"Jay's Modified TKD Sparring Rules"

[FearlessFreep]

In class today we were talking about sparring and how our school emphasizes self-defense/combat over sparring; and mostly because sparring, as it's practiced today, is not real similar to fighting. I sent him the following email


--
Bear with my insanity for a moment.


When I was in the Air Force, my dad, also in the Air Force said "All that 'peace is our profession' is just for the civilians; our job is to break stuff and kill people". Beyond the political issues of when and how to use force, that really *is* the mission of the military. (Elected civilian leaders decide why and when, military leaders and personnel...um..just do)

Take it as a given that Tae Kwon Do is a Martial Art. It's designed to inflict damage. Hopefully, we would only inflict damage as a last resort when the cost of not inflicting damage is too high.

All martial arts, as well as all sports, have ways of testing themselves to test the progrss and effectiveness of their training. I think the idea of 'sparring' has merit, the two main forms of sparring in TKD though, olympic sparring and point sparring, however, have rules for scoring that encourage strategies and motions that really do not translate well to true unarmed combat.
--
Point-sparring has the truth that it's about making the first scoring move; but it ends up encourage things like bops on the head. In a fight, I guess you do want to score first, but if that's to be the end then it has to be a debilitating blow, or the fghts going to last. Olympic-sparring recognizes the constant motion of a real fight, but the scoring and match setup encourages dancing and feints and sacrificial attacks (taking a hit to score a hit or more) that don't make sense in a real fight.
---

If we are starting from a basis of practicing self-defense in the air, like we do, and including self-defense as more-attack oriented strikes, like we did today and often do.

The first level of realism is introducing a live opponent. We do that in some motions, but not in a lot.
The second level of realism to increase the intensity. This can be done by increasing the speed of the strikes and the strength of the strikes. (To take it up to full speed/strength, you probably need to put on protective gear This seems to be done naturally anyway when we practice as the level of intensity is dictated somewhat by the two participants
The third level of realism is to increase the dynamics. This can be done by allowing either the attacker, or the defender, or both, to vary their attacksl low punch, high punhc, choke, kick, whatever, on the attack, defender can chose method of defense. If the attacker is using a prescribed attack, the defender can know some options and has to react and execute. The attack is free to be dynamic in the attack, the the defender really has to defend himselve with quick reactions and strong execution.

Note: dynamics and intensity are independent. You can have dynamics but agree to go easy; you can have intensity but use preset moves, or you can go wild and do both.

At the end; what you have is two people facing each other, one about to attack, one about to defend..and a second or two later, it's done.

Now add some incentive Turn it into a competition
--------------------------
Rules:
1) Two opponents face each other; one is designated 'attacker' one is 'defender'.
2) Attacker initiates an attack, defender defends.
3) The 'round' is over when one person goes down to the ground.
4) Point given to the one still standing
5) Attacker and defender switch roles and do it again
6) Illegeal moves:
kicks to the knees
strikes behind the elbow
hands to the face
strikes to the throat
7) Legal moves:
Clinches, grabs, traps and takedowns
leg sweeps
kicks to thigh
knuckle punches, palm heel strikes, knife hand strikes

This would encourage more of the full range of TKD moves and options. Would encourage a more self-defense/combat style of attack and defense. No tapping the hogu; you score when the other guys butt goes down.

Notes:
An alternative rule could be to only allow scoring on defense, to encourage a self-defense emphasis. Like tennis or volleyball, you can only score when you serve. Here, you can score when you defend, you can only prevent an opponent score when you attack.

The list of legal and illegal moves is just some thoughts in trying to allow the maximum range of techniques with safety. Someone more versed in fighting and sparring than I could probably make a much better list.

