ARTICLE - SPARRING

View previous topic View next topic Go down

ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  Guest on Sun May 11, 2008 11:30 am

SPARRING (Better to give than receive)

2008

I've written plenty concerning my thoughts on sparring, specifically symmetrical vs. asymmetrical tactics and the training I recommend to reinforce the latter.

When I was younger I absolutely loved sparring, in fact I wouldn't stay in a club or school that didn't focus on it! I truly believed that sparring was the pinnacle of training, and that everything else was merely supportive.

Unfortunately, as good as I got at sparring - and I did more than a fair impersonation of someone who knew what he was doing - it seemed when I tried to replicate my sparring prowess in actual altercations it soon became apparent that my 'opponents' had different intentions, namely wanting to 'fight' and not 'spar' and I had to rethink my plans most times - usually adopting roughly what was levelled at me instead, and beat them at their own game so to speak.

After such encounters, I would invariably be disappointed with what I was forced to resort to in order to prevail - not always, but still I doggedly stuck with sparring as being the answer to fighting, and made sure I did more of it to better 'prepare' myself for the next incident - even though it was not what I really needed, just what I thought I did - and I was wrong.
For those that did want to 'duel', and for the others that hung back looking for that perfect opportunity to land a shot, it all panned out as per training, but these instances were firmly in the minority - maybe for not for everyone out there, but it seemed that most of the people I came up against - once it went combative - just wanted to batter me and tried their very best to do so from the off. Occasionally there would be the obvious martial artist, and to be brutally honest these were the easiest to deal with, and still are.

Sparring makes you tough, better conditioned, improves timing and the ability to hit moving targets - this is undeniable, but the entire tactical model is wrong, unless the other person is like-minded and wants to trade shots in the same format. Sometimes they do, but mostly they don't in my experience - they want you out of the picture as soon as possible and generally try to achieve this by completely 'get stuck in' asymmetrical means, and as such having a symmetrical plan falls down at the base level.

If you can be first, and even better - last, then all is well, and sometimes the situation allows for this - confrontations are the best example of a symmetrical engagement initially, until it 'goes off' and then it should be all one-sided for the best chance of survival.

Tactically all combat is fairly generic in concept, regardless of scale - consider then that any notion of symmetry in warfare is long defunct, and not even considered at a personal, let alone strategic, level. Once upon a time armies would form-up to trade various unpleasant exchanges, even up until WWI this was evident, and then a lot changed in WWII with the advent of the blitzkrieg - the lightening war - and every successive battle used this asymmetrical model with one-sided fluid momentum, applying constant offensive pressure as its goal.

Sparring reinforces a certain siege mentality in my opinion, where time and space are present and can be actively manipulated to gain advantage - by both parties, and although there is movement it is to and fro, give and take - definitely not the same as when the assault takes place, until which time nothing is really resolved at all. Trading shots from behind cover is not what combat is all about - sure you can take your adversaries out this way, but you never truly take the objective until you assault it in a determined and committed manner.

Taking these concepts to a personal level, regarding training, finds the usual sparring practices leading the individual away from the actual requirements of fighting - this may sound controversial, but then most things have at some point I submit. Even though sparring will most certainly develop excellent attributes that are always vital in fighting, these same attributes are next to useless if the base tactical model is out of context - so care must be taken when training in such a manner, in order to recognise the limitations of the activity with the bigger picture in constant view, and avoid negative re-programming of the true perspective. Many individuals will swear by their participation in various and extensive forms of sparring making them the effective fighters that they undoubtedly are - but I would argue that this can be in spite of sparring, not because of it. Competitive fighting is different, sparring completely and exactly replicates the event itself and is therefore mandatory - but there is a huge difference between symmetrical sport fighting and asymmetrical real fighting.

One of the problems that many have with taking on-board the above issues is that superficially sparring does indeed seem to resemble fighting - until you look again with a more critical and objective eye, and actually compare the two models. Actually there are moments of fighting within sparring, but the parts in-between ruin the value of these moments to a large degree. The posturing, probing and circling are largely absent from real combat - often completely so, but form major components of every sparring match, unfortunately getting good at these things isn't as useful as some would believe due to this redundancy. To truly develop the exact attributes these need to be 'edited out' of the practice, and instead developed within the management of confrontations instead with a slightly different focus.

