Is Sparring Critically Important?

[Flying Crane]

This thread is a spinoff of a discussion we were having over on the sister site Kenpotalk, centered around the importance of sparring. I decided to bring up this topic here on Martialtalk in hopes of getting input and perspectives from a wider range of practitioners of many different arts, not just kenpo.

How important do you feel sparring is, in developing useful self defense skills?

Can skills similar to those developed by sparring be developed using other training methods? Do other training methods adequately fill this need, or is there simply something important that is missing if you don't spar, no matter what else you do?

I have mixed feelings about this, and I feel there are a number of issues at play.

First, I don't believe all sparring is created equal. I have seen some lousy tournament style sparring that I think really is a detriment to your fighting skills. This is where the contestants wrap themselves in padding, severely limit the legal targets and eliminate all grabbing and takedown techniques. Typically you see them square off, then hop on one foot at each other while extending their other foot in an attempt to "score" a point on a legal target. At the same time, they are flailing and slapping their hands to try and beat down the opponent's "attack". Another common technique you see at these events is the "Flying Backfist of Death", where someone leaps into the air and stretches a backfist out over the top of the opponent's guard, to land a point on the top of his head. The strike is over extended, had no rooting, and no real authority behind it. The fight is stopped and points are awarded at the first sign of contact. Basically, in my opinion, this kind of sparring is just a game of tag. Anybody with quick hands and feet could win, even without any martial arts training. People like to say "you fight how you train". I think if you fight like this, you will get killed.

Second, I think there are better approaches to sparring. Some people ignore the tournament approach. They use few pads, they allow most everything that isn't actually crippling or maiming to be used, including grabbing, controlling, and takedown techs. They allow heavier contact. They ignore points, and focus on establishing control and dominance in the confrontation. The fight doesn't end with a point. It ends when someone is clearly being pummelled or otherwise controlled. I can see benefits in this kind of sparring.

Third, I feel there are other methods that might not fit the definition of "sparring", that can develop similar skills. For example, the drilling of techniques with a high level of realism, and done with a level of randomness that forces the student to respond spontaneously and creatively to dominate in the exercise. Another example would be exercises such as Wing Chun's Chi Sau. This exercise develops high quality useage skills in Wing Chun's arsenal. The exercise can be done at any level of intensity, from gentle and playful, to fierce and ferocious. It can become something very similar to fighting, but it would not fit the definition of "free sparring".

Fourth, I agree that if all one does is practice forms without ever working the techniques on a live body, never hit something solid like a heavybag, never practice any kind of useage with a partner to a realistic level, then it is likely one' skill will be lacking.

So what do you all think? What methods do you use, in the training of your art? Do you have other methods that you feel develop the skills needed without "sparring"? Do you think "sparring" is absolutely essential, and without it you will always have holes in your training?

I hope people from many different styles weigh-in here. I think some arts use training methods that are somewhat unique and not common among other arts, and many of us may be unaware of them. If we can see examples of these methods, it would fill in the picture more fully.

thanks, everyone.

 

[stickarts]

My view is that if your goal to to be able to apply what you have learned then you do have to spar. There are skills that you develop in sparring that you don't get in kata such as having to compensate for distance change and the actual feel of what it is like to hit and be hit.

There is nothing just like a real fight except a real fight. Sparring is not the same as a real fight but it is a step closer than many of the drills and kata practiced. The spontanaety in sparring is also important.
I see sparring as one important element of training.

Some sparring time is required to reach blackbelt at my school.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

I made the decision at the beginning to learn SELF-DEFENSE. Not sport, not competition, the real deal! My freinds and I started backyard boxing in junior high. The better we got, the harder we hit each other. We also wrestled and worked out, hit the bag etc. Nowadays we fight harder than a lot of people actually fighting, because we know each other limits, weak spots etc. so we can go as hard as we want as long as we tap out of holds and stay away from the beans and the throat. None of us are very pretty anymore mind you. I, personally, love the makiwara and my trusty sack of stones I use for iron palm training. I do breaking too and feel it has it's usefullness in self defense. Just break it though. No time to think about it. Read some Bruce Lee and see what he has to say about sparring.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I believe sparring is critically important to self-defense, but not because of the skills it teaches. In fact, many of the skills taught in sparring build terrible habits for self defense (pulling punches, not grabbing, not committing to your strikes, for example).

What sparring does do is teach us better than any other drill how to deal effectively with fear. Sparring accesses a lot of your reptile brain stuff, and to be able to function effectively in that space is hugely important in self defense.

 

[ChingChuan]

How important do you feel sparring is, in developing useful self defense skills?

I certainly think that sparring is important because then you'll learn to respond to attacks. You don't know what's coming, as opposed to drills etc. in which you know what the opponent is going to do, and if you want to develop real self-defence skills it's quite useful if you've got some sparring experience.

However, I don't think it's absolutely necessary. When it comes to self-defense, it's more about reflexes, responding fast enough & in the correct manner to an attack that came totally unexpected. When you're sparring you're already anticipating an attack, so I don't think that sparring is the only way to improve your self-defense skills. 'Regular' training drills are also really helpful - without a good foundation in the art, without knowing what techniques can do & why, sparring won't really improve your skills (I suppose everyone agrees with me on thar?). But it can help to build on that foundation.

Okay, I might be a little bit predisposed to sparring because I won't be able to do it (I've only got one working eye so neither I nor my opponent would be able to learn anything from it...).

In my art (Pencak Silat Setia Hati) there aren't really special methods used to teach people the art... My instructor does explain sometimes of what use a certain technique can be in sparring but it isn't like all of our lessons are devoted to sparring, it's rather about learning how to defend yourself & well, getting down the art itself.

I've seen someone getting extra instruction in sparring after class by a... more experienced person because she is to compete in a sparring tomorrow. They just dressed up in those protective clothes & pads and started sparring. So, no special things at all.

I don't know too much about the sparrings because I've only seen the videos they made of them, but it's like several Silat schools organize a sparring. It's no match or something and there's no winner, only a 'style prize' for the person who's best at using style-specific techniques etc. There are a few rules, and I personally think they take all the fun out of it (you can't strike to the eyes, the groin, no lowkicks are allowed unless another technique follows etc.) but it can get pretty rough sometimes.

The assistant-teacher once told me (when I remarked that it didn't look too interesting) that it's actually quite hard to spar against each other because the people know what the other is going to do - they practise the same art and apparently there are so many possible blocks & defences that almost no attack gets really through. So, he said, it's more interesting to watch a pesilat fighting a karateka than just two pesilats together.

Well, I hope this was useful .

 

[Andrew Green]

I try and avoid going much into self-defence and what is and what isn't important, largely because it is untestable and just theory. Everyone has a different theory, and depending on what you mean by "self-defence" all might be equally valid.

But here's my take:

Absolutely. Sparring is the single most beneficial thing done in the martial arts.

At the core of training we are teaching people to fight, and through that comes character development, fitness, health, and all that other good stuff. But we do that through teaching them to fight.

Now, fighting means many different things, but I think it is relevant to all of them. If it's a conflict with a boss, or coworker, a friend, spouse, kid, parent, whatever. Not a physical fight, but still a fight.

Now a fight can be over anything, and when you fight you defend yourself. If its a boss critising your work, or a co-worker looking for a promotion at your expense, or a child pushing the limits, or even a religious discussion, you have to defend yourself, your point of view, and try and get that point across to the other person.

Now in the martial arts we claim character development and self-defence. But how?

My opinion is that we teach people to fight, and more importantly to fight fairly. To keep their emotions in check and fight with a clear head, within the rules laid out. Now I know some people are going to jump at this and go self-defence has no rules! But it does, if someone starts attacking your beliefs there are rules, if your called into the bosses office to justify your job, there are rules. And in both cases you are defending yourself, and both are far more likely then a "thug on the st33tz" IMO.

Now what we do is teach people to stay calm under pressure, to recognize they are strong and can win, and that they can take a beating and keep fighting without giving up.

If you can stand in front of a person, and remain calm and think about your actions, to play by the rules, and have them punching you in the face, then that is something worth having. That is what we do, and that is self-defence. Being able to defend yourself rationally and intellegently, not in anger, when someone is trying to hurt you.

 

[exile]

This thread is a spinoff of a discussion we were having over on the sister site Kenpotalk, centered around the importance of sparring. I decided to bring up this topic here on Martialtalk in hopes of getting input and perspectives from a wider range of practitioners of many different arts, not just kenpo.

How important do you feel sparring is, in developing useful self defense skills?

Like a moth to a flame.... just the sort of topic I cannot resist! Sigh... and I have so much work to get done...

...still, just taking a few moments on this...

Can skills similar to those developed by sparring be developed using other training methods? Do other training methods adequately fill this need, or is there simply something important that is missing if you don't spar, no matter what else you do?

I have mixed feelings about this, and I feel there are a number of issues at play.

First, I don't believe all sparring is created equal. I have seen some lousy tournament style sparring that I think really is a detriment to your fighting skills. This is where the contestants wrap themselves in padding, severely limit the legal targets and eliminate all grabbing and takedown techniques. Typically you see them square off, then hop on one foot at each other while extending their other foot in an attempt to "score" a point on a legal target. At the same time, they are flailing and slapping their hands to try and beat down the opponent's "attack". Another common technique you see at these events is the "Flying Backfist of Death", where someone leaps into the air and stretches a backfist out over the top of the opponent's guard, to land a point on the top of his head. The strike is over extended, had no rooting, and no real authority behind it. The fight is stopped and points are awarded at the first sign of contact. Basically, in my opinion, this kind of sparring is just a game of tag. Anybody with quick hands and feet could win, even without any martial arts training. People like to say "you fight how you train". I think if you fight like this, you will get killed.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you'd been watching sport karate or WTF Taekwondo matches. The phrase, `Olympic foot-tag' is so common in descriptions of the latter that it's become a cliché—which is too bad, because people tend to dismiss clichés. But this one is completely accurate as a description.