Wanna make it really exciting? The attacker can, at their discretion, use a fake kife (or some other weapon) that will mark the opponent in some way. Thing is, if the defender successfully defends against a weapon, they get two points. (one possibilty is that if the attacker scores with a weapon, if you are allowing attackers to score then it's two points, if not, the the defender loses a point) You could expand that thought and allow the attacker to open with any sort of attack and if the scorers deem it to be something outside the realm of TKD, like a BJJ grab or shoot in or a choke, then you do the same rewards of a successful attack costs the defender more but a successful defense rewards the defender more. Anyway, the point is to allow for a 'sparring' style that goes from "TKD vs TKD" to "TKD defense against...whataver"

--------------------------


The whole point is that the idea of sparring in training to use techniques against a dynamic opponent is a good idea I think in itself. The current rules for most sparring however, encourages strategy and attack styles that are not very similar to the heart of the idea of training for self-defense/counter attack. I think if you look at what a fight is "someone attacks, someone defends, some stuff happens very fast and very quick, and it's over 'cause someone's on the ground", you can develop a dynamic and intense training approach based on getting as close to that as possible, safely.

Nothing I think will ever really go anywhere, but maybe some thoughts for directions in our training
----------------------------------------

Open for criticism

 

[Jim Tindell]

These matches would be very short, I believe.

 

[mj_lover]

short, but sweet. I like the idea, make sure that the attacker knows how to be a good "bad guy", just to make it more interesting. I like your thinking!

 

[FearlessFreep]

These matches would be very short, I believe.

Yes, intentionally. I shouldn't say 'match', but they idea is to train/spar/compete in a manner more like a live encounter.

If you rotated 'attacker/defender' roles, you could probably do like tennis or volletball; first person to score..10 points, 21 by at least 2 points, etc..as a way of determing a winner for the match.

Mostly I started with a premise of the idea that to be really effective as a training tool for true self-defense/combat then the sparring encounter should compare as close as possible to a real encounter as safely possible, which is the reason for a) attacker/defender roles b) allowing for other aspects of TKD than just kicks and front punches c) scoring by take-down, which stops the action.

a) I wonder if you could modify it so that the attacker/defender roles are not assigned? I'm starting from a premise that this is for self-defense training in an encounter where one side attacks the other. Is that a valid format?
b) I'm all for kicks, I like them , but for example in class today we practiced a defenseive series including a block, two fast punches and a finishing kick. A lot of times, we practice defenses that include using blocks as strikes and hand traps and such and if they are an effective part of TKD fighting then they should have a home in sparring and if no one uses them in this form of sparring then maybe there self-defense application is not as strong as is thought
c) Granted, a takedown doesn't always stop the action in a real fight but then you've sorta gone outside of TKD into another form and I'm really trying to keep this in TKD. By 'takedown' I don't mean 'grab the guy and put him down' but more like 'kick the guy or punch the guy until he falls.'

I'm going from the idea that 'if you are up and the opponent is down, you win the encounter' So I guess you would need to specify that if both go down, no point is given. Maybe another option would be that if neither side goes down in a certain time, the the defender wins by default? I'm trying to encourage aggressiveness; or rather, I'm trying to encourage the attacker to be aggressive in order to encourage the defender to be effective in facing an aggressive opponent (I'm trying to tip the scales to a 'self-defense' focus mentality)

I realized in the 'legal moves' I left out the normal range of kicks; I sorta took that for granted to include kicks to the body but also the thighs and maybe calves and arms (except from behind the elbow) and maybe the head/face

 

[Adept]

While having the defender taking the attacker down is a reasonably good way to measure a 'win' (the defender should now be able to run or control the assailant) I dont know if it applies in reverse. The attacker could win if he scores a significant blow, even if the other guy remains standing.

A few things I would incorporate if RBSD is the goal.

1 - Weapons. Give the attacker a knife, a stick, whatever. Obviously, use training weapons. Out on the street the attacker won't always be empty handed.

2 - Groups. Have two or three attackers to one defender. Most of the time someone will be with a buddy or three who might try and break up the fight, or might try and join in.

3 - Legal moves. If we are trying to gain a better understanding of what will work and what won't on the street, why limit attacks and techniques? You should use whatever works best for you. How often these techniques work on the floor against a committed 'attacker' will go a long way to demonstrating what is effective and what isn't. Obviously, use care and control, and it's important that your attacker plays the part. If you pretend to give him an eye gouge, he has to pretend to be eye gouged.

I would allow any and all techniques to be used. This doesn't mean you have to teach said techniques, but it gives a good opportunity to teach and learn how to defend against said techniques.

