we make sure to put our opponent down as "gently" as we can, but the only time I ever "stopped" was at my Prize Playing in 2003...and I feel that it took away some good matches from me.

Jake

[leam hall]

My concern is that you're then more likely to focus on a takedown and then attack rather than using the takedown as an offensive measure. A couple examples that spring to mind are throws that impact the head and grapples meant to break limbs.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Those are actually pretty hard to get off in earnest even if you do try. Think of it in sword terms. You can do a beautiful textbook zwerchau in drills and flourishing, right? When you spar, does your zwerch, if it works at all, look nearly as pretty? Same thing for ringen. Sure, you can try for some spectular limb breaking the throw all you like. Odds are that in actuality you may just end up "mushing" the opponent down given that a resisting opponent is an impediment.

[Shane Smith]

When you spar, does your zwerch, if it works at all, look nearly as pretty?

Yes, my zwerch does work pretty darn well in freeplay with everything from padded swords to blunts. I made good use of it it in Provo recently. Good technique can become instinctive when it comes to relatively simple movements like the zwerch or a simple takedown(With plenty of training of course). <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />