New editorial on sparring

[John_Clements]

"To Spar or Not to Spar?..."

[Shane Smith]

This one is a must-read in my opinion.Good stuff <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> !

[Ray Brunk]

Excellent editorial! Touched all bases. I agree with Shane...a must read.
Ray

[Guest]

So darn obvious that it shouldn't have to be written down. It's a pity it has to be done. Excellent piece!

[Guest]

Since I started my study from your books and apply the method I apprehended there to the manuals now, the choice is obvious. Here something more than a mere choice is involved, I think, we have the same concept of the evaluation of a swordsman on the table, what does a swordsman have to do? For someone who is graduating in philosophy I've a strange philosophy: "Action does not act by itself", which here implies that reconstructing a system based on action requires action, not an imitation, the action itself. To me not sparring and just practice the techniques means imitating the action, not acting, I can even afford to be defeated since I do not have a status that requires winning, but I think anyone of us would risk being humbled (you included, even if very unlikely going to happen) in order to act and not mimic.
Yet I have to say I sparred too much in the past <img src="/forum/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Excellent article John. I agree strongly that both types of training (free sparring and structured) must be employed to gain the maximum benefit. Each type has its strengths and weaknesses and should be used to compliment each other. As you have stated, your attitude and intent during training truly determines the outcome, this should be considered the most important element of all.

We are so serious about what we do, this art of killing.
Sometimes it's just plain fun, the joy of teaching, discovery and understanding. Sometimes it's not a game at all.

[Webmaster]

Interestingly put, Carlo. I think this speaks strongly to why playing your prize is designed to be such a tough test. You can't just do all of the drills perfectly, show a nice florysh and spout a few facts and claim that you are a skilled fighter. You have to prove it by facing many different, possibly unknown, opponents in uncertain, adversarial situations. The fact that the original guys did it with real weapons for more than just one hour added another dimension to the test on top of that. If you show yourself well under those conditions, that's what proves that your skills are worth something in the real world. You simply can't get to that point without conducting a form of practice that introduces the element of uncertainty. If you don't have to make a decision and commit to it, then I guess you are just doing an "imitation" of a real action. Drills are great for learning how to do something, but when and why and how much have to be learned on your own by being forced to figure it out the hard way. Getting in a real fight is not the best time to be doing that part, so obviously free-play and sparring is the next best thing.

[Brian Hunt]

Really excellent article. I agree completely with everything I read there. I have always said that to learn to fight, you first have to learn technique, then you have to fight to learn to apply the techniques. Another benefit of free play or sparring is that it allows you to learn to face your own fears about confrontation with another person in a violent situation in a safe and controlled manner, so if (god forbid) it ever turns real you have a much better chance of not just freezing up like a deer in the headlights of an oncoming semi-truck, and maybe coming out of the situation without serious injury.

I also really like the points made by Carlos, and then the follow up made by our Webmaster.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Brian Hunt.

[Webmaster]

Stewart,

I like what you said about sparring giving you confidence in your abilities, because I feel the same way. The only thing I ever did before ARMA was a year of sport fencing, from which I did gain valuable lessons about footwork, timing and range, but it didn't prepare me for how to handle a medieval sword very well. Once I started to get a handle on how to make cuts and defend myself, however, the instincts I learned on the strip fit in perfectly with my new training, descended from it as they were. Modern sport fencing may be far removed from its martial origins, but the idea is still to hit and not be hit, and to not tell the other guy what you're doing, so it is still a valuable exercise in those respects. Because of this, I think an open-minded fencer (or boxer even) in many cases is already better prepared for ARMA training than many EMA trainees coming from hidebound styles. In both fencing and boxing, the whole point of learning them is to use the skills in a contest, therefore training is by necessity adversarial. It makes perfect sense to conduct our own training the same way because we are doing it with the same intent (minus the resulting lethal combat part). Ultimately, the way I see it, knowing how to make an attack gives you confidence in your abilities. Knowing when to make an attack gives you confidence in your chances, and that's the difference sparring makes.

[John_Clements]

Glad the article was so well received. We've gotten a lot of private replies from it, people saying "Yes!" and "wish my teacher would let us spar" or "my instructor wouldn't dare do this."

Historically, whatever system of fighting a person was studying, if that system had real combat value it would be learned soon enough when a person actually had to fight. The only way to test this before hand was to engage in some sort of mock combat play. Otherwise, the skills needed for violent encounters (adversarial counter-timing, controlling distance and initiative, deceiving and not being deceived, etc.) would be missing and you might have someone who could dance around very prettily, but not really fight.

In understanding the historical role of mock-combat, as it existed in the period, it can be reasonably stated the purpose was not to “recreate” combats or “pretend” to kill or be killed, but to exercise. Free-play was a way of performing (within reason) those actions and techniques that could be safely practiced against another fighter as preparation for real encounters. Doing so could also be good sport, and in some instances certainly take on the characteristics of a sport, that is, with rules and guidelines to prevent injury, make contests “fair”, or put up a good showing in public. Today, modern students conduct their weapon sparring for similar reasons. As a tool of learning, the primary goal of free-play should be to exercise those elements and principles that teach the practitioner, as much as is possible, the realistic handling of his weapon in a simulated adversarial context. What better way for students to test one another than to say, “Try to hit me” or “Defend yourself from my blows”?

JC

[Jay Vail]

Otherwise, the skills needed for violent encounters (adversarial counter-timing, controlling distance and initiative, deceiving and not being deceived, etc.)

Well said.

[Jamie Fellrath]

The crazy thing about people who say there is no need to spar is that there are examples of the same philosophy we use in ARMA throughout every day life.

Personal example: I'm a computer programmer. I can sit in a class and learn a new programming language all week. I can make up little programs from the new knowledge I've gained all day long. But until someone gives you a job using that new language, you're not going to be tested properly and really learn HOW to use that new language. It's when you're confronted with an unknown situation and you're not sure what you're going to be challenged with that you really learn. You're forced to improvise and adapt, using the knowledge that your learning and drilling has given you. You learn to put the whole package together.

Yet people think they don't have to spar to learn a martial art. Crazy.