3 persons sparring

[Kung Fu Wang]

2 persons spar. The 3rd person moves around and can attack any person that he likes.

What's your opinion about this kind of sparring training?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

What separates this from all 3 people attacking whomever they like?
If A is fighting B, and C is fighting both A and B..
Why would A not fight C as well?
Why would B not fight C?
At that point, A is fighting B and C, B is fighting A and C, and C is fighting A and B. So just call it a free for all.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I didn't make this game clear.

A is fighting B. C stands outside the ring. C can jump in any time he wants to. Until C jumps in, A and B cannot attack C. In other words, both A and B have to watch out for C.

Many different rules can be used here such as:

- C can only attack the winner. The loser has to move out of the ring.
- C can attact either the winner or the loser. Anybody can attack anybody after C has jumped in.
- ...

It depends on how complicate you want to play this game.

 

[Argus]

Honestly, I think this is a great idea if you spar to learn rather than compete.
I'd love to see more schools address things like multiple opponents and actually pressure test it.
I always like putting myself in unfamiliar or disadvantageous situations, and seeing what I can learn from it.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I didn't make this game clear.

A is fighting B. C stands outside the ring. C can jump in any time he wants to. Until C jumps in, A and B cannot attack C. In other words, both A and B have to watch out for C.

Many different rules can be used here such as:

- C can only attack the winner. The loser has to move out of the ring.
- C can attact either the winner or the loser. Anybody can attack anybody after C has jumped in.
- ...

It depends on how complicate you want to play this game.

I like it.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I didn't make this game clear.

A is fighting B. C stands outside the ring. C can jump in any time he wants to. Until C jumps in, A and B cannot attack C. In other words, both A and B have to watch out for C.

Many different rules can be used here such as:

- C can only attack the winner. The loser has to move out of the ring.
- C can attact either the winner or the loser. Anybody can attack anybody after C has jumped in.
- ...

It depends on how complicate you want to play this game.

Ah, okay. So both people sparring have to spend the whole time just aware that someone else may join. I like it.

I'd also have times where C never jumps in, to keep everyone on their toes.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I didn't make this game clear.

A is fighting B. C stands outside the ring. C can jump in any time he wants to. Until C jumps in, A and B cannot attack C. In other words, both A and B have to watch out for C.

Many different rules can be used here such as:

- C can only attack the winner. The loser has to move out of the ring.
- C can attact either the winner or the loser. Anybody can attack anybody after C has jumped in.
- ...

It depends on how complicate you want to play this game.

What I don't like about it is the possibility you could be training bad habits, such as turning your back to a potential threat. I think this is inevitable if the third person is allowed to attack both people.

On the other hand If you designated which of the two, is at risk of being attacked by the third person, that person could keep that in mind during the whole spraring session. And work to fight, but maneuver to keep that person in his peripheral view. That's an extremely realistic thing to happen in a realistic threat environment. I think starting out you wouldn't even need the third person to attack, but just to be a potential threat. The potential threat they have to work to keep aware of.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

What I don't like about it is the possibility you could be training bad habits, such as turning your back to a potential threat. I think this is inevitable if the third person is allowed to attack both people.

On the other hand If you designated which of the two, is at risk of being attacked by the third person, that person could keep that in mind during the whole spraring session. And work to fight, but maneuver to keep that person in his peripheral view. That's an extremely realistic thing to happen in a realistic threat environment. I think starting out you wouldn't even need the third person to attack, but just to be a potential threat. The potential threat they have to work to keep aware of.

Why would you turn your back to the potential threat? If I was doing this, I would always be aware of both B and C, since I don't know if or when C will come in and potentially attack one of us. And you never know if there will be reinforcements on their way for you or your opponent.

That potential threat part is why I wouldn't always have C attack-just know that he can if he chooses.

 

[Argus]

What I don't like about it is the possibility you could be training bad habits, such as turning your back to a potential threat. I think this is inevitable if the third person is allowed to attack both people.

On the other hand If you designated which of the two, is at risk of being attacked by the third person, that person could keep that in mind during the whole spraring session. And work to fight, but maneuver to keep that person in his peripheral view. That's an extremely realistic thing to happen in a realistic threat environment. I think starting out you wouldn't even need the third person to attack, but just to be a potential threat. The potential threat they have to work to keep aware of.

Umm, that argument works in reverse too. How about not even being able to face a second threat because you're used to always having tunnel vision and focusing on just one guy? How is that better?
And why do I have to turn my back to one guy just to fight the other? Part of the game is learning to line them up so you're only fighting one at a time.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Umm, that argument works in reverse too. How about not even being able to face a second threat because you're used to always having tunnel vision and focusing on just one guy? How is that better?
And why do I have to turn my back to one guy just to fight the other? Part of the game is learning to line them up so you're only fighting one at a time.