When engaged in sparring, and all forms of symmetrical competitive fighting, the capability to cover distance and land various strikes is a key factor to being effective - and for this the ability to 'bridge the gap' and be non-telegraphic is vital, and something that is striven for regarding training and preparation. Such engagements invariably take place from 'out' of range and such is the need to be able to 'enter' and place shots without interception or obstruction. Real fighting doesn't place anywhere near the emphasis on this however, as when people want to hurt you they make sure that they are positioned close enough to do so, therefore being able to 'bridge the gap' doesn't mean much if there isn't one!

Sparring may have four 'ranges' such as kicking, punching, trapping and grappling - or whatever terminology is used instead - but fighting only really has the one worth concerning yourself with, and this is 'in' range, if you're not 'in' range you're not actually fighting! This may sound glib and over-simplistic, and it is to be honest, but it's to address the over-importance I feel is assigned to the issue of range in personal combat - obviously legs are longer than arms and kicks have more range potential than punches, but when the sparring stops and the fight starts this extra distance doesn't count for that much at all in truth. Rifles can spit bullets much further than pistols, but if all your combat took place up-close what would be the need? You need to 'bridge the gap' in a real fight? Simple, just blink - your adversary will take care of that 'gap' for you, if there ever was one!

Being able to create space, in order to increase your options and prevent being immobilised, and therefore easy prey for a third party, is a far more important skill for fighting in my opinion - and the exact opposite to what is aimed for in sparring. Even a classic skill such as feinting can have limited use in a real fight, sometimes in a pre-fight confrontation perhaps, but during the intensity of a full-on engagement the various distractions and deceptions afforded by skilled feinting can once again be superfluous.

Try sparring against someone who isn't on the same page - tactically - and see how you get on, you'll find what skills and attributes are redundant, and which are definitely not. By this I mean a committed and purely offensive adversary, constantly applying pressure - not intermittently attacking and defending. Study fights, real fights, and make sure you're training to deal with actual attack formats - both technical and tactical - and not just those of your fellow practitioners. Where is the give and take, the flirting and foreplay, when the fighting is real? Outside of sparring and competition you'll be hard-pressed to find it. Add a third party and try your symmetrical tactics against two adversaries - even if they are following suit you'll be in trouble, but when they both decide to fight, not spar, your only chance is to attack and overwhelm with constant offensive pressure - unless you can grow more arms and legs! Classic and accepted doctrine, such as using one person as a shield whilst engaging the other, is at best an exceptionally short-lived affair when attempted for real - try it in the ring with 16oz gloves on, making sure that both adversaries follow no script and truly try to continuously land shots, then compare this punched-in-the-head-party with the demonstrations of such methods that somehow make it look so easy….

Do I advocate live drills with a fully resisting adversary? Of course, but I objectively aim to prevent it becoming a typical sparring scenario. Just having a stop and start signal, a set and limited arena with a pre-defined start point moves the context away from where I want it to be, regardless of the skillset allowed. Does this limit training options? Unfortunately yes, but taking the easy path and simply adopting a sport-based model isn't necessarily the best answer in my opinion - if it doesn't correspond with your exact take on fighting, you are conditioning conflicting actions and reactions that will become your preferred options under duress. This is fine if everything does correspond however - and an excellent 'pro' argument for those that maintain the fundamental flaws inherent in having skills that you cannot practice in a 'live' environment. Still it is all too easy for such training to become hugely symmetrical in conduct, and this is the real issue - not the various techniques and targets that can or can't be utilised.

Finding simple methods of initiating such live drills, from less prepared and more spontaneous circumstances, and keeping engagements much shorter and intense than normal, adds greatly to building the necessary elements required for fighting. Safety has to feature heavily without doubt, and the question of how much contact to allow raises numerous issues - heavy contact carries with it the obvious risk of injury, but lighter contact is unrealistic from the standpoint of the recipient continuing, when engaged in a manner that would in real application be incapacitating and therefore improbable, and to use such light contact does not lend itself to realistic application in the first place - consider the blistering demonstrations of skill that impress due to sheer speed, but would be far less impressive if the necessary power was applied for a real, not simply aesthetic, effect.