Second, I think there are better approaches to sparring. Some people ignore the tournament approach. They use few pads, they allow most everything that isn't actually crippling or maiming to be used, including grabbing, controlling, and takedown techs. They allow heavier contact. They ignore points, and focus on establishing control and dominance in the confrontation. The fight doesn't end with a point. It ends when someone is clearly being pummelled or otherwise controlled. I can see benefits in this kind of sparring.

What you're describing is a movement along a continuum that bridges Olympic TKD/sport karate type sparring, at the one extreme, and an all-out street-fight, or completely accurate simulation of one (at which point it's no longer a simulation, I guess) at the other. I think if you're going to go this route, you are probably going to be interested in increasingly realistic simulations along the lines Em Mac described, and for the same reasons: because you want to train your MA skills specifically for CQ self-defense.

Third, I feel there are other methods that might not fit the definition of "sparring", that can develop similar skills. For example, the drilling of techniques with a high level of realism, and done with a level of randomness that forces the student to respond spontaneously and creatively to dominate in the exercise. Another example would be exercises such as Wing Chun's Chi Sau. This exercise develops high quality useage skills in Wing Chun's arsenal. The exercise can be done at any level of intensity, from gentle and playful, to fierce and ferocious. It can become something very similar to fighting, but it would not fit the definition of "free sparring".

This is exactly what Iain Abernethy describes as kata-based sparring: the realistic application of practical bunkai for CQ fighting, as described in the last chapter of his book Bunkai-Jutsu: The Practical Application of Karate Kata. About the only thing barred is hard hand strikes to your partner's eyes or full-force groin strikes. Light hand contact—which apparently can be painful enough—substitutes for these. The scenarios start off conventionalized (like one-steps, but with typical untrained-attacker initiations), and become progressively less scripted till they are almost completely spontaneous, within the limits of the dojo environment. Total spontaneity would have you back in one of the early Pink Panther movies, eh?

Fourth, I agree that if all one does is practice forms without ever working the techniques on a live body, never hit something solid like a heavybag, never practice any kind of useage with a partner to a realistic level, then it is likely one' skill will be lacking.

The kata or forms need to be studied and taken to pieces using the kinds of decipherment principles that people like Abernethy, Kane & Wilder, Bill Burgar and Rick Clark use for kata bunkai and that Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neil employ in decoding the tactical story embodied in TKD hyungs (which are built up of pieces—subsequences—from various karate kata, almost entirely, though mixed up a good deal). One those are extracted, they have to be trained in increasingly realistic contexts, up to the maximum, if you really want SD applicability. You need both halves—the tactical sequence, the instructions on how to respond and counter, that the kata record, and the development of near-reflexive speed, immediacy and lack of premeditation in applying and adapting these tactical sequences to various real situations, so that your decision making is as close to instinctive as possible. That involves a lot of real-time training...

So what do you all think? What methods do you use, in the training of your art? Do you have other methods that you feel develop the skills needed without "sparring"? Do you think "sparring" is absolutely essential, and without it you will always have holes in your training?

I try to train this way as much as possible, but it's not easy. The problem, of course, is that most people don't want to train so close to the edge, so to speak. I think what I described is the ideal that everyone will need to strive for who wants their MA to be an effective combat system of all-out fighting under completely uncontrolled circumstances. I don't think traditional sparring fits the bill.

One more thing: yes, traditional sparring does help you overcome nervousness and keep a level head... on the assumption that you're going into a context where people are going to be `playing nice' according to the rules of that particular martial sport. But no matter how much you spar, if you run into trouble in a parking lot, I don't think you'll be able to maintain that same level of composure—it's a whole different problem, and you'll know that. I wouldn't count on much carry-over from your competitive-event attitude to what you're going to be feeling in that parking lot...

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Depends on the day you ask me. My favorite use for sparring is as a workout. Nothing else ramps my pulse rate from 70 to 200 like a round on the mat.

 

[Flying Crane]

Like a moth to a flame.... just the sort of topic I cannot resist! Sigh... and I have so much work to get done...

...still, just taking a few moments on this...

doin' my best

If I didn't know better, I'd say you'd been watching sport karate or WTF Taekwondo matches. The phrase, `Olympic foot-tag' is so common in descriptions of the latter that it's become a cliché—which is too bad, because people tend to dismiss clichés. But this one is completely accurate as a description.

I see it all too often when people talk about sparring. I've seen in on Youtube postings, things that were not TKD related, videos that were posted by kenpo people (i only mention it, as the inspiration for this thread came from a discussion over on Kenpotalk)

This is exactly what Iain Abernethy describes as kata-based sparring: the realistic application of practical bunkai for CQ fighting, as described in the last chapter of his book Bunkai-Jutsu: The Practical Application of Karate Kata. About the only thing barred is hard hand strikes to your partner's eyes or full-force groin strikes. Light hand contact—which apparently can be painful enough—substitutes for these. The scenarios start off conventionalized (like one-steps, but with typical untrained-attacker initiations), and become progressively less scripted till they are almost completely spontaneous, within the limits of the dojo environment. Total spontaneity would have you back in one of the early Pink Panther movies, eh?