Yes. I don't know how both fighters could keep from turning their back to the potential threat. Especially if the third party is mobile.

My point is, it's a great idea! But if the third attacker can attack both people, then both people have to try to keep from turning their back to the third person. I'm not sure how that would play out, but I think that's nearly impossible to do.

Versus designating one person that the third party might attack. As in a scenario where you are fighting one guy, and his friend is standing off to the side. That way one person could focus on managing a threat, with a potential threat.

I think that would make a lot more sense, have better training value, and be very realistic.

I honestly just don't see how two people could fight, and both keep from turning their back to a third person. I just can't imagine how that can happen.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Yes. I don't know how both fighters could keep from turning their back to the potential threat. Especially if the third party is mobile.

My point is, it's a great idea! But if the third attacker can attack both people, then both people have to try to keep from turning their back to the third person. I'm not sure how that would play out, but I think that's nearly impossible to do.

Versus designating one person that the third party might attack. As in a scenario where you are fighting one guy, and his friend is standing off to the side. That way one person could focus on managing a threat, with a potential threat.

I think that would make a lot more sense, have better training value, and be very realistic.

I honestly just don't see how two people could fight, and both keep from turning their back to a third person. I just can't imagine how that can happen.

I think both would be helpful honestly.

And I agree, both people won't always be able to keep from turning their back to a third person. Which means both people have to try to bait the other person and get them to mess up, making the other person the better target. It's not something you'll succeed at every time but could definitely be a good learning/training experience.

 

[Argus]

Yes. I don't know how both fighters could keep from turning their back to the potential threat. Especially if the third party is mobile.

My point is, it's a great idea! But if the third attacker can attack both people, then both people have to try to keep from turning their back to the third person. I'm not sure how that would play out, but I think that's nearly impossible to do.

Versus designating one person that the third party might attack. As in a scenario where you are fighting one guy, and his friend is standing off to the side. That way one person could focus on managing a threat, with a potential threat.

I think that would make a lot more sense, have better training value, and be very realistic.

I honestly just don't see how two people could fight, and both keep from turning their back to a third person. I just can't imagine how that can happen.

Ohh, I see what you mean. Sorry, my imagination was off here. I forgot that C can attack either party.
You have a valid point.

Maybe it would be better if C can pick which one to attack, but must stick to that target rather than it just being a free for all.
An additional consideration would be that hitting people in the back of the head/neck/spine area isn't exactly safe, either -- which would be where blows would land if you truly get behind them.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Ohh, I see what you mean. Sorry, my imagination was off here. I forgot that C can attack either party.
You have a valid point.

Maybe it would be better if C can pick which one to attack, but must stick to that target rather than it just being a free for all.

I think that's a pretty good variation to try.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Maybe it would be better if C can pick which one to attack, but must stick to that target rather than it just being a free for all.

I posted at the same time, so just repeating my thought in case you missed it. I like C being able to choose whomever (at least until his first attack), as it encourages both people to try to make the other person the 'easier' target.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Sounds like WWE...

I don't see the relevance to self defense. In that situation, if someone else joins in, you have no doubt which side they're on.

 

[skribs]

I don't see the relevance to self defense. In that situation, if someone else joins in, you have no doubt which side they're on.

I think it's more about the extra tension before they join in. A self-defense encounter may be 1-on-1, or others may join in. Especially in a situation where there's a lot of people cheering and jeering on the sidelines (as with most schoolyard fights).

 

[KenpoMaster805]

ive seen that is some karate videos in youtube 3 would actually sparr the a will sparr band c then b and c wil sparr a then c will sparr and B

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Here is a demo for 3 persons sparring.

Here is a demo for 6 persons sparring.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I delt with this in a way one time. I was in uniform and breaking up a knife fight between two "ladies" in a Walmart parking lot.

I didn't realize it was a knife fight because it was dark and the attacker only had a small blade only a few inches long. I thought they were just throwing punches at each other.

Anyways by police car and overhead lights didn't stop them, neither did my voice commands as I approached. But as I got closer to grab one of them, a "bystanderd" a male, who was standing off to the side, tried to circle around behind me.

I stopped my approach, looked at him and told him to back up. I took one more step towards the fighting girls and again he tried to work his way around be hind me. I adjusted my feet, took out my pepper spray and then just sprayed the most aggressive girl, who it turns out had the blade.

I don't know if he had a weapon, or what his plan was, but I never gave him my back or took my eyes off of him. But inadvertently he kept me from going hands on with a party armed with a knife, so it worked out.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Here is a demo for 3 persons sparring.

Here is a demo for 6 persons sparring.

Demo, yes. Sparring, no.