Open rules, community project

[Jaron Bernstein]

Sparring to rules makes loopholes which are only discovered when meeting someone who doesn't follow the rules.

Besides that, sparring teaches one to not hurt the opposition, exactly the opposite what swords are designed to do.

I'd rather hit a pell or do drills

.

You must consider, Roy, that hitting a pell or doing drills also does not teach you to fight another person very effectively compared to sparring, even with rules.

Agree. You can jump rope, shadow box and hit the punching bag all day long for boxing, but your development as a boxer will be limited unless you spar with resisting partners or opponents. The same applies here.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

I'm not convinced of that.

I might be wrong but isn't it the case that most military sword training consisted of pell work ?

If so then it would have been for a reason i.e. effectiveness.

Whatever training we do these days it will fall short of reality in some respects, with pell work one doen't learn how moves relate to an opponents move, but one is able to avoid the inevitable sparring syndrome whereby no injury is caused to the opponent.

The difference with boxing is that it is done at full power with intent to injure, sword training isn't done at that level, it's the equivalent of light one point semi contact sparring.

without full contact sword fights, it's not possible to prove the point either way, but in my opinion the predominace of pell work in military sword training ( if true ) is a historical basis for my opinion.

.

[Stacy Clifford]

I don't know Roy, when you read accounts like this one, I don't think "sparring syndrome" was as much of a problem back then as it is now:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Pinder.htm

I don't think they set out to purposely injure each other in training and play, but it doesn't sound like they went out of their way to avoid it either. Our cultural aversion to pain and legal trouble is a lot higher than it used to be.

[Jaron Bernstein]

I'm not convinced of that.

I might be wrong but isn't it the case that most military sword training consisted of pell work ?

If so then it would have been for a reason i.e. effectiveness.

Whatever training we do these days it will fall short of reality in some respects, with pell work one doen't learn how moves relate to an opponents move, but one is able to avoid the inevitable sparring syndrome whereby no injury is caused to the opponent.

The difference with boxing is that it is done at full power with intent to injure, sword training isn't done at that level, it's the equivalent of light one point semi contact sparring.

without full contact sword fights, it's not possible to prove the point either way, but in my opinion the predominace of pell work in military sword training ( if true ) is a historical basis for my opinion.

.

Pell work, flourishing, research and drilling are certainly part of the Art. I am just saying that sparring needs to be a significant component as well.

[Gene Tausk]

I'm not convinced of that.

I might be wrong but isn't it the case that most military sword training consisted of pell work ?

If so then it would have been for a reason i.e. effectiveness.

Whatever training we do these days it will fall short of reality in some respects, with pell work one doen't learn how moves relate to an opponents move, but one is able to avoid the inevitable sparring syndrome whereby no injury is caused to the opponent.

The difference with boxing is that it is done at full power with intent to injure, sword training isn't done at that level, it's the equivalent of light one point semi contact sparring.

without full contact sword fights, it's not possible to prove the point either way, but in my opinion the predominace of pell work in military sword training ( if true ) is a historical basis for my opinion.

.

"The difference with boxing is that it is done at full power with intent to injure, sword training isn't done at that level, it's the equivalent of light one point semi contact sparring. "

ROTFLOL!!!

You have an open invitation to meet the Houston Southsiders at any practice session. After you sign a waiver, you can participate and, after you get done with some of our "light one point semi contact sparring sessions" exactly how "light" it is. I can't speak for the Houston Northsiders or Aaron Pynenberg's group, but I am reasonably certain that they will make you the same offer. Hope you don't catch Aaron on a day when he is in a bad mood (he seems to have quite a few of those).

"light one point semi contact sparring"

Once again, ROTFLOL!!!

Thanx for the laugh, man. I needed that.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

I'm pleased to hear that Gene, it's very reassuring.


If any of the ARMA members are in New Zealand for training purposes in the future, I'd relish the opportunity to be taught a few hard knock lessons, thankyou for the generous offer.

Until then I'll continue 'tilting at windmills', and hitting inanimate objects, while consoling myself with Bruce Lee's advice to "take your solo training seriously "

.

[Jaron Bernstein]

I'm pleased to hear that Gene, it's very reassuring.


If any of the ARMA members are in New Zealand for training purposes in the future, I'd relish the opportunity to be taught a few hard knock lessons, thankyou for the generous offer.

Until then I'll continue 'tilting at windmills', and hitting inanimate objects, while consoling myself with Bruce Lee's advice to "take your solo training seriously "

.

Solo training has its place. David Kite is an example of someone who has done very well with just that due to lack of local training partners. But I will say that you can progress a lot faster with other people to spar and drill with.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

Poor sparring is in my opinion worse than not sparring at all, and there's plenty of poor sparring about.

Any sparring which is festooned with rules as described here is worse than useless, in my opinion.

.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Any sparring which is festooned with rules as described here is worse than useless, in my opinion.

All sparring is done under at least one constraint, which is that neither contestants should get seriously hurt. If you don't add more rules to enforce a realistic behaviour on the players, you end up with an environment that will not promote the use of realistic techniques. Of course this combines with the safety equipment including modifications of the swords.

Now you can choose to add implicit rules (the honor system, for example) which hangs on the fact that all the players more or less agree about what is good but can't be bothered to write it down, but in my opinion the explicit approach taken by Dave is the way to go. If anything it makes us think about what is fundamental and what we want to use sparring for. I may not agree with everything in Dave's proposition but I agree with the spirit.