Sparring - a touchy subject to criticise for most, it's challenging, enjoyable - exhilarating, but is it as vital, as directly significant as some would like to think? Not for real fighting, it can and will have certain indirect benefits, but in actual fact it could even be considered counter-productive compared to other training methods. Just remember that ultimately, combat sports are based on combat - not the other way around.

Mick

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  Ste on Mon May 12, 2008 3:28 pm

Brilliant article Mick. Loved the last sentence.

Ste

Number of posts : 59
Localisation : U.K
Registration date : 2006-12-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  Cuddly Werewolf on Tue May 13, 2008 5:51 am

A brilliant article indeed.
However, there is something that bothered me a bit. It's possible that it's just me not seeing the answer, but still...

Mick, you wrote that creating space is much more important than bridging the gap. I agree 100%-briddging the gap would be only useful when you have an opponent trying to create this same space. At this point, not being in law enforcemnet or the military, I'd rather disengage and negotiate, having clearly established that power is not on my opponent's side (unless I have to finish it, but in general, I wouldn't have to).

However, isn't knowing how to bridge the gap necessary so you can practice creating space? I mean that both parties must be at least proficient in it, or otherwise, you could learn to create space against your training partners (only), but still fail against somene who has studied it more in-depth. As such, sparring would be a necessary exercise for someone who begins with your method, although you might not feel a need for it if your students have previous experience.
I'm just applying logic here and I'm a bit surprised at my own conclusions. I'd like to hear your opinion on this (although I guess I'd have to settle for just reading your opinion Laughing )!
A.

Cuddly Werewolf

Number of posts : 46
Localisation : Sofia, Bulgaria
Registration date : 2008-02-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  Guest on Wed May 14, 2008 2:55 am

I'm not exactly certain that I understand the point you're raising mate - but I'll have my usual long-winded stab at it anyway!

Think of being faced by an aggressive dog, intent on taking a piece out of you, the growling and posturing is the best part of the whole affair, once it decides you might taste nice it's a different story altogether. I haven't witnessed, or participated in, that many fights that looked like a sparring match - most resembled a dog fight or car crash where being able to get close to the other party wasn't anything to even consider - it was a done deal from the off.

Entry techniques, and the whole 'bridging the gap' approach, have such a limited window of opportunity in a real fight as to make them almost useless - if you're thinking about training them in order to replicate an aggressor profile then there is merit in this obviously, but ultimately its not rocket-science to be honest - take an aggressive person, wind them up, point at a target and tell them to do their very best to batter it continuously - now! That has just sorted out the aggressor profile for the vast majority of real fights - and unfortunately it has an alarming success rate!

Even in heated confrontation scenarios, which in my opinion sparring prepares you for more than it does for actually fighting, there is very little - if any - discernable 'gap' that needs negotiating, seeing as a man intending to assault you isn't prone to positioning himself where he is not able to! If you ever get a hostile individual 'stancing up' during a face-off, then you can take them apart with your superior prowess obviously - but why bother when it is so much easier, and tactically sound - to put 'em away with an overwhelming assault and be ready for the next one.

Sparring is such a conditioned element of most training, based on martial arts and combat sports, that it almost sounds like heresy to even consider it being less important, never mind it being unnecessary - but wearing anything other than brightly-coloured uniform on the battlefield was unheard of at one time, and taking it in turns to exchange volleys of cannonfire was the done thing.

Mick

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  Cuddly Werewolf on Wed May 14, 2008 4:20 am

I really liked the last line about bright-coloured uniforms lol! .

Otherwise-yes, that pretty much answers it. My point was that in training with a less aggressive person(s), it's good if they know how to bridge the gap, in ordwer to simulate a "real" attack by a naturally aggressive person. Otherwise, you could learn to defend against an attack that does not even come close to what you should expect in the real thing.
Anyway, your answer about the aggressive person closing the gap fithout sparring that much covers it just fine. Thank you for this article!