 

[Jim Tindell]

To me, this seems more like role-playing than sparring. "You play the bad guy, and I'll kick your ***." That's not sparring.

 

[FearlessFreep]

To me, this seems more like role-playing than sparring. "You play the bad guy, and I'll kick your ***." That's not sparring.

What is sparring? It's just competition. I'd say that what Adept talks about I think is some good ideas for making more reality based training exercises (and I'm working on a longer reply to his; I think some good ideas but trying to keep it in a competitive manner would raise a lot of organizational issues and quickly get pretty complex; which I don't think is bad, just needs to be considered.)

Anyway, many sports have set sides of offensive and defensive with some criteria for changing sides (baseball..three outs per side of an inning; football, you get 10 yards in four tries or you turn the ball over). If anything TKD 'sparring' is considered too sport-like and not combat-like enough; if you go with the idea of rotating attacker defender roles, that's pretty sport-like. I think fencing uses an approach that results in a fast and short flurry of movement ending when one person scores a hit. They don't have designated offense/defense roles, though. TKD point-sparring also has the same approach, but I don't think the way of measureing a 'hit' is realistic for measuring a successful attack or defense in a real-world scenario

The premise is/are:
1) Sparring is to test your training/fighting skills in a competitive manner whereby you can compare yourself against others. It's is live competition and the competitive aspect is designed to foster a competive spirit of motivation. This leads to the idea of 'scoring' as a way of evaluating two competitors
2) Tae Kwon Do is a martial art, an art designed for and focused on fighting. Ideally, in our world today, those who use it are focused on using it as a defensive art, not offensive.

The two premises make me feel that Tae Kwon Do sparring should be as close to a combat situation as possible in order to be be both competitve but to also encourage the development and execution of Tae Kwon Do techniques that are actually applicable to a combat situation.

Both point-style sparring and olympic-style sparring are or have become sport forms that encourage the development of stratgey and techniques that are not applicable to combat. This has led to a few conditions; 1) TKD takes a knock as not being a serioues fighting art 2) TKD schools tend to break down into 'sport oriented' or 'self defense oriented'

So back to the idea that TKD sparring should mirror an actual self-defense/combat encounter. One thing I've sorta picked up is that real-world encounters start with an aggressor making a move, the other party defends, things happen very fast with a small number of moves, and then the encounter is over. If both combatants are skilled or unskilled, it may drag out a bit, but nothing like "3 rounds of 3 minutes". So this started my thinking along the line that each 'round', if you will, would mirror the parameters of a real fight; short, fast action, and ending with one party 'down'

 

[FearlessFreep]

While having the defender taking the attacker down is a reasonably good way to measure a 'win' (the defender should now be able to run or control the assailant) I dont know if it applies in reverse. The attacker could win if he scores a significant blow, even if the other guy remains standing.

Interesting idea. I think to do this, you would need a judge to discern what is a 'significant blow'. I think this would be easier to do in the context of only defenders score. It would set up a subjective criteria for a 'score' for one side and I think this would too easily get into 'I scored/ no you didn't' so if you just kept it with defenders scoring, you would keep it more even

1 - Weapons.

I mentioned that in the notes of my first post that an attacker could optionally use a weapon and the scoring would be weighted to accomadate the greater difficulty of defending against a weapon and the greater danger of failure to defend against a weapong

2 - Groups.

Not sure how to do this in a 'sport/sparring' mentality. Best I could think is that you lose the sparring one-on-one encounter and it turns into a situation where he competitors individually face an attacker or group of attackers and the one who scores the most points in their turn to defend 'wins' You could then allow the defender to chose his opponents and weight the scoring based on degree-of-difficulty: single unarmed opponent - low DoD, multiple armed opponents - very high DOD, etc...

3 - Legal moves.

I wasn't actually thinking in terms of eye-gouges and such. Mostly I was thinking of things like a side-kick to the knee to break it or a wrist-trap and strike to the elbow to hyperextend or break it, or a palm heel strike to the nose or aknuckle punch to the trachea. I don't know how to allow that unless you pad the knees and elbows and strikes as such would render the limb unusable. I think this gets really tricky in a sparring/competitive sense because you need some to judge a) was the blow hard enough to be consider debilitating wihout actually being debilitating and b) is the 'crippled' person acting 'crippled' enough (and this would apply to eye gouges as well) Someone better than me could come up with saftey rules.