[Stacy Clifford]

I'll gladly extend Gene's invitation on behalf of the Houston Northsiders. While we certainly don't hit lightly, I agree with Vincent that our one constraint is not to cause serious injury (OK, and no intentional strikes to the groin). Bruises, not breaks.

[Tom Reynolds]

[/quote]
Hi Dave, I agree with you that you should never let your guard down, and sparing to two un-answered hits is something I've done in the past to crudely simulate the effect of armor denying a kill on a good blow. It's not exactly your rules, though it certainly comes close.
Understand that I'm still a relative outsider to WMA, I've been looking more closely as English longsword recently but I don't have a lot of experience with it. I do however have considerable experience with asian styles (Korean most specifically).
My experience with sparring to two un-answered hits is it results in a whole lot of bruising and grappling. Bruising because people move faster, with less control, when there's incentive to hit more than once. Grappling because distance can break more readily.

I agree with you that all sparring is in the end, a game, it's however the intent which distinguishes sport from sparring and a very specific set of rules are often the dividing line.
That being said, the best way to test any set of rules in a game is to see what breaks them.
I see a few issues that may/may not break your rules:
#1 the definition of what a clean strike lends itself to ineffective tapping, slices, think Olympic fencing with two finger blade control.
#2 it's unclear if the opponent must willingly take a step to nullify his chance to strike back, does pushing an opponent count as grappling? If not, and the opponent is forced to take two steps back does he negate his counter window?
#3 To "break" these rules I would personally simply cut as fast as I can repeatedly, and because my cut is very fast I stand a good chance of landing a blow and tying up some sort of reply in a bind by pure dumb luck rather than deliberate intent.
Ex: I cut to the head, since by the rules you have to reply to the head/torso, I just cut again as fast as possible in the same vicinity and chances are good our blades will meet, if they don't, no loss, I cut again to the head... the unfortunate consequence may be that kendoka find the competition very appealing because they tap, push and cut repeatedly to the head which often randomly enter a bind (firsthand experience tells me so).[/quote]


Tom Reynolds wrote:

I'm not sure a very specific set of rules is what distinguishes sport from sparring or from real combat. Given that, I'm not sure that sparring is in the end just a game. It seems to me that a sport (or a game) has a completely different goal from actual hand-to-hand combat, or even sparring.

The ultimate objective of a sporting contest is to measure which contestant is more skillful, which is why such care is taken
to ensure that both contestants are as identical as possible. If
neither contestant has any advantage in size or strength, or age, or
better weapons, then the one that wins is just a "better fencer."
Whereas in real combat, the goal is to defeat your opponent, and
survive. Having an unfair advantage becomes highly desirable when
fighting for your life, or even when simulating a fight for your life.

In that sense, comparing a sport fencing contest and real combat really is to compare apples and oranges. And if the goal of sparring is to simulate real combat as accurately and safely as possibIe, then I'm not sure it is possible to add a specific set of rules to sparring without fundamentally changing it's character and ultimate goal.

[Roy Robinson Stewart]

I agree.

When training one learns to do what one trains to do, it's a matter of memory. Thus the assumption that in a real fight one could just go harder, and forget the rules is mistaken in my opinion. In reality one will either react as one reacts in sparring, or with an adrenaline impaired version of it.

If one learns to do one point tapping resulting in a few bruises in training, then that's what one will dish out in a real fight.

If we look at the historical sources, it is clear that pell work predominates in military training. Opposing that we have the manuals of the Renaissance which appear to show that sparring and two person drills are the main training tool for sword mastery. Those are not military manuals however they are manals of the self defence industry, and are thus in my opinion not primary historical sources.


.


.

.

[Steven Reich]

If we look at the historical sources, it is clear that pell work predominates in military training. Opposing that we have the manuals of the Renaissance which appear to show that sparring and two person drills are the main training tool for sword mastery. Those are not military manuals however they are manuals of the self defence industry, and are thus in my opinion not primary historical sources.

Primary historical sources for what? For swordsmanship? For self-defence? For the battlefield?

Steve

[Gene Tausk]

"Opposing that we have the manuals of the Renaissance which appear to show that sparring and two person drills are the main training tool for sword mastery. Those are not military manuals however they are manals of the self defence industry, and are thus in my opinion not primary historical sources.
"

"Manuals of the self-defense industry?" Justify that statement. That is news to me. What "self-defense industry?"

Are you really saying that a manual written after 1453 (a good a date for the beginning of the Renaissance as any) is NOT a primary historical source? A manual written in, say, 1600 is NOT a primary historical source?

Back up this answer, because I have never heard of such a statement. Incidentally, what do you consider a "primary historical source?" Tell me the name of the work, author, and when it was published (year).

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

if the goal of sparring is to simulate real combat as accurately and safely as possible

I think that's one point that can easily side-track us.
The usefulness of sparring is to test the reconstructed techniques in a non-cooperative setting. Therefore, the primary goal of sparring is to promote and reward the use of historical techniques. Simulating real combat is one way to do it, but it does not have to be done like that. Most historical or traditional sparring systems that I'm aware of could be flagged as unrealistic by us moderns, however they endured because their pedagogical goal was fulfilled, and simulating real combat was not it.

Realistic should not even be a criteria. The question is, do the rules or lack of rules provide interesting challenges and do they force the players to display good technique?