I occasionally encounter the view that, historically, training in Renaissance fencing involved no form of free-play or mock combat –what we would now commonly refer to as “sparring”.
I also sometimes even encounter the belief (prominent among some traditional Asian stylists) that in real martial arts sparring has no value or place in the preparation of warriors for personal combat.
Not only do I disagree with these perspectives, our research within Renaissance martial arts has revealed considerable evidence from the 12th to 17th centuries for several forms of mock combat used as earnest self-defense training, battlefield rehearsal, ritual display, and sporting contest (I document a wealth of this information in one of my forthcoming books). In fact, examination of the methods by which this kind of “sparring” was pursued (its equipment, safety rules, intent, techniques, etc.) is a main area of our studies.
But, what struck me recently was how it’s being argued by some that bouts and matches of mock combat play somehow would not properly prepare an individual for the realities and necessities of lethal armed combat; and further, that such training could only be achieved by performing set patterns of movements and prearranged drills.
I’ve always disagreed with the above claim and have always maintained the value of “contact-sparring” (a view which, as I indicated, we’ve discovered is born out by a wide range of historical European sources).
I started to think through this “anti-sparring” argument again and had a revelation, I wanted to share.
Here we essentially have an argument which follows a line of reasoning that says: In order to prepare for the exigency of actual combat, you need to learn and practice in a set pattern. In other words, two students, the first saying to the second, “When you are ready I will make this specific attack and you will counter with that specific defense” and the second student responding, “Yes, you make that specific attack and I will defend with this specific counter.” Where as, by contrast, in free-play each of the students essentially says one to another: “I’m not going to let you know exactly when or where or how, or even if, I’m going to attack or defend, so get yourself ready.”
Now I ask, in all honestly, which one of the above scenarios most resembles the actualities of real fighting? Which is going to be better for teaching a fighter to spontaneously respond reflexively to any tactical possibility? If a student only follows the first method and another student combines both methods, who is going to be the better prepared for the unknowns of unpredictable violent combat?
I also have noted that one argument against utilizing safe mock-combat as a tool for study is that it is not “real enough”. Which begs the question though, isn’t it more realistic than just performing structured movements and drills? To this we might ask the anti-sparring advocates, if it were made even more realistic would you then participate in it as a valid means of training? [For that matter, I wonder, why does it always seem it’s those who don’t ever seriously explore the virtues of adversarial free-play who most fervently dispute its value?]
Now understandably, the more any martial art is made into a game or sport revolving around artificial rules and restrictive conditions, the less concern there is for the brutality and earnest application of lethal technique. Only "play-fighting" can certainly engender bad habits and a lack of appreciation for the inherent violence of real fighting. Of course, the very same flaw can also be said of the inflexible pre-programmed approach to training. But, unlike the latter, the more realistic free-play is conducted, the more it sharpens reflexes, develops perception, teaches adversarial counter-timing, explores spontaneous tactics, and lets the student try things that end up with them either getting whacked or not, but in the process not being maimed or killed. Sounds like quite a benefit from such a simple and obvious activity.
Thoughts, comments?
JC
 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