I think you are left with two options:
1 - Allow all techniques but limit how hard some techniques may be executed and determine a way of simulating more damage than was actuall done
2 - Allow a more limited set of 'safe' techniques but allow them to be executed with full force.

1) I think is very hard to do fairly in a competitve sense. I think it would be very good for more reality based training exercises, but I think this gets into what Jim pointed out as more role playing than sparring and gets hard to figure out how to apply scores and judge winners
2) - This is how sparring currently works but the set of techniques I think are too limited and the rules of engagment too artificial to provide even adequate fighting training/evaluation.

I think your suggestions as a whole fall under that category; they are very good approaches for reality-based training, but to incorporate them into a sparring context would be difficult and would require more infrastructure in terms of judges and judgement criteria to implement in a competition form.

There is a competitive spirit, a desire to beat your opponent in a way that can be somewhat objectively measured and compared that sparring provides. We like to 'win', we like to be 'victorius', it's human nature. There is something personally satisfying in doing that one-on-one. Sparring has the competitive aspect and I'm trying to keep that competitve aspect but do so in a more combat-realistic manner.

Neither am I trying to say 'we should do this and set up this sport' Mostly I'm just throwing out suggestions abuot how people can, in their own dojang, approach sparring in a way that is more self-defense oriented or approach self-defense training in a way that is more competitive

 

[TigerWoman]

So this is without gear? Or with it? How about a Redman suit?

So I could use full force, whatever it takes to get someone down? Thinking about dojang liability insurance here. Its amazing how everyone sues anyway when its talking about major hospital bills.

I could use a spin heel and really deck someone not tap?

I could use a spin sweep which could very well break a leg or ankle?... or incur severe bruising at least.

I could miss that thigh roundkick, whoops, broken knee....guess I win...

Severe bruising everywhere not padded even if using them.
Guess you guys wouldn't be "playing" much after this. TW

 

[FearlessFreep]

So this is without gear? Or with it? How about a Redman suit?

I was assuming fairly normal sparring gear

So I could use full force, whatever it takes to get someone down? Thinking about dojang liability insurance here. Its amazing how everyone sues anyway when its talking about major hospital bills.

Sparring is always done at full force, not much difference here. Big difference is the force is intended to knock somone down.

I could use a spin heel and really deck someone not tap?

That's why I stated it as 'when the person goes down' not 'when the person taps'. Tapping involves holding someone down which sorta goes outside the range of TKD.

Actually, a spin heel to the head was used in the olympics to win the gold medal in the men's heavyweight...and the opponent went down


I could miss that thigh roundkick, whoops, broken knee....guess I win...

I think some forms of TKD sparring already allow leg shots, at least to the thigh and groin (I know because I sparred against a friend from another school and we had to clarify legal shots and that was one are of difference); I just wanted to call them out because I know olympic styke does not

Much of what you bring up is already part of of TKD sparring in some form (yeah, you could break an ankle, but you could break an ankle sparring anyway). All I'm really suggesting is changing the rules of engagement and scoring to emphasis a different tactial approach and technique usage more closely on par with a real, voilent encounter

 

[TigerWoman]

I'm sure this hypothetical but if you really believe this is viable, be sure to let us know how this goes when you get your own school in fourteen years when you get to master rank . TW

 

[Flamebearer]

So what we're looking at is more of an "attack simulation" than a "sport sparring" situation?

You could do this outside on different kinds of surfaces - concrete, grass, etc and with normal "obstacles" - like what you might find on the street - trash cans, walls, stuff like that.

I think multiple attackers should be included. I know sparring certainly gets more interesting with multiple attackers.:ultracool Because you have to think a lot more, but still react fluidly. You try to 1) not let the attackers get you in between them, 2) try to keep 1 attacker between you and the others so you have less people to deal with directly, and 3) possibly control an attacker and maybe run him into the others so they mess up. I've done it ... and I've had it done to me.:whip:

And, on the street, if people attack you, there is a chance that it will be multiple attackers.

-Flamebearer

 

[Marginal]

I'm sure this hypothetical but if you really believe this is viable, be sure to let us know how this goes when you get your own school in fourteen years when you get to master rank . TW

How does this differ signifigantly from submitting proposals for the improvement of the school to your instructor?

 

[TigerWoman]

How does this differ signifigantly from submitting proposals for the improvement of the school to your instructor?

What does this have to do with it? TW

 

[Marginal]

I was just curious as to why one needs 14+ years studying an art and a master's ranking to suggest any difference in the practice. Why one attempt lacking those credentials is viable, while another is worth pooh-poohing. Either an idea stands, or it doesn't. It doesn't magically gain in merit just because you accrue rank.

Or at the least, it shouldn't. .

 

[TigerWoman]

It's not so much about credentials as it is about experience. TW

 

[Jim Tindell]

More like... because no Master Instructor in their right mind would let that kind of contact happen in their dojang. Not with colored-belt students, at least. So he'd be on his own with this one.

 

[FearlessFreep]

As I said, I don't have enough experience for sure in knowing the proper balance of what should be legel or illegal to gain the best tradeoff of safety versus realism. Some seem to advocate more realism, some favor more safety. This is nothing formal so I'll let anyone else do whatever they feel comfortable with.

At the heart of the matter, though, is a couple of questions that I think I need answered, or issues resolved, for myself as I go forward in my own training.

1) Tae Kwon Do is really only a sport anymore and has no usage in self defense so Tae Kwon Do sparring is good for sport and that's it. - I don't really believe this. But if it's true than I'm kinda wasting my time because my instructor heavily emphasizes self-defense over sparring
2) Tae Kwon Do sparring is adequate training for self-defense. This I don't believe either mostly because not very many people with more experience than me who take self-defense seriously as well believe it.
3) Sparring, in the sense of competing against an intelligent, independent and skilled opponent, is a valuable part of self-defense training. This I believe as a principal because there is nothing quite like the adrenline and stress of going against an opponent who is coming at you full force and full speed and unpredictably.
4) To adequately train for self-defense requires a context to use self-defense techniques at full-speed, full-power, and under stress or pressure. I believe this because otherwise you don't really know what really works or not, for *you*, and you don't really know how you will respond under the adrenilne and sweat of a real threat.

So taken all together; what I thought was, why not add the speed and pressure and competitiveness of sparring to self-defense practice? Or conversely, why not make sparring more like a true self-defense encounter? That led to the thought of setting up a context based on a typical attack/defense interaction and score based on successful defense (and attack)

If any of those four points is wrong and thus invalidates the conclusion; I would sincerely like to know why because that means I've really gone off in the wrong direction.

I'm a concerned, though, that if it takes three years or five years or however many years for one to reach black belt to be considered skilled enough to train for self-defense in a realistic manner...that leaves a lot of people along the way really unprepared, for a long time.

 

[TigerWoman]

be considered skilled enough to train for self-defense in a realistic manner...that leaves a lot of people along the way really unprepared, for a long time.

Our TKD program prepares people sufficiently for a one on one attack of- not by a trained fighter. It is progressive so by the time he/she reaches red belt, most of the basic techniques are learned. Considering that most people only go 2-3 times a week they are not devoting enough time for an intense martial arts self-defense course. You are unusual with your dedication. I hope you don't burn out, Jay. It is a long road. If you are more physical and pick up stuff faster which I think you do, you are much further down that road. But TKD is also about the mental aspects, perseverance, integrity, humility, respect and others, and those are just as important to learn by the time black belt is reached. Back to self defense, I would venture to say that such an encounter is few and far between, most of us will have maybe one or two if any such encounters. To train just for that, something that may never happen instead of training for yourself, may lead you to disappointment. I have found it is more a road of self-discovery. TW

 

[terryl965]

First off WTF Olympic style does not emphasis self defense, traditional does Fearless Freep. So do train in Olympic style with modification or do you train Traditional with Olympic modification that you need to find out. Fearless you are probaly right about knowing your limitations in self defense but if you train right those decisssion just become a reaction and that will provide enough of a leadway for you to get away.