7 posts / 0 new
Last post
OhioMike
OhioMike's picture
Possible origin for 3 step sparring?

I was working out with my class this morning and had a bit of a suprising realization, a brown belt asked me to work a new timing drill that he was interested in, basically we got into fighting position and then counted to three and we both threw techniques at full speed but controlled power. We continued unitl one of us made contact and then immediately reset and repeated the drill, making sure that we stayed at realistic range and in mobile stances.

I really enjoyed the drill and got to thinking that this type of fighting, going until one person established advantage and then reseting and starting over is likley where both 3 step sparring and tournament style fighting orginated. But the addition of the counting, so that both of us knew when the other's technique was going to launch was EXCELLENT for helping with perception of incoming techniques and therefore development of counters. That perception is a skill that I struggled with getting as an underbelt and one that still feel is a weak point for me. I also know it can be a very difficult skill for some students to develop.

But I wonder if that very useful drill or one like it was eventally codified and sterilized into 3 step sparring out of a desire to make it look prettier and to make it eaiser to teach in large groups. 

Let me know your thoughts and let me know if you do anything close with your classes.

Thanks,

Mike

Marc
Marc's picture

As far as I understand it, 3-step sparring entered the realm of karate when karate was introduced to Japan mainland. It seems that it originates from similar exercises in judo or kendo.

Especially judo had a big influence on the shape of modern karate. We adopted the white uniforms, the colored belts and the kyu/dan ranking system.

In judo there are katas like nage-no-kata which use the exact same pattern: Three steps backwards, not actually doing something effective during steps one and two, then with the third step executing an effective technique. All very formalised.

>

I belive that this kind of exercise is where karate's 3-step sparring came from.

MCM180
MCM180's picture

Marc wrote:

Three steps backwards, not actually doing something effective during steps one and two, then with the third step executing an effective technique. All very formalised.

Just curious - is there any value in training "not actually doing something effective" in a limited sense - that is, if we're surprised or initially overwhelmed by an attack, we would just sort of stay alive until we can respond effectively? There could be some value in training for "recovery when our situational awareness or de-escalation has failed." Most of the bunkai applications include recovery if attack #1 fails or is blocked; I'm thinking of this in the same vein. It would build confidence and give us training in not being always the primary attacker.

That said, it shouldn't necessarily become a huge part of our training, at least not as important as 3-step sparring seems to be in some styles and not as formal and stiff. But it could be useful.

Marc
Marc's picture

MCM180 wrote:

Just curious - is there any value in training "not actually doing something effective"

When you look at judo kata, the first two steps allow for getting a feel for the situation and getting the timing right. It is a bit like kakie (push hands) exercise where the partners go back and forth a few times before one partner executes an actual technique (oversimplified, I know). Look at this video for an example:

MCM180 wrote:

if we're surprised or initially overwhelmed by an attack, we would just sort of stay alive until we can respond effectively? There could be some value in training for "recovery when our situational awareness or de-escalation has failed."

We could certainly turn that into a kind of three step sparring with a realistic attack and defence.

For example, the attacker could come at us with big hook punches. One right, then left, then right again (and so on, until we do something). We, as the defender, would block the first two (or more, until we're ready) with natural flinch response blocks, just to get a feel for the pressure we're under. Finally we would decide to respond with an effective counter technique.

MCM180 wrote:

Most of the bunkai applications include recovery if attack #1 fails or is blocked; I'm thinking of this in the same vein. It would build confidence and give us training in not being always the primary attacker.

Could you elaborate on that thought a bit? What do you mean by "not being always the primary attacker"?

Take care,

Marc

MCM180
MCM180's picture

Marc,

Sorry I was unclear. What I mean is that Iain's take (if I understand it correctly) is that we should practice getting an advantageous position and using it, rather than being defensive and reactive. But that's not always going to happen. Sometimes we'll be either surprised by the onset of violence or will be overwhelmed, so we won't be in an advantageous position. We will sometimes be recovering & defending from a position of weakness.

It was just a careless re-wording of what I had written above. I don't mean to imply we'll be going around attacking people, by any means! Far be it from us to do that!

Thanks,

Christian

Marc
Marc's picture

Thanks for the clarification, Christian.

Of course we might be surprised by the attack and find ourselves in a disadvantageous situation. The goal then must be to gain dominance over the attacker as quickly as possible.

Not sure how three-step sparring (not the formal stuff, just the idea of three times attacking and defending on the last count) would help in training this, though.  

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Marc wrote:
Not sure how three-step sparring (not the formal stuff, just the idea of three times attacking and defending on the last count) would help in training this, though.

That would be my potential concern with that form of practise. Such drills have us let two opportunities to re-establish dominance pass by, before doing on the third what should have been done on the first. I therefore see big problems in tactics and mindset encapsulated in such “three step” drills.

That said, everything needs to be viewed from its position within the wider training matrix. If you were trying to isolate one specific method, and therefore did not want the student flowing on every time because it was the opener you want to drill, but you did flow past that on the third one to put it back in context, then I can see that being OK. I should be a rare form of practise though because of the aforementioned risk of inadvertently instilling a passive mindset and ineffective tactics.

As for the very formal “three steps”, they need binned. The don’t develop any useable or transferable skill.

All the best,

Iain