...

The kata or forms need to be studied and taken to pieces using the kinds of decipherment principles that people like Abernethy, Kane & Wilder, Bill Burgar and Rick Clark use for kata bunkai and that Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neil employ in decoding the tactical story embodied in TKD hyungs (which are built up of pieces—subsequences—from various karate kata, almost entirely, though mixed up a good deal). One those are extracted, they have to be trained in increasingly realistic contexts, up to the maximum, if you really want SD applicability. You need both halves—the tactical sequence, the instructions on how to respond and counter, that the kata record, and the development of near-reflexive speed, immediacy and lack of premeditation in applying and adapting these tactical sequences to various real situations, so that your decision making is as close to instinctive as possible. That involves a lot of real-time training...

I have read some of Abernathy, and Kane and Wilder. I personally found their work to be less useful for me, because I have not learned nor practice the body of kata that they do. I believe the kata found in our kenpo, as well as the forms in my Chinese arts, are put together differently, and don't follow the patterns and rules that they laid out in their writings for the Okinawan kata. However, I can certainly recognize what they are trying to accomplish, and their approach to training and the digging they are doing to understand their material, and I have a high degree of respect for the work they are doing in their respective arts. I just don't think it translates well to the arts that I practice, so I didn't find it so useful.

I try to train this way as much as possible, but it's not easy. The problem, of course, is that most people don't want to train so close to the edge, so to speak. I think what I described is the ideal that everyone will need to strive for who wants their MA to be an effective combat system of all-out fighting under completely uncontrolled circumstances. I don't think traditional sparring fits the bill.

I think you have hit upon something here. "it's not easy". Training in the way you describe, in the way that your referenced authors describe, is challenging both physically and mentally. Relatively speaking, I think sparring is less so. So maybe sparring is the easiest method that produces good results, altho I'm not convinced it produces the BEST results. Maybe sparring produces the best results if you are not prepared and willing to dig into the material and train the way your authors do. Maybe when teaching a large group for example, it becomes more and more difficult to train in that way, so sparring is sort of the next best thing, and it's easier with a group of people to just put on a few pads and have people take turns duking it out for a while. It's not a bad thing, it has a lot of good to offer, but still, I'm not completely convinced it is the BEST thing.

One more thing: yes, traditional sparring does help you overcome nervousness and keep a level head... on the assumption that you're going into a context where people are going to be `playing nice' according to the rules of that particular martial sport. But no matter how much you spar, if you run into trouble in a parking lot, I don't think you'll be able to maintain that same level of composure—it's a whole different problem, and you'll know that. I wouldn't count on much carry-over from your competitive-event attitude to what you're going to be feeling in that parking lot...

I think you've made a good point here as well. It was suggested in an earlier post that while tournament type sparring does develop bad habits, it still helps us learn how to deal with fear. I personally am not willing to make that sacrifice. I don't think practicing a method that develops bad habits is a worthwhile trade, for the benefit of dealing with fear. I think there are better ways to learn to deal with fear.

I was thinking more about this today. When you get struck, especially in the face, there often is a very strong emotional reaction. It can be fear, or embarrassment, or rage, or surprise, or whatever. For someone who has no experience with getting struck, this emotional response can be devastating. It can literally make you collapse and simply become a victim. So how do we train to learn to deal with this? Sparring can help, you simply get hit while you spar, and you learn to deal with it and hopefully it eventually has less of an effect on you. But is there another way?

I came up with an idea. Maybe we just need to train by hitting each other in the face. Get used to getting stung, do it enough until it doesn't bother you anymore.

Have your training partner take a fighting stance. Instruct him that he is not to block anything you do. The whole point is that he MUST get hit, and he MUST feel it. Put on some moderately padded gloves. Tell him to move in a determined way, perhaps just a simple shufflestep. Whenever he moves, punch him in the face. Not hard enough to injure him, but hard enough to sting. Mix it up with body shots as well. Gradually, over time, increase the intensity, until you are so used to it that it just doesn't phase you. Eventually, add to the exercise so that right after he gets hit, he hits back. Maybe line him up next to the heavybag so that after you hit him, he can rip into the bag full power. It's just an exercise to build immunity to that emotional reaction to getting hit. Then, when the badguy on the street really comes after you, and he gets thru and smacks you around a bit before you realize what is happening, you won't collapse into a blubbering heap. Instead, your reaction will be more on the lines of "i'm gonna rip this guys head off", and you will do your stuff.

I was thinking about this in regards to my wife, as she is accompanying me to kenpo training. I want her to develop some good skills, but she is not an aggressive personality in this way. To tell the truth, neither am I. I was wondering how I might be able to instill a bit of a "killer instinct" response in her. If she ever got hit on the street by some goon, I would want her response to be "die mother f*****!" while at the same time looking for an escape route. I'm just not convinced that free sparring is going to accomplish this.

I gotta admit tho, it's a bit of a weird idea to suggest to her "stand here and let me punch you in the face a few times"

 

[jdinca]

It a nutshell, yes, I do believe that sparring is critical to one's martial arts development. The caveat would be something that you alluded to in your post. Just like anything we do in this subject, if it's not done properly with quality of training addressed, it can be more of a detriment than help.

 

[Sukerkin]

Excellent posts once again chaps (I think Andy's one with its parallax view of the topic was particularly rep-worthy but couldn't do it, so public kudos will have to suffice, sorry).

Typical good stuff from Exile. I would like to elaborate a little on some of his insights ("standing on the shoulders" etc ).

When I trained in Lau Gar, about a third of training time was sparring. This was 'full contact' (relative to grade, as full contact does not mean uncontrolled ) and, other than shin pads, with no protective gear - I soon learned to wear my old (free) National Health glasses when sparring :lol:.

The whole idea was to put in practical use the techniques that you were learning. So it was a touch unstructured, other than common sense prohibitions that have been mentioned before (no heavy contact to the throat, eyes, 'personals', knees). But it taught you to both give and take a hit and also to use your techniques when distance, timing, opponent action were all unscripted. It was a little scary and hurt but it taught me a great deal; of special significance was the answer to the question "what do you do when your visual focus range is 4" and your glasses get knocked off?" . It also allowed you to learn how to utilise the 'core' intent of a form when circumstances were far less than perfect.

Now, I'm a big advocate of kata, like Exile, as I believe they are the numero uno tool for training in 'perfect' form and are the tool to open the box that contains what an art is 'about'. Without kata, you cannot spar (it's not often I'll make unequivocal statements but in this case I think its self evident) because you cannot execute the techniques in the first place. But without sparring there is a tendency to lose the 'Martial' part of 'Martial Arts' (taking Martial to mean Combat in this case).

I know from my own experience that this works because when I had no choice other that to use my Kung Fu, there was no hesitation and I adapted to my environment and my opponents to get the gap I needed to leg it. This is the point I've been leading towards. Because I'd done kata and learned the 'ideal' form and had done sparring and learned how to execute an effective 'less than ideal' form, as well as how to dish out and take punishment, my 'parking lot' encounter played out with no loss of composure at all (cue Bullet-Time clip ROFL). It was only after it was all over and I'd made my escape that post-adrenal reaction set in :quiver like a jelly:.

 

[exile]

I see it all too often when people talk about sparring. I've seen in on Youtube postings, things that were not TKD related, videos that were posted by kenpo people (i only mention it, as the inspiration for this thread came from a discussion over on Kenpotalk)

Okay, we've finished watching `The Railway Children', everyone else has toddled off to bed, and I can now while away the next couple of hours supposedly devoted to other work to the really important stuff, like getting back to this ace thread!

First off: I have to say, I'm reassured that it's not just the karate-based MAs that have the problem you're talking about. It seems endemic to the MAs in general these days. You've mentioned the problem with CMA being reduced to wushu spectacle, with the enthusiastic connivance of the Chinese government; now it sounds like kenpo has picked up the infection as well (I was going to add: `and this in an art celebrated for its violence', but then I remembered that nothing, no MA ever, was more violent than the TKD that the Korean Marines and Tiger commando units used on their battlefield enemies during the Korean and Vietnamese war, so no point in bringing kempo violence up, eh?) I suspect that severely unrealistic sparring based on artificial ring point-scoring rules will wind up killing off the credibility of the MAs as effective combat systems about as thoroughly as the Black Death killed off a good chunk of Europe and Asia in the 14th century.

I have read some of Abernathy, and Kane and Wilder. I personally found their work to be less useful for me, because I have not learned nor practice the body of kata that they do. I believe the kata found in our kenpo, as well as the forms in my Chinese arts, are put together differently, and don't follow the patterns and rules that they laid out in their writings for the Okinawan kata.

This deserves its own thread, Michael! I've thought for a long time, based on hints here and there, that there is a fundamental difference between the CMAs and the karate-based arts so far as the form of their kata, and the interpretation of the latter, are concerned. This is something I'd love to get into (mostly as a spectator, since I know zip about what CMA patterns are like and I suspect a lot of other people on the board are in a much better position to work out a comparison between the CMAs on the one hand, and the O/J/KMA versions of karate on the other, than I am). There's a certain consensus, I gather, that Bushi Matsumura made fundamental changes in Satunushi Sakagawa's more elaborately circular chuan-fa based martial art to create the hard linear karate that the Okinawan, Japanese and Korean striking arts are offshoots of. But that still leaves the whole issue of the technical differences between the CMAs and the variant forms of karate wide open for discussion.

