These "endless repetitions against a non-resisting opponent or repeating a pattern...

Pro. F

IMO: different learning schedules are needed for different ranges/techniques. in the striking range learning how to throw a good punch can be best done against the air, pads and the bag. learning how to land the punch needs to be done in sparring. However if you try to learn how to land the punch before you´ve learned how to throw the punch then precision of the technique is lost (too much focus on trying to land the punch and not be hit, not enough on how to land it well). In the grappling range, feel for what the opponent is doing is more important so resistance is introduced much earlier (learning how to throw(do) an arm bar needs resistance). also wrestling and grappling lend themselves to the earlier introduction of this resistance as they are less stress inducing then striking. if resistance is introduced too early (in any range) then the technique isn’t learned properly because reflex action (like flinching) tends to take over and override the precision of the technique. this happens when the stress of even low intensity sparring is introduced too early.

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Now as regards fights looking sloppy, fights are sloppy. All skill based sports, particularly contact sports, can look sloppy (think rugby here, a play hardly ever goes as perfectly planned, but they roll with it and adapt)

I disagree - you can tell the difference between a good technical striker and a sloppy striker. e.g. of sloppy technique include: chin held high, swinging straightish arms; being beaten to the punch; etc.

john kavanagh wrote:

'shadow boxing' is often cited as a 'pattern style' training method used by guys who certainly have functional ability in the stand-up range. however this is incorrect as good shadow boxing is 'non-repeated, unpredictable dynamic movement' ......and of course is only used as a warm-up before the real work starts.

shadow boxing is an integral part of training for the guys who we know have functional stand up and not just a good warm up, which it also is.

Colm_OReilly

I disagree - you can tell the difference between a good technical striker and a sloppy striker. e.g. of sloppy technique include: chin held high, swinging straightish arms; being beaten to the punch; etc.

My bad, meant to qualify this further. To someone who doesn't understand the sport, it can look very frantic and disorganised. Furthermore I meant it in the sense of that things don't go as perfectly as they do in a demonstration scenario/exactly as the protangonist predicted.

Colm

Niall Keane

Evening everyone,

A few practical benefits I found:

• Learning structure and the efficient generation of force, where the technique comes from, how to make the entire body alive throughout the generation of the technique and be capable of feeling. Thus generating awareness and therefore the potential for quicker change. I cannot listen while I am talking. Fair enough a techniques finer points can be eventually understood by fighting. If we keep running at the wall we’ll eventually find the door, but sometimes I find it beneficial to slow down and assess the situation?
• Learning how to blend one technique seamlessly into another - the transition, enough said.
• Possible combinations, in many forms techniques of the same root are placed close together, kind of if that doesn’t work try this, this wont help at the time but if something really has you stumped in fights, its like talking with the old boys and asking their advice, this can then be practiced when sparring and tested
• From time to time I have surprised myself by using a technique from a form in a san shou match, having never really trained that particular technique, I can only speculate that repeated movements have conditioned the muscle memory / nervous system to be able to do this under pressure
• (I digressing here from personal benefits to benefiting future generations.) I can’t think of a better way to pass on martial knowledge without losing techniques, there are techniques there that I would never use, but some of those techniques I find my students using. Every few years in my experience certain techniques are the standard, then someone comes along with something unusual and f***8 everyone up. The standard techs are abandoned and in time they return as fresh and unusual. I can demonstrate any technique from my forms, but I use only a few of them, but I wouldn’t feel good about abandoning potentially good future techniques for some one who moves/ thinks differently than me, that have been slaved over to acquire in the past, just because I wasn’t interested in them.

Forms should be alive, by that I mean personal, skills should be gained from them, but they are only part of the picture. Above is an honest response to John’s initial and interesting question. I honestly find them helpful, but I do not consider for a moment that they would suffice on their own. Forms are a method of solo practice, they should not eat into valuable class time so while I’m sitting on my arse at the interwebb thing, with no sparring partners around I could be figuring out how I f**** up and was thrown in that last session?

Niall

A little exert from a Chang Tin Hung interview: (might be relevant)


It is easy to talk about neutralizing by yielding force and drawing aside on paper, but not so easy to practise. They cannot be brought into play unless you have highly-sensitive reacting ability. If you really want to use these techniques as your mind wills, you must take a wide range of exercises with your sparring partner. Through the exercises, you will progress from being barely able to perform slow actions to dexterity, and then from dexterity to the point where you can apply the techniques at lightning speed. A long period of practical training is, of course, a necessity in this process. You also need careful lectures and patient guidance to learn the correct methods, which are just as important as, for a simile, a correct method in leading an ox. When you tie a rope to an ox's nose, he will obediently follow your order in spite of his heavy build. That is because you are aping the correct method. But if you do not know the correct method and tie the rope to the ox's leg, will the beast obey your orders? Thus even in leading an ox, you have to use the correct method. So what greater importance will correct methods be in conquering a trained and experienced opponent?