How important is contact sparring in MA?

[Kong Soo Do]

This discussion sort of emerged in the other thread, but I thought it was pretty off topic there, and really deserved its own thread.

I'm a pretty firm believer in contact sparring; Sparring in which you actually hit or grapple with another person. I feel that the only way you can learn to hit or grapple with someone is to actually hit or grapple someone.

Does anyone feel that you can develop such skills without contact sparring, or no sparring at all?

For martial sports, sparring is required and necessary to properly develop the skills needed for competition. For a martial art (that is focused on self defense rather than esoteric aspects), sparring is detrimental to properly developing the skills needed. Sparring, in the context one would normally associate with the term, is limited in scope and focus. It involves two participants that abide by a restrictive skill set (based upon the art in question), in a specific setting for a specific period of time. This is not conducive to realism. This isn't to downplay the importance of sparring for sport which, as I stated, is necessary. Scenario based training is far better for a martial art, that has a focus on self defense as it doesn't restrict itself to a specific venue or skill set or rule set.

As an example, I've taught over 1000 students, most of which are high liability professionals. We do zero sparring. We focus on scenario based training which allows the venue to change (inside, outside, woods, alley, inside a car, in an elevator, on stairs etc), the number of attackers to change, dim light or no light situations, improvised weapons, escape and evasion, de-escalation techniques etc. This type of training has served us quite well.

So it all boils down to the venue and goals of your training as to which training methodology works best.

 

[K-man]

I can come at full contact sparring and I can accept no sparring but what is 'non-contact sparring'?
:asian:

 

[Danny T]

For martial sports, sparring is required and necessary to properly develop the skills needed for competition. For a martial art (that is focused on self defense rather than esoteric aspects), sparring is detrimental to properly developing the skills needed. Sparring, in the context one would normally associate with the term, is limited in scope and focus. It involves two participants that abide by a restrictive skill set (based upon the art in question), in a specific setting for a specific period of time. This is not conducive to realism. This isn't to downplay the importance of sparring for sport which, as I stated, is necessary. Scenario based training is far better for a martial art, that has a focus on self defense as it doesn't restrict itself to a specific venue or skill set or rule set.

As an example, I've taught over 1000 students, most of which are high liability professionals. We do zero sparring. We focus on scenario based training which allows the venue to change (inside, outside, woods, alley, inside a car, in an elevator, on stairs etc), the number of attackers to change, dim light or no light situations, improvised weapons, escape and evasion, de-escalation techniques etc. This type of training has served us quite well.

So it all boils down to the venue and goals of your training as to which training methodology works best.

This is why I asked first to define sparring.
We do a lot of sparring in several different aspects. Sport based in the ring or cage. 3 or 5 minutes rounds and based upon the specific rules of the contest being trained for. We also do a lot of scenario type training similar to what you are describing. Are you pressure testing it using the fundamental techniques you drill during the training phase and what do you call it?

 

[Hanzou]

For martial sports, sparring is required and necessary to properly develop the skills needed for competition. For a martial art (that is focused on self defense rather than esoteric aspects), sparring is detrimental to properly developing the skills needed. Sparring, in the context one would normally associate with the term, is limited in scope and focus. It involves two participants that abide by a restrictive skill set (based upon the art in question), in a specific setting for a specific period of time. This is not conducive to realism. This isn't to downplay the importance of sparring for sport which, as I stated, is necessary. Scenario based training is far better for a martial art, that has a focus on self defense as it doesn't restrict itself to a specific venue or skill set or rule set.

Well to be fair, there's plenty of martial sports that also consider themselves self defense systems. They also have pretty good arguments to back up their beliefs.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Are you pressure testing it using the fundamental techniques you drill during the training phase and what do you call it?

The pressure testing we use is simply real world altercations against violent, resisting individuals. Which, unfortunately, we get all to often. That is our litmus test. If we wouldn't use it against such an individual (many of which are drunk or worse, under the effects of spice or some other such garbage) we don't teach it.

A good way to research specific techniques/principles are to discuss them with those that are likely to be in an altercation (if you aren't in a career field that calls for this type of interaction) such as a police officer, corrections officer, professional bouncer or executive protection agent. If they are experienced they can go a long way towards cutting through the stuff that doesn't work well or worse, puts you in a bad situation i.e. flashy, overcomplicated movements that rely on refined motor skills and room to move.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Well to be fair, there's plenty of martial sports that also consider themselves self defense systems. They also have pretty good arguments to back up their beliefs.

Really?

What are these martial sports? And what is the good argument that backs up their beliefs?

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

Touching/Hitting another person.



Yep, that's exactly what I mean.

Thanks for clarifying.

I can't really get my head around the concept or understand why anyone practicing an art with strikes would train that way, but maybe some people do and can enlighten me/us...

 

[Hanzou]

Really?

What are these martial sports? And what is the good argument that backs up their beliefs?

Well look at boxing for example;

Skills like that can certainly have plenty of self defense applications. That along with endurance, learning how to throw a punch, learning to take a hit, footwork, etc. Can get you out of some hairy situations.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Well look at boxing for example;

Skills like that can certainly have plenty of self defense applications. That along with endurance, learning how to throw a punch, learning to take a hit, footwork, etc. Can get you out of some hairy situations.

Okay, first let me say that I'm not busting your chops as I discuss this with you

Second, let's take a look at boxing. Boxing does have some nice aspects to it such as conditioning and footwork. That's about it. Why? It is a sport that is designed for two people to engage in, in an artificial environment, with drastically limited rules, with safety gear, a referee and nice breaks to get some water and some advice (not to mention medical attention).

None of this happens in real life.

Look at the video you posted. The guy is bobbing and weaving all over the parking lot. He's not focused on things like:

• Escape and evasion
• Verbal de-esculation
• Possibility of multiple opponents
• Going to the ground on pavement
• Traffic
• Multiple attackers
• Weapons
• Blood borne pathogens
• Self injury

Boxers wear gloves, not to protect the other persons face, but to protect their hands. Even professional boxers have injured their hands, in and out of the ring. The head is a hard target, both to hit as well as when hit. The hands, even if conditioned are not as hard. Injuring your hand limits your options;

• Grappling
• Locking
• Dialing a phone
• Using keys
• Using a conventional or improvised weapon
• Self care after an other injuries

Additionally, and this is overlooked in a major way is blood borne pathogens. Open up a wound on the opponents face/mouth/nose and but your hand and you risk an exposure. This isn't a minor thing. It is downright scary if it happens to you. From a high liability perspective, drugs are a major part of crime. People are taking more things now than ever and are carrying disease more now than ever. Most schools don't cover this in any way, shape or form.

Next, the training doesn't cover anything I listed in the first list. Boxing is great one-on-one, in a controlled environment with someone abiding by the same rules as you. Beyond that, it is a poor choice for self defense.

 

[Hanzou]

Okay, first let me say that I'm not busting your chops as I discuss this with you

Second, let's take a look at boxing. Boxing does have some nice aspects to it such as conditioning and footwork. That's about it. Why? It is a sport that is designed for two people to engage in, in an artificial environment, with drastically limited rules, with safety gear, a referee and nice breaks to get some water and some advice (not to mention medical attention).

None of this happens in real life.

Look at the video you posted. The guy is bobbing and weaving all over the parking lot. He's not focused on things like:

• Escape and evasion
• Verbal de-esculation
• Possibility of multiple opponents
• Going to the ground on pavement
• Traffic
• Multiple attackers
• Weapons
• Blood borne pathogens
• Self injury

Boxers wear gloves, not to protect the other persons face, but to protect their hands. Even professional boxers have injured their hands, in and out of the ring. The head is a hard target, both to hit as well as when hit. The hands, even if conditioned are not as hard. Injuring your hand limits your options;

• Grappling
• Locking
• Dialing a phone
• Using keys
• Using a conventional or improvised weapon
• Self care after an other injuries

Additionally, and this is overlooked in a major way is blood borne pathogens. Open up a wound on the opponents face/mouth/nose and but your hand and you risk an exposure. This isn't a minor thing. It is downright scary if it happens to you. From a high liability perspective, drugs are a major part of crime. People are taking more things now than ever and are carrying disease more now than ever. Most schools don't cover this in any way, shape or form.

Next, the training doesn't cover anything I listed in the first list. Boxing is great one-on-one, in a controlled environment with someone abiding by the same rules as you. Beyond that, it is a poor choice for self defense.