However, I can certainly recognize what they are trying to accomplish, and their approach to training and the digging they are doing to understand their material, and I have a high degree of respect for the work they are doing in their respective arts. I just don't think it translates well to the arts that I practice, so I didn't find it so useful.

This is part of what I mean: basic differences in the arts, themselves well worth exploring, suggest the need for a lot of caution in translating results from O/J/KMA—hell, let's just call them karate and be done with it!—into conclusions about the CMAs. No argument there.

"it's not easy". Training in the way you describe, in the way that your referenced authors describe, is challenging both physically and mentally. Relatively speaking, I think sparring is less so. So maybe sparring is the easiest method that produces good results, altho I'm not convinced it produces the BEST results. Maybe sparring produces the best results if you are not prepared and willing to dig into the material and train the way your authors do. Maybe when teaching a large group for example, it becomes more and more difficult to train in that way, so sparring is sort of the next best thing, and it's easier with a group of people to just put on a few pads and have people take turns duking it out for a while. It's not a bad thing, it has a lot of good to offer, but still, I'm not completely convinced it is the BEST thing.

I think the question of numbers—how many are you teaching, what is the expectation of people in your school about `graduation rates', how much danger can you expect people to expose themselves to as part of their training in their art—is all-important. We know that Matsumura had a grand total of NINE students who carried on his legacy, among the very greatest martial artists of all time: Itosu, Kentsu Yabu, Chomo Hanashiro, Gichin Funakoshi, Chotoku Kyan, Azato, Kyuna Pechin, Sakihara Pechin and Ryosei Kwae (though Yabu, Hanashiro and Funakoshi got the bulk of their MA training under Itosu). That's basically it. What could you do in the way of teaching, if you could be considered a successful teacher while graduating fewer than ten students in your whole career? It's easy to teach small classes; just ask any university physics professor about the difference between a graduate seminar with five particle-physicisists-to-be vs. an intro class with 150 undergraduates, mostly pre-meds who hate physics. The training methods we use now were developed for large class sizes and people studying MAs as sidelines, not dedicated professionals. For the former, you can use kata bunkai, or the CMA analogue, as the core curriculum and take as long as necessary to graduate them. For the latter... how far are you going to get teaching killing apps, based on nastiest-case bunkai, to adult professionals and schoolchildren (the latter often the bread-and-butter clientele of your school)? Cannot be done.

It was suggested in an earlier post that while tournament type sparring does develop bad habits, it still helps us learn how to deal with fear. I personally am not willing to make that sacrifice. I don't think practicing a method that develops bad habits is a worthwhile trade, for the benefit of dealing with fear. I think there are better ways to learn to deal with fear.

Agreed, 100%.

I was thinking more about this today. When you get struck, especially in the face, there often is a very strong emotional reaction. It can be fear, or embarrassment, or rage, or surprise, or whatever. For someone who has no experience with getting struck, this emotional response can be devastating. It can literally make you collapse and simply become a victim. So how do we train to learn to deal with this? Sparring can help, you simply get hit while you spar, and you learn to deal with it and hopefully it eventually has less of an effect on you. But is there another way?

I came up with an idea. Maybe we just need to train by hitting each other in the face. Get used to getting stung, do it enough until it doesn't bother you anymore.

Desensitization. It's all over the stuff David Grossman writes about in connection with the willingness to wreak violence, possibly fatal violence, upon an adversary.

Have your training partner take a fighting stance. Instruct him that he is not to block anything you do. The whole point is that he MUST get hit, and he MUST feel it. Put on some moderately padded gloves. Tell him to move in a determined way, perhaps just a simple shufflestep. Whenever he moves, punch him in the face. Not hard enough to injure him, but hard enough to sting. Mix it up with body shots as well. Gradually, over time, increase the intensity, until you are so used to it that it just doesn't phase you. Eventually, add to the exercise so that right after he gets hit, he hits back. Maybe line him up next to the heavybag so that after you hit him, he can rip into the bag full power. It's just an exercise to build immunity to that emotional reaction to getting hit. Then, when the badguy on the street really comes after you, and he gets thru and smacks you around a bit before you realize what is happening, you won't collapse into a blubbering heap. Instead, your reaction will be more on the lines of "i'm gonna rip this guys head off", and you will do your stuff.

Bullseye, Michael. I've thought the same thing, after reading a lot of Abernethy's descriptions of the fairly brutal way they train kata bunkai at his dojo: why not just train for the worst case? Then, anything not as bad will seem like a gift...

I was thinking about this in regards to my wife, as she is accompanying me to kenpo training. I want her to develop some good skills, but she is not an aggressive personality in this way. To tell the truth, neither am I. I was wondering how I might be able to instill a bit of a "killer instinct" response in her. If she ever got hit on the street by some goon, I would want her response to be "die mother f*****!" while at the same time looking for an escape route. I'm just not convinced that free sparring is going to accomplish this.

Again, I agree. My own tendencies run a bit in the other direction—possibly excessive vindictiveness—but in either case, handling the adrenaline response and channeling it into efficient combat destructiveness is the whole point of the martial arts (notwithstanding assorted pieties, abundant in the literature, about spiritual training, ethical refinement and other mystifications of the original motives and intent of the creators of karate and other MAs, as though dojos were seminaries :lol.