Cuddly Werewolf

Number of posts : 46
Localisation : Sofia, Bulgaria
Registration date : 2008-02-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  Line of Eld on Wed May 14, 2008 5:56 am

Mick, I'll put my hands up and say I'm one of those guys who considers it 'heresy' not to spar.

Without going into a huge post covering why I agree with people like Geoff Thompson, Matt Thornton et all that combat sports make the best delivery systems for self protection precisely because there is that competitive element that allows people to develop effective offensive and defensive technique, I will try and boil it down to a few questions/observations:-

1. To a degree I agree that 'sparring' even in the full-contact sense of boxing, muay thai or a judo bout does not "look like" the real fights I have been in. However, scenario-based training or padwork does not "look like" real fighting either. Doing olympic lifts usually doesn't resemble the tasks you put the strength you are develping to either. My point is that no training programme can be a facsimile of the reality of combat, all we are doing is finding the best way to prepare. Sparring may not be a perfect dry-run for fighting but I have never come across another single drill which pulls together so many disparate attributes and abilities which are required for fighting, particularly if you are sparring according to amateur or pro MMA rules. All the ranges are in there, all the offensive and defensive gambits, and if you are both training properly then it should not be just a matter of moving around trading ineffective blows to me if this is what is happening then that's an issue of poor quality sparring as opposed to a problem with sparring per-say. When I am sparring with someone if I can clinch with them and catch them in a standing choke in the first ten seconds I will. If I can take them down and get knee-on-belly position and start punching them I will. What only makes it a protracted bout is if they are able enough to prevent me doing that and threaten me with similar.
I guess I would also say this: If someone wants to prepare for the in-fight component of a self-protection situation, then I think they should at some point do an acid-test and see how they fare in a five minute MMA round against someone their own weight. If they can't do well in that safe environment then I don't think they are ready to do the same thing outside the gym dispensing with the rules.

And my second, a bit more anecdotal / subjective query-

2. In my experience people I meet who come from a good full-contact sparring background typically are dangerous at the ranges they train. The boxers can knock you out and are hard to hit. The judoka can throw you and are hard to take down. And so on. While they may need adjustments in their overall game plan for the street they are fundamentally immediately capable of putting someone down. My personal experience of people who only hit pads or bulletman type set-ups is that they may be able to hit hard but with few exceptions they are missing out on the timing, distance and defensive footwork and headmovement that a combat sports athlete develops in competing with his fellows. I think they make it far, far harder for themselves to develop as athletes and fighters. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying none of these guys can fight. But in my experience that ones that can are usually the guys with the real-world experience to draw upon. It does make me wonder where it leaves the guy without this experience who is also not sparring in the gym.

Last observation: Many 'comabtives' type groups seem to favour this no-sparring approach. The most distilled argument I have heard in its favour is from Kelly McCann / Jim Grover. Paraphrasing him, he said that training should be like a real fight, where you don't spar but simply beat up on the other guy. It should be all one-way traffic (incidentally, something I always aspire to when sparring, but my opponent always has other ideas... anyway...). What strikes me is that this approach in UK RBSD circles seemed to really take off over the past few years, whereas in the US a more MMA-based model has exploded. I've always found this bizarre, considering that in many ways in the UK and Ireland we have the original and best pioneer of mixing combat sports for self protection: Geoff Thompson. IMO, he tread over this ground a long time ago and found the best compromise, in having both combat sports and a 'sniper option'.

Oops- turned out to be a long post after all!
avatar
Line of Eld

Number of posts : 95
Registration date : 2006-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  Guest on Thu May 15, 2008 3:17 am

Heretic - burn me! I knew this article would evoke some controversy....

I can't go into the depth that I would like to, or that your points deserve, right now as I'm waiting to jump on a plane, but there seems to be an issue of perception and possibly semantics - and maybe even a case of not seeing the wood for the trees!