And with all that said, observe a boxer taking down multiple attackers at once;

He's using the skills he learned in a sport, but those sport attributes could be easily translated into a self defense situation. Those attributes and skills were developed through consistent heavy sparring.

 

[Marnetmar]

I wasn't aware that non-contact sparring was a thing.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

And with all that said, observe a boxer taking down multiple attackers at once;

He's using the skills he learned in a sport, but those sport attributes could be easily translated into a self defense situation. Those attributes and skills were developed through consistent heavy sparring.

This video has been posted here before. Let's take a look.

Good points: He moved effectively to keep the attackers off balance (for the most part) which allowed him to take them on one at a time (at least as far as is seen in the video). He was able to capitalize on the attackers inexperience.

Bad points: He had tunnel vision (he's lucky he didn't get run over with all the traffic [the others were lucky as well]). He focused on trying to engage multiple attackers rather than trying to escape, use a barrier between himself and the attackers or use improvised weapons. We'll make the assumption that he had some boxing experience (although keeping the hands up and punching isn't restricted to just boxing). This sport training led him to revert to that skill set when under duress. Which means he didn't look for options other than moving and punching. While this worked, at least in the portion of the video we see on YT, it is due also to the attackers not being skilled, not trying to take him to the ground, not using weapons and not coordinating their attacks. Change any of these factors and you may well have a different outcome. The video also doesn't address the condition of his hands after this altercation. Was he fine? We don't know. Did he injure a hand? We don't know.

The take home point is that a punch to the face can work. A kick to the groin can work. Someone that trains for sport can get lucky. No one is saying that sport sucks or some aspects can't be used. But if all you have is a hammer then you tend to treat everything like a nail under duress. Sparring is a sport training methodology. Nothing wrong with that. Self defense requires a different training methodology and mind set. Nothing wrong with that either. Since it is established fact that you will revert to your training under duress, we need to make sure the methodology of training fits the situation.

Sparring isn't a necessary part of self defense training. Beyond that, it is detrimental BECAUSE we revert to our training under duress. Unless sparring allows the person the opportunity to de-escalate, escape, evade, use a weapon, improvise a weapon, use the terrain etc. Does sparring usually contain these and other real world elements (lighting, environment, multiple attackers, starting from a position of disadvantage)? No. Does scenario based training contain these elements? Yes.

:wavey:

 

[Danny T]

The pressure testing we use is simply real world altercations against violent, resisting individuals. Which, unfortunately, we get all to often. That is our litmus test. If we wouldn't use it against such an individual (many of which are drunk or worse, under the effects of spice or some other such garbage) we don't teach it.

A good way to research specific techniques/principles are to discuss them with those that are likely to be in an altercation (if you aren't in a career field that calls for this type of interaction) such as a police officer, corrections officer, professional bouncer or executive protection agent. If they are experienced they can go a long way towards cutting through the stuff that doesn't work well or worse, puts you in a bad situation i.e. flashy, overcomplicated movements that rely on refined motor skills and room to move.

I understand using in real world altercations. That is the real litmus test. However, what is done for those coming with absolutely no real world experience? Teach it, Discuss it, then throw them out to find out if they are able to actually use it?

 

[drop bear]

This video has been posted here before. Let's take a look.

Good points: He moved effectively to keep the attackers off balance (for the most part) which allowed him to take them on one at a time (at least as far as is seen in the video). He was able to capitalize on the attackers inexperience.

Bad points: He had tunnel vision (he's lucky he didn't get run over with all the traffic [the others were lucky as well]). He focused on trying to engage multiple attackers rather than trying to escape, use a barrier between himself and the attackers or use improvised weapons. We'll make the assumption that he had some boxing experience (although keeping the hands up and punching isn't restricted to just boxing). This sport training led him to revert to that skill set when under duress. Which means he didn't look for options other than moving and punching. While this worked, at least in the portion of the video we see on YT, it is due also to the attackers not being skilled, not trying to take him to the ground, not using weapons and not coordinating their attacks. Change any of these factors and you may well have a different outcome. The video also doesn't address the condition of his hands after this altercation. Was he fine? We don't know. Did he injure a hand? We don't know.

The take home point is that a punch to the face can work. A kick to the groin can work. Someone that trains for sport can get lucky. No one is saying that sport sucks or some aspects can't be used. But if all you have is a hammer then you tend to treat everything like a nail under duress. Sparring is a sport training methodology. Nothing wrong with that. Self defense requires a different training methodology and mind set. Nothing wrong with that either. Since it is established fact that you will revert to your training under duress, we need to make sure the methodology of training fits the situation.

Sparring isn't a necessary part of self defense training. Beyond that, it is detrimental BECAUSE we revert to our training under duress. Unless sparring allows the person the opportunity to de-escalate, escape, evade, use a weapon, improvise a weapon, use the terrain etc. Does sparring usually contain these and other real world elements (lighting, environment, multiple attackers, starting from a position of disadvantage)? No. Does scenario based training contain these elements? Yes.

:wavey:

Show me the evidence of this fact that you will revert to your training under stress.

 

[drop bear]

Sparring takes away the advantages of numbers dirty tricks deescalation and so on to force you to focus on core skills. Making them more intuitive.

Combat scenarios are good but to engage a quality oponant you need the extra layers of complexity that comes with sparring. Then you can take those skills into a combat scenario. Or into real life.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

For martial sports, sparring is required and necessary to properly develop the skills needed for competition. For a martial art (that is focused on self defense rather than esoteric aspects), sparring is detrimental to properly developing the skills needed. Sparring, in the context one would normally associate with the term, is limited in scope and focus. It involves two participants that abide by a restrictive skill set (based upon the art in question), in a specific setting for a specific period of time. This is not conducive to realism. This isn't to downplay the importance of sparring for sport which, as I stated, is necessary. Scenario based training is far better for a martial art, that has a focus on self defense as it doesn't restrict itself to a specific venue or skill set or rule set.

As an example, I've taught over 1000 students, most of which are high liability professionals. We do zero sparring. We focus on scenario based training which allows the venue to change (inside, outside, woods, alley, inside a car, in an elevator, on stairs etc), the number of attackers to change, dim light or no light situations, improvised weapons, escape and evasion, de-escalation techniques etc. This type of training has served us quite well.

So it all boils down to the venue and goals of your training as to which training methodology works best.

I would frame this a bit differently.

Sparring (correctly done) is king for developing fighting skills. There's nothing else which will develop the ability to overcome an opponent's technique with your own to the same extent.

The issue is that fighting skills are not necessarily the most important aspect of surviving a violent (or potentially violent) encounter. Avoidance, de-escalation, dis-engagement, escape and evasion, dealing with the legal aftermath, etc are arguably more important and those are better addressed in scenario training such as the sort you focus on.

Some of the other aspects you mention - different environments, lighting, weapons (improvised or not), numbers of attackers - can be addressed in both sparring and scenario training. Unfortunately most practitioners neglect to incorporate these factors into their sparring, but it's perfectly viable to make them a regular part of training.

My ideal for martial arts practice is to include both sparring and scenario training. Mix up the conditions and rules for both so that students don't start relying on a particular ruleset. The sparring will develop technique, timing, and distancing. The scenario training will develop tactical and strategic awareness. Both will develop mental fortitude.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I understand using in real world altercations. That is the real litmus test. However, what is done for those coming with absolutely no real world experience? Teach it, Discuss it, then throw them out to find out if they are able to actually use it?

It is a matter of experience vs. theory. Is the instructor teaching from experience or theory? Has the technique/principle/tactic/strategy being taught to you ever been used outside the dojo on real, resisting, violent individuals? If so, what was the result.

Martial Warrior - excoboard.com

Here is an example of what I'm talking about using Aiki Jujutsu. The techniques is to take control of the attackers arm, take them off balance, turn them in a full circle and then clothesline them. Something you'd see in a Steven Segal movie. It looks really cool....and I'd never, ever use it in real life. Why? I've been in too many uses of force where the cool stuff would never work. First, you'd have to have room to pull it off. Sufficient space is a luxury that isn't always present and cannot be depended upon. Thus our goal is to be able to fight inside a phone booth because in reality you may not have much more room (elevator, stairs, between cars in a parking lot, tight alley, in a crowd etc). Second, it requires several refined motors skill movements. Under duress, refined motors skills become very difficult to do. Thirdly, it requires a semi-compliant partner which is fine for choreographed movies, not so helpful against a guy on spice. Lastly, the same end-goal i.e. the clothesline to take the guy to the ground can be accomplished using gross motor skill movements that are quicker, cleaner and don't require the space.

Martial sports have a lot of cool moves. And in a controlled environment, against a single opponent (who is using the same rule set), on a flat surface that's dry, where it's well lit, with plenty of space you can do all sorts of cool stuff. You can even pull off some of it in a real fight if you're lucky and the various factors don't stack up against you. I just don't like to rely on luck, and I like to stack up the various factors in my corner.

So bottom line is to take an honest look at the training and ask questions. And keep in mind that a real attack is a nasty, chaotic, ugly thing.

 

[oftheherd1]

I can come at full contact sparring and I can accept no sparring but what is 'non-contact sparring'?
:asian:

I wasn't aware that non-contact sparring was a thing.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I took TKD, we trained for no-contact sparring. Our goal was to get about a millimeter to 1/4 inch from our opponent during a kick or strike. Blocking was full contact, but we were taught to only block as far as we needed to push the attack aside. Reasons we were taught: If we had sufficient control to stop our kick or strike at that short distance, we had sufficient control to stop our strike or kick 2 inches inside our opponent when that was necessary. You do have to order you mind to always know when you were sparring and when you were defending against a real attack. That is a training objective as well. Also, we expected our strikes and kicks, properly delivered in a any attack, to be devastating. Not what you want to do to a fellow student. But you are always using full power to a point that you choose, outside or inside your opponent.

I have seen people with the control I describe, but only considered myself safe at about 1 inch when I had to stop my training.

Show me the evidence of this fact that you will revert to your training under stress.

Train the way you fight. Because you will fight the way you have been trained. | The former Elder Statesman


Surviving the Active Shooter | Azweaponcraftprepper


http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_9/uss_virginia.html


Train as you fight, Fight as you train



Maybe more than you want to read, but you did ask. Others likely may be able to find even more information.

I must admit to some curiosity as to why would you train if you don't expect to need to.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Show me the evidence of this fact that you will revert to your training under stress.

I was honestly taken back when I read your statement. Is this a serious question? Law enforcement and the military have known this for decades which is why the training is constructed the way it is. And it was learned the hard way. Going all the way back to Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate and O'Neill (and even before them). I suggest, if you really don't understand things like stress related responses (flinch, fight or flight, OODA etc) that you have some research to do.

Start with the O.O.D.A loop.

Then the flinch response (Tony Blauer does a good job on this).

Then look at the ways L.E., Corrections, E.P. and the military train and more importantly, why they train that way.

Too bad you aren't local or I'd invite you over to show you Boatman edged weapon training and S.P.E.A.R. and explain why it was developed, why it's so effective and why they're some of the only systems with real world statistical documentation as to why they're so effective. And retained in long term memory (decades in the case of WWII combatives). And it all derived from how we respond under duress/stress and why we train the way we train. If you need any guidance let me know.
:wavey:

Edited to add: Oftheherd and I were posting at the same time. He's provided some links for you to look at, and thank you for posting them.

 

[oftheherd1]

I was honestly taken back when I read your statement. Is this a serious question? Law enforcement and the military have known this for decades which is why the training is constructed the way it is. And it was learned the hard way. Going all the way back to Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate and O'Neill (and even before them). I suggest, if you really don't understand things like stress related responses (flinch, fight or flight, OODA etc) that you have some research to do.

Start with the O.O.D.A loop.

Then the flinch response (Tony Blauer does a good job on this).

Then look at the ways L.E., Corrections, E.P. and the military train and more importantly, why they train that way.

Too bad you aren't local or I'd invite you over to show you Boatman edged weapon training and S.P.E.A.R. and explain why it was developed, why it's so effective and why they're some of the only systems with real world statistical documentation as to why they're so effective. And retained in long term memory (decades in the case of WWII combatives). And it all derived from how we respond under duress/stress and why we train the way we train. If you need any guidance let me know.
:wavey:

Edited to add: Oftheherd and I were posting at the same time. He's provided some links for you to look at, and thank you for posting them.

As always, well thought out, good information that practitioners can take to heart. Most importantly for those who have followed Kong Soo Do since he joined MT, he speaks from personal experience. Not many of us would have the personal experience Kong Soo Do has (nor would probably want a job where you got that much). I know that is a strong endorsement, but in reading his posts, and a few PM conversations, he has impressed me as having much personal experience, and knowing what he is talking about.

Take if for what it is worth.