I gotta admit tho, it's a bit of a weird idea to suggest to her "stand here and let me punch you in the face a few times"

But that, or something like it, is probably the only way to train onesself to respond coolly and with absolute control and effectiveness in the face of a violent attack. Remember A. E. Houseman's witty summary about the king, Mithridates, who over time acclimatized himself, through exposure, to a variety of poisons, thereby gaining immunity from them?

He gathered all that springs to birth
From the many-venomed earth...

I tell the tale that I heard told.
Mithridates, he died old.

Pretty much the same thing, eh?

When I trained in Lau Gar, about a third of training time was sparring. This was 'full contact' (relative to grade, as full contact does not mean uncontrolled ) and, other than shin pads, with no protective gear - I soon learned to wear my old (free) National Health glasses when sparring :lol:.

The whole idea was to put in practical use the techniques that you were learning. So it was a touch unstructured, other than common sense prohibitions that have been mentioned before (no heavy contact to the throat, eyes, 'personals', knees). But it taught you to both give and take a hit and also to use your techniques when distance, timing, opponent action were all unscripted. It was a little scary and hurt but it taught me a great deal; of special significance was the answer to the question "what do you do when your visual focus range is 4" and your glasses get knocked off?" . It also allowed you to learn how to utilise the 'core' intent of a form when circumstances were far less than perfect.

Now, I'm a big advocate of kata, like Exile, as I believe they are the numero uno tool for training in 'perfect' form and are the tool to open the box that contains what an art is 'about'. Without kata, you cannot spar (it's not often I'll make unequivocal statements but in this case I think its self evident) because you cannot execute the techniques in the first place. But without sparring there is a tendency to lose the 'Martial' part of 'Martial Arts' (taking Martial to mean Combat in this case).

I know from my own experience that this works because when I had no choice other that to use my Kung Fu, there was no hesitation and I adapted to my environment and my opponents to get the gap I needed to leg it. This is the point I've been leading towards. Because I'd done kata and learned the 'ideal' form and had done sparring and learned how to execute an effective 'less than ideal' form, as well as how to dish out and take punishment, my 'parking lot' encounter played out with no loss of composure at all (cue Bullet-Time clip ROFL). It was only after it was all over and I'd made my escape that post-adrenal reaction set in :quiver like a jelly:.

Perfect illustration of the point, Mark. That's exactly what relatively unstructured training, that lets in a bit of realistic violence, will do for fighters if they let it. The problem is, a lot of people, in the end, cannot face the prospect of actually meeting severe violence in reality. They train not so much to develop skills to apply, as much as carrying out a weird kind of avoidance ritual: if I practice enough and learn enough, I'll never actually find myself in a dangerous situation where I might have to use what I know. That's I think part of why people spar under safe, controlled conditions, that's why people practice kata or other patterns endlessly without thinking about the combat use of the components of those patterns, and certainly why they do not train along the lines that you or Michael were alluding to, along the lines advocated by people like Abernethy or Geoff Thompson or Peyton Quinn—because, in the end, in some strange way, they see MA almost the way the West saw the Cold War: it was a way not to have to have to have an actual hot war. So far as street violence is concerned, not very realistic...

 

[tshadowchaser]

They use few pads, they allow most everything that isn't actually crippling or maiming to be used, including grabbing, controlling, and takedown techs. They allow heavier contact

that sort of sounds like what I believe sparring should be. A person needs contact (given and taken) to understand its effect in real life. Without throws, locks, grabs, etc. a person is really unprepared for such attacks in real life (both being able to perform then or survive them).
Sparring against multiple opponents is also necessary to keep ones peripheral vision tuned to attacks.

 

[LawDog]

Free sparring is the application of all the material that you have learned into a live situation. If a student can do their preset patterns well but spars poorly could indicate that they don't understand their preset material.
Preset material with live application = free fighter.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Cuong Nhu sparring rules are slightly differnit then traditional Karate sparring rules. And most instructors will add or change rules if they feel they allow something cheap. Allow me to explain
Light or no contact. However if you are a both brown belt or abouve (3 - 4 years of training and about 2/3 the way to black belt), you can elect to go to medium contact. No more then that, for safety.
You can grab punches, kicks, and sweep. In fact, it's almost encouraged. I've been nearly caught, and swept a few times. However, I've gotten good at counter sweeping.
If it looks cheap, it's not gonna count (this is unofficail)
Face is only a target if your both brown belts
Groin is a target only if you have very good control (caught a couple of those, still sucks)
Rounds last 2 minutes. Points are only if we have geusts from a school that mostly does point sparring, or the sparrers are newbys.

In Randori (Judo freestyle) we use the same rules as the official rules. With one execption. No points. Tap out, black out, or get pinned for 30 secs.

