This discussion, like so many, is suffering from semantic "Jello" and the predisposition to believe the other guy is already wrong.

"Aliveness" is confusing, like the word "sparring", itself. To some sparring only means full contact free fighting. To others, it means ANY two-person contact MA activity, specifically including repetitive contact drills. I really wonder how much disagreement would remain if there were a precise and accepted language for MA.

Kimo, you nailed the need for balance, at least in my opinion.

"First you learn the drill then you apply.
Too much alive training leads to sloppy technique.
Not enough alive training leads to unexecutable technique.
Skip either one, to your peril."

But, for clarity, perhaps it could be re-worded a little to suit our less charitable brethren.

At the bottom line, people can learn effective techinques any way they want, even through a lifetime of trial and error of nothing but free sparring. That's a hard, slow way to learn, though. But if a 100 monkeys and a piano can perform Beethovan if given a hundred years, it's do-able.

An easier way is to have the short cut of a teacher who introduces techniques to you. You absorb them through drills and then apply them into the free sparring for testing and refining.

To work well, the two facets must be balanced. If there is no balance to this, you will either suffer time wasted by trying to do your Research and Development in free sparring - or be stuck always with canned solutions without fire-hardening them.

An edited version could be this:

"First you learn the techniques, then you apply and refine.
Too much free sparring slows technique development.
Too little free sparring leads to untested and possibly unexecutable techniques.
Allow either one, at your peril."


Or not.

Anybody else?

Quote:

---

* Are limited rules sport fighters defending themselves in competition?

* Are the rules inherent in ANY martial arts practice effectively making them sports/combat athletics?

* Are these skills more transferrable to SD situtations? Less? No different?

* Does intent alter the nature of the practice, or the skills gained/used/lost?

---

IMHO, instead of sport *IS* self-defense, I would say sport *can be* used in self-defense. Use the brain, and apply/adapt using the "tools" that are avaiable to the individual. Like the legal striking targets in sports fighting, eyes or groin are just another targets in space + time.

Sport is a good tool in training MA. But everytrhing eveolves around intent. In a sport event where the intent is to win by destroying your opponent (KO or submission) I say that you're better prepared to contact than when you train with intent to score a point.
But if the intent is not in the mind, the fighting will be sh$$t, whatever you train. Full contact MA's sometimes have to much confidense in what they do.
A friend of mine was a Muay Thai B fighter (amateur but already getting paid to fight). One night he had a conflict with an aquintance in a bar. He wanted to use his best technique (roundhouse kick, shin to the temple) only to feel that his 2 feet were already hanging in the air.
The other ones intent was to stop the conflict one way or the other, my friend wanted to show off his fighting ability. He decided to walk away, it was not his day to win.
In SD brains, stamina and intent are the key imo. If you are not ready to give up, you are a tough opponent even if your technical skill is minor. But rational thinking can prevent a lot of pain or worse.

Amen. Spot on! Intent divides the Men from the boys.