I am a firm believer in force-on-force live training - if you want be effective, physically and mentally prepared, you certainly must train against a capable man trying his very best to 'do unto you before you do unto him' in a manner that replicates the conditions that you will experience in actual application. What I want to do is eliminate the symmetrical preparion and conduct of such training methods, not the training itself.

Padded man scenarios are not my favourite or even preferred training methods - in my opinion most are poorly planned and dire in execution, more often than not just a case of "when do we get to hit the shouting man in the big suit" and have little training value with regards to what they should be trying to achieve.

Often the problem with sparring is that it does actually appear to replicate a real fight - bear with me here - and this can be quite insidious, because the base tactical model is diametrically opposed to what is needed exactly, and some attributes can develop , and be subsequently conditioned, that are counter-productive. More abstract methods of training cannot be confused in the same manner, and therefore don't conflict at a basic level.

Obviously if you are learning a collation of combat sports, and basing your fighting model on them, such training is going to be an integral component and rightly so. I'm not saying that this approach will not work in a real fight, and never have - read more if you're not convinced - but I am saying that this is not the final word on training, and that progress can still be made.

How many still hold that Western boxing is where you go to learn how to punch? Or that Muay Thai is 'the' place to learn elbows and knees? Quite a few can't see past these systems, they are fixed in place and held in the highest regard - to the point of being branded as the ultimate manifestation of a certain skillset. Fact is, I've never boxed - but tell me that I need to in order to learn how to punch properly and I'll be highly amused indeed!

Just because a certain something has always been done in a certain way, by certain people, doesn't mean that this is how it should remain.

More later....

Mick

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  Nick Hughes on Thu May 15, 2008 8:14 am

Fact is, I've never boxed - but tell me that I need to in order to learn how to punch properly and I'll be highly amused indeed!

Well, just to cheer you up mate...

You need to box to learn how to punch properly. Very Happy

Nick

PS: Given Micks' obvious taciturn outlook on life I think more of you should cheer him up by telling him the same thing.
avatar
Nick Hughes

Number of posts : 3119
Localisation : USA
Registration date : 2006-08-14

View user profile http://www.kravmagalkn.com

Back to top Go down

two questions

Post  Charles on Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:31 am

Hello everyone. I stumbled across this forum recently and feel very fortunate to have located such a great resource. I've truly enjoyed reading the posts on various topics; my sincere thanks to Mick and the other contributors!

While reading this particular thread, I was struck by the validity of Mick's observations concerning the gaps between the type of sparring done in most combat sports gyms and real-world violent encounters. In the area of the U.S. where I live, the most professional and credible fighting/self-defense/martial arts instruction readily available is typically found in gyms devoted to boxing or mma. This poses a bit of a problem to law enforcement and/or military personnel who seek out this sort of training not to prepare for athletic competion but to enhance their odds of coming out on top in physical confrontations at work.

My two questions for Mick are as follows? 1) Do the skills and attributes developed through participation in combat sports training (drills, bag and pad work, sparring etc) have enough real-world combative relevance to justify the time commitment? 2) Do you feel that the hours spent each week on the pursuit of combative skills through combat sports could be better invested elsewhere, even if turning away from sport oriented gyms would probably mean working out alone without the benefit of professional instruction and training partners?

Thank you for your time, Mick, I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Respectfully,
Charles

Charles

Number of posts : 4
Registration date : 2009-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  Guest on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:51 am

Charles,

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for posting such a rich question.

In my opinion, training is only wasted if done badly - and by 'done badly' I don't refer to the intensity or quality especially, more the direction and intent of the training.

I truly feel that you could achieve more with American Football or Rugby training, if undertaken with the right attitude, than the most high-speed low-drag super fighting system trained with the wrong attitude.

Cross training for fighting is only truly effective if you are ruthless enough to retain real perspective of your overall objective, and not become distracted by a seperate, though equally as hard, destination instead. Sparring isn't a bad thing at all as long as you can isolate and maintain your required perspective, rather than getting drawn into the whole 'sparring' game. By this I mean you focus only on those moments of offensive pressure that occur intermittently, as opposed to allowing yourself to get sucked in and trapped by the more sport-orientated ringcraft tactics and strategies instead.