We also do Chi Sao (my sensei is cross training in Wing Chun). We leave those rules alone, since it is side training.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

This is a great thread. I for one love to spar and love to roll. I am not a fan of point sparring by any means but prefer full contact and realism with leg kicks, elbows, knees, throws, takedowns, grappling with submissions all with as little equipment as possible. I think sparring helps with your real time skills and definately get's you ready for contact. Having said that is it necessary? Well I have been involved in many work related situations where I needed to arrest someone and believe it or not I never sparred with them. No most of the time it was quick, decisive takedowns or small joints manipulations that were needed. So did my sparring background help? Probably! However, I know of several other individuals that do not spar in their system and they also work in a field that requires physical contact and guess what they do just fine!

Really in the moment when everything kicks in and you are doing what needs to be done. You should not think but instead just do. If you train technique then work on that technique until it is second nature. Test it by having your training partners work and throw realistic attacks. Learn your techniques and understand them. Finally you will need to believe in what you do and in the moment just let go and let your training come forth.

If you spar understand that you are working within rules and in the moment there will probably be no rules or less rules. (depending upon if you are working) Understand that sparring is a type of training that works real speed time and has contact and that this can be beneficial.

Sparring, technique or kata based training, scenario training, forms training, etc. can all work for different individuals. Whether they are working one of the above or several at a time. In the end it comes down to the individual performing in the moment.

 

[jks9199]

"Sparring is a method of practicing the learned techniques under pressure."

It's not the only method, and there are many types of sparring. But it is an important method.

Sure, sparring is at best an imperfect model of a "real fight"; in a real fight, it tends to be over within only a few seconds. Someone dominates quick...or they get dominated. If a fight lasts more than 20 or 30 seconds... it's gone beyond a "fight" into a war.

But sparring is about the only way to apply the techniques and principles you learn in an unscripted manner, against someone who is actively resisting/avoiding and just plain not playing along. Even if you're doing a pretty controlled sparring like one we use a lot where the offensive and defensive roles are pre-assigned.

The important thing is to realize that sparring, alone, isn't enough. Just like kata/drill or technique practice alone isn't enough, either. It takes balancing all of them different parts of training.

 

[exile]

Here's my gripe about sparring as a MA training tool, in the conventional sense of `sparring'. The SD tools and techniques of martial arts, across the board, are designed to respond to untrained, violent physical attack by individuals whose mindset is based entirely on the desire to do you severe damage. One of the most important results of the past decade's research by MAists in the `realistic bunkai' movement in karate (including the Okinawan, Japanese and Korean striking arts) is that the most realistic interpretations of the kata/hyungs are predicated on scenarios in which the same `habitual acts of violence' that contemporary experts on street attacks identify as the standard initiators to a physical assault. In other words, what Matsumura, Itosu, Miyagi and others codfied in their kata were techs designed to meet and defeat the worst that an untrained, but possibly quite dangerous attacker would throw at you in an attempt to hurt you, perhaps severely—and which are largely the same kinds of moves you will encounter today in a nasty one-on-one.

But what does sparring have to do with this scenario? You aren't dealing with an untrained attacker. You aren't dealing with someone whose primary motivation is inflicting grave physical damage on you. Sparring is a kind of duelling; all those pretty choreographed sequences of swordplay we've seen are a good analogy. But the techs involve in any long-term martial art are more like what you have to do to defend yourself against a guy swinging a 10-lb. cudgel at your head, trying literally to beat your brains out. Standard epée combinations are not going to be of much use under those circumsances...

That's why it seems to me that if you want your MA to be effective—and if you recognize that the technical content of your MA refers to responses to haymakers and headbutts, not spinning back kicks and axe kicks—then you are going to want to train that MA in a way that's on the same page as the indended application of that MA, tech for tech. Half your hand moves involve a retraction; once you recognize that that retraction corresponds to a countergrab on the limb of an untrained attacker trying to immobilize you—that that's what those `down blocks' and `upward blocks' are actualy good for—then that's what it makes sense to go ahead and practice. Training for duelling against another experienced MAist... it just doesn't make sense in terms of the form that any trouble you meet is going to come in.

 

[LawDog]

Sparring at my school is really free fighting. Below are a few of the guide lines that we use.
1) Anything that has been taught can be used,
2) No excessive contact,
3) Weapon vs non weapon sparring is done,
4) No point or tournament type sparring techniques can be used,
5) Continuous fighting matches with 6 minute rounds,
6) Tap outs are allowed,
7) Two vs one matches,(semi controlled),
8) All ranks spar/fight each other. In this way a beginner can learn from a skilled fighter and the skilled fighter can learn how to work against those crude but effective moves.
:knight:

 

[CuongNhuka]

We do some of the same stuff. But when a higher skilled student goes against a lower skilled student, they have to take their game down slightly. Mostly so it doesn't discourage the lower skilled sparrer.
Some techniques are also restricted. Mostly the ones that are good for nothing other then killing/seriously maiming opponent. Still happens at times, but as long as you don't hurt the other person you're probably fine.