6 posts / 0 new
Last post
OnlySeisan
OnlySeisan's picture
A different view on "body hardening"

The view of body hardening or conditioning, whatever you want to call it, is usually that of forging your body into "iron." The idea that you are forging your body into a tool by making it harder. I don't really believe this, but I have come to think of a different reason for practicing it, in a very limited and controled manner.

I believe it can be a replacement for full contact sparring.

In full contact sparring one hits and is hit at full force, but it is dangerous, unpedictable, usually requires at least some safety equipment, limits the techniques that can be used and realistically cannot be done all the time (every day or every practice session). The equipment itself can also change the way techniques are performed. Padded gloves/ headgear protect the hands from the hard skull, which create a artificial experience of punching somene in the head, and otherwise would be dangerous. The point of practice is to learn not to be injured or to injure. It also requires a partner.

Conditioning exercises can allow one to experience the pain associated with full contact sparring without all the unpredicatbility, allowing one to shrug off or at least work through the pain and give a person the confidence that they can get hit hard and keep on going. It also allows one to control the amount of intensity and increase it gradually. Depending on the exercise it also doesn't require a partner.

One could perform the slow sparring the Rory Miller suggests, slow movement with correct body mechanics to the intended targets, which allow for a safe, but realistic environment and full speed and power used on conditioning tools (makiwara, training dummies, or hitting each other in a controlled way) to replicate the pain and intensity of a real engagment.

Any thoughts?

Roman P
Roman P's picture

You can't harden your brain against concussions. This alone is a reason enough you can't reduce the training to the body hardening exercises.

No solitary exercise could replace the experience of some other person punching you in the face. It's not even about witstanding pain, but more about working under pressure, having correct responses for tactical situations, attacking and defending and so on. You can get decent in striking by yourself, but my opinion that any training of defence requires a partner. The messy and unpredictable nature of fighting is precisely the reason to spar.

The level of contact in the strike sports sparring varies, but its purpose is never to injure participants. Sparring must be like sex - sane, safe and consensual. A coach determines the right level of contact and improvisation for each duo exercise. There could be free-form games of tag (partners each try to lightly slap each other on shoulders or something like that), or semi-contact spars with scenarious (like defense against jab-cross-uppercut). Free-form full-contact spars are not commonplace, and are usually reserved for senior students. You are supposed to be able to defend youself against strikes before starting to spar.

OnlySeisan
OnlySeisan's picture

You should probably reread my post.

Roman P
Roman P's picture

No, I believe my point stands. Sparring is not about inflicting pain or injuries, be it full-contact or otherwise. If you receive a powerful enough blow to the jaw, then it's over. The level of pain resistance won't matter if you just get knocked out. So the point of full-contact sparring is about developing reflexes, skills, body mechanics in engagement with partner using realistic speed and power. Slow-speed scenario drills are only a first step towards this free-form full-contact sparring, because they are not 'live' enough to fully prepare athletes. Just hitting bags, makiwara or passively getting hit is not 'alive' at all.

OnlySeisan
OnlySeisan's picture

My response keeps getting kicked out of here for some reason. Maybe it's the browser, because I don't think it was offensive. So we'll try this again and I'll add some.

Thank you for the response Roman P.

I know many that believe that full contact sparring builds skills, etc...

I don't really believe that it has many merits besides learning to work with the adrenaline dump and getting used to pain.

The padding, limit of techniques and the limitation on targets make it poor self-defense training. The eyes, groin, back of the head, very top of the head and the kidneys are off limits (just to name a few), which they really should be in sparring unless it is slow. Mouth guards also don't allow for biting, headgear may prevent hair pulling, but yanking on someone's headgear is about as frustrating.

Striking, for my karate at least, is a very small portion of the available techniques. There is a lot more tripping, throwing, locking, and choking in the way I practice, but in my line of work I need to be able to control a person without hurting them, so locking, limb checking and efficient body movement are at the front of my training.

For me at least, I'm not worried about trying to knock someone out, my goal is to knock them down (without hurting them) and then run like hell. Besides, I'd feel terrible if I knocked someone out and then they broke their head open on the concrete. I work with people with head injuries and I've seen what happens when you crack your head open on something hard and it is not pretty.

Again thanks for the response. It's always good to see a different persepective.

Ian H
Ian H's picture

OnlySeisan wrote:

I believe it can be a replacement for full contact sparring.

Allow me to add some emphasis, and in that way agree with you.  I still think that some form of high-speed sparring with light/no contact (at least to the head) is to be preferred, even if full-contact is traded in for "body hardening" exercises.  People unaccustomed to fighting have a tendency to "flinch" or "freeze" when an attack starts, and at-speed sparring is a great way for them to learn to react to the sudden onslaught and actually fight back.

In terms of "learning how to take a punch", it's probably six of one, half-dozen ot the other.  Iron body probably is better at increasing the ability to endure heavy strikes, and sparring better at increasing the mental ability to carry on when an unexpected blow comes.  (Perhaps "unexpected" isn't the perfect word.  In sparring, you know the blow is coming sometime ... but you don't know when and you have to move around and actually fight, rather than just standing and bracing yourself.  Being able to take a punch in a braced, stationary position and being able to take one on the move are two different things.)

In terms of hardening the hands and feet into weapons of destruction, I'd give a definite edge to the iron body training.

Roman P wrote:

You can't harden your brain against concussions. This alone is a reason enough you can't reduce the training to the body hardening exercises.

Full contat to the head isn't a good idea, whether it's "body hardening" or sparring.  

I am reminded of a remark I heard someone say to the effect that "the Dojo is the most dangerous place most martial artists will ever go."