Sparring is a collection of small fights, seperated by periods of observation and planning - remove everything but the 'fighting bits' and you have something 'mission specific' that though almost perfect preparation for a fight, is difficult to execute safely in training. Add the 'non-fighting bits' and it becomes safer but runs the risk of subverting the destination effect from where you'd like it to lead. It's a balance to achieve realism with safety - something I have given a lot of thought to whilst designing the 'live drills' I utilise.

If you have no specific training available, but good solid MMA type material then simple and small differences in the approach you use as your sparring practice, such as having 20-30 second 'rounds' to get the job done, can dramatically 'up' the intensity - and not offend the die-hard sparring fraternity too much!

Where are you based in the US? I'll be over several times next year.

Mick

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  Gappy on Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:34 am

Great posts from all, nice one too Charles, Hi!

As a general observation....

Some of the MMA guys are phenomenal in fitness and 'ringcraft' skills. I wonder how their 'fight game' would change if the sport participants adopted the '20 second round' tactic - which is in effect akin to the para milling philosophy?

Back to sparring. The 'club training environment' is generally one that accommodates all-comers. Within the confines of 'Hobby M.arts', MMA or any contact sport etc. the reality of combat, and, having to use whatever skills one has acquired, are rare to non-existent - club sparring 'does what it says on the tin' within context. The problem, as ever, is when it is 'sold' as something else - nothing new there, but a fact nonetheless.

I'm all for popping up north and really testing my skills in the 'Garage', you've got a way to go yet Mick....
avatar
Gappy

Number of posts : 620
Age : 58
Localisation : Land of Frogs
Registration date : 2007-08-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  Charles on Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:31 pm

Thanks for the great replies and insight! I especially liked the suggestion concerning shorter rounds; knowing that you only have 20 or 30 seconds (as opposed to more conventional 3-5 minute rounds) to achieve your objective would indeed be a powerful motivating force to get right in there and engage your adversary. It also seems like this would do a lot to bring the levels of intensity and urgency a few steps closer to those present in a real world encounter.

Mick, I am excited to hear that you are planning some visits to the U.S. in 2010. I live in the New England area but am always willing to travel for a worthwhile training experience. Please let us know when the dates and locations are finalized!

Respectfully,
Charles

Charles

Number of posts : 4
Registration date : 2009-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  Guest on Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:31 am

Charles,

The live drills I utilise in place of conventional sparring use engagements of around 5 seconds only - that's urgency for you!

The longer the engagement, the more dangerous it is - the shorter you make it, the more difficult it is. This is the balance, the sliding scale you must address. A standard 3 minute round gives you the time to prepare a devasting finish for your adversary, setting him up for a KO for instance - but that 5 seconds of contact really tests you from a pressure perspective. Fights are generally of a high-intensity short-lived format, so I choose this model of training as preparation.

I'll definitely be in the Los Angeles area in March/April mate, teaching various subjects including another 4-day foundation course.

Mick

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  BN on Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:32 am

Mick Coup wrote: " Occasionally there would be the obvious martial artist, and to be brutally honest these were the easiest to deal with, and still are."

Mick,

Could you go into more detail as to why martial artists were the easiest types of opponent to deal with? It would be interesting to know what kinds of mistakes they were making.
avatar
BN

Number of posts : 2010
Age : 41
Localisation : Moscow
Registration date : 2006-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  Guest on Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:25 am

Where do I start?

Obviously I'm generalising with this, but the main one for me - and the reason for the above article - is that it seemed that some people truly believed they were about to have yet another sparring match, complete with stances, pauses and that unspoken agreement to take it in turns...

I used to be just the same, and just like them I learned the hard way that it just isn't so.

Add to this the overwhelming indication that they had never actually hit or otherwise hurt another person deliberately, and the obvious realisation that they were not really 'up for it' and most certainly were not used to being in actual danger themselves.

As I have said many times, you can tell who lowers the 'reality' bar to match their training, compared to those who raise the 'training bar' to match reality - the first tends to be the normal state of affairs unfortunately.

Mick

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ARTICLE - SPARRING

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum