Point Sparring

[Wey]

What is your take on point sparring? Does it develop reflexes? Quick hands, quick feet, quick movement? Is it impractical? Does it teach martial artists to try and get one hit in and think the fight is over?

I do not like point sparring, I think there are better ways to train than to concentrate on point sparring, like continuous sparring for example. One tap in a fight won't do anything and I fail to see how doing such repeatedly while training point sparring will help ones self-defense skills.

Your thoughts?

 

[ralphmcpherson]

In sparring, continuous is the way to go in my opinion. The concept of stopping each time there is a point doesnt make a lot of sense to me, surely it doesnt teach someone to counter attack. I saw an example once where a guy hit his opponent in the ribs with a very ordinary and weak roundhouse kick, his oponent immediately countered and knocked the guy to the floor in a flurry of kicks and punches yet the original kick was awarded the point because it connected first. Maybe it just makes no sense to me because I only ever do continuous sparring.

 

[K-man]

We have totally stopped it as nobody training is interested in sport karate. We are going for much more continuous, close work that is far more realistic.

 

[ATC]

Even continuous sparr can be point sparring. Boxing, MMA, WTF, Muay Thai, and most other continuous sport sparring is all point based. They even tell you that each round is based on a 10 point must system. So they simply choose a winner of the round and award 10 points, the loser of the round gets 9 points. They just don't count the actual points.

Even in WTF where they count the points, it is still continuous but still called point sparring.

Now the type of point sparring where they stop after each point is what you are talking about and no, I don't like it.

But all sparring is point based, or you won't be able to pick a winner. Well a KO would decide it but you don't always have that.

 

[Chris Parker]

I believe this has been covered many many many times over now, but for the record, here goes...

What is your take on point sparring? Does it develop reflexes? Quick hands, quick feet, quick movement? Is it impractical? Does it teach martial artists to try and get one hit in and think the fight is over?

I do not like point sparring, I think there are better ways to train than to concentrate on point sparring, like continuous sparring for example. One tap in a fight won't do anything and I fail to see how doing such repeatedly while training point sparring will help ones self-defense skills.

Your thoughts?

Very simply, it comes down to why you are training. Sparring (in the common form) is simply not geared toward self defence at all, so if your primary reason for training is related to that, no form of sparring (continuous or point) is actually "good" (I'll explain that in a bit more detail in a moment). If, however, your primary focus is on competition, and your systems competitions are fought with a point-sparring style bout, it is ideal.

Let's go back a bit, though, and cover what I mean when I say that if you are training primarily for self defence reasons sparring is not a good training idea at all. Sparring, in the common sense, is a limited free-form training drill within certain framework. That framework includes certain time restrictions (either regulated rounds, or simply knowing that you need to continue until the instructor says to stop), particular technical restrictions (no weapons in Karate, no kicks/strikes in Judo, no unarmed takedowns in Kendo etc), and so on. However each of those aspects remove it further and further from the skills and strategies required for self defence training and effectiveness.

In sparring, there is no determined aggressor. Both partners are trying to land their own attacks first and foremost, and defending against the others attacks secondary. In a self defence scenario, there is a determined aggressor (the attacker or attackers), and defence (whether by avoidance, de-escalation, counter-attack, or pre-emptive offence - remember, the best defence is sometimes a good offence!) is the first concern. The idea of sparring is to outclass your opponent, in a self defence situation that takes a back seat to getting home safe and unharmed.

In sparring there are, as I mentioned, agreed upon time constraints, whether formal rounds, or simply continuing until the instructor tells you to stop. During this time, you stay in the match until it's over - in other words, you don't escape or "end" the conflict in a way that would allow you to escape. In a self defence situation, this should be a high priority. You should be looking to remove yourself from danger as quickly as possible (yes, I am taking into account places that have a Stand-Your-Ground law, in those cases if you can leave, do so. And if not, such as in your own home, or when out with others, the aim should be to end it as soon as you can), and this is the opposite of what sparring teaches you (on an unconscious level) to do.

In sparring there are known parameters of what you will face. There will only be one opponent, for instance. You will only face techniques of a certain kind (as listed above). Even in MMA, although there is a slightly broader range of techniques, from stand-up striking to ground-based grappling, as well as striking on the ground, and grappling standing up, complete with kicking, it is still limited by it's own environment. You won't come up against a knife suddenly produced, for instance. The other guys corner won't jump on your back while your pounding down on his friend. Suffice to say in a self defence situation, none of these known parameters exist. You don't know if he has friends you can't see, a weapon hidden on his body that'll get pulled out later, or what he'll even come out with in the first place.

For these and more reasons, sparring is the antithesis of self defence training. That said....

Sparring certainly does have benefits. It is a great way to put more of a fitness aspect into the training, as it is a great workout, it gives great improvements to endurance, allows a great way to distance and timing, and above all else can show what is ingrained under pressure without the fallback of specific techniques. With the question of point sparring in particular, well, if that's the way you will be using the system, it's great! If not, well, maybe not then.

 

[seasoned]

It is one tool of many. In it's early stages it teaches the new student distancing, pin pointing a moving target, footwork, good target selection. On the down side it teaches you to STOP action, pull your strikes, false impression of the one strike kill, no skills when your opponent grabs and takes you down. If you never get past point sparring, or all your training is geared around point sparring, then you are conditioning yourself for failure in a real life self defense situation. In the 50s and 60s some of your best full contact fighters came from point sparring backgrounds. They took what they learned from point sparring and just followed through with their techniques, with the hit. :asian:

Superfoot Wallace, and Joe Lewis, come to mind.

 

[Stac3y]

If you are training for point sparring, and you are stopping after each point, you're training improperly. Yes, the fight is stopped and points are called after each point seen in competition, but in training, it's very important to keep going. The reason for this is that, due to many factors, the judges may not call that first point. You have to keep going until they actually call break--otherwise you'll drop your guard and get pounded. And we hit pretty doggone hard in point, at least here in Texas, that is.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

What is your take on point sparring? Does it develop reflexes? Quick hands, quick feet, quick movement? Is it impractical? Does it teach martial artists to try and get one hit in and think the fight is over?

I do not like point sparring, I think there are better ways to train than to concentrate on point sparring, like continuous sparring for example. One tap in a fight won't do anything and I fail to see how doing such repeatedly while training point sparring will help ones self-defense skills.

Your thoughts?

All competitive sparring is point sparring. Continuous sparring is really continuous point sparring, as opposed to point/stop sparring.

Neither is superior to the other, as each is an athletic event and each has its various strategies and gamesmanship. And neither is reflective of actual fighting.

A lot also depends on what points are awarded for.

Now, for in class sparring, sparring is simply a means of developing reflexes and trying things out with a partner in a controlled environment. Frequently in class, there are several types of sparring. You have step sparring, point/stop sparring, continuous sparring, sparring where a limited technique set is allowed, sparring where one opponent is on the defense and the other on offense, sport sparring, and free sparring.

Each is designed to develop the student in different areas. One steps develop the execution of specific techniques. Point sparring is like one steps, only there is moving and feeling out of your opponent, with possibly multiple attempts to land a correct blow, developing the ability to use techniques in a precise way with both partners in motion. Continuous develops the student's endurance and ability to continue to fight and to execute techniques as their energy depletes. Sport sparring develops a competitive spirit that can help the student to overcome adversity. Free sparring is generally closer to an actual encounter and does not have to be scored, serving instead as an opportunity for students to test their skills under pressure.

Each type of sparring has its own unique lesson. Each lesson is beneficial to the student. Thus no single form is inherently superior to another, as each has a different focus in training.

Short of going out and really getting into fights, everything that you do in class will be training in the skill set of the the style. The sparring component simply allows you to do so with a resisting partner.

Daniel

 

[Shifu Steve]

Not that this hasn't been said...but to add to the idea...I agree with "It depends." Sparring is a tool like so many other training concepts in the martial arts. If you are training for sport and your sport competes in this format, then yeah, good idea. However, like the other posts preceding mine have pointed out, perhaps not so good for full contact submission/KO competition. As far as self defense, well that's always a tough question, especially in this venue. Chris argues sparring in general removes the practitioner further from the self defense situation by virtue of a number of factors that lend to its predictability. I think that's a credible argument but to an extent. I agree the parameters/intentions are different but I would argue there are some aspects of sparring that might be useful in self defense. As Daniel mentioned sparring is applied differently to develop different skills (sometimes more in line with a drill but more free in format). If you drill/spar (using the term loosely) techniques in this context that are conducive to self defense situations, I think those skills can be honed for self defense. Keep in mind I say "honed." You may develop a skill to the extent that it's practically automatic, but the context it's applied it may or may not affect the skill. So in the case of a self defense scenario, since you cannot predict/replicate the actual circumstances, there really is no way to "know." However, in line with the saying that we revert to training under stress, perhaps some skills developed through a targeted sparring session could be useful in self defense. But since I just strayed way off topic I digress.

 

[Wey]

Thank you all for your input. Just to clarify, when I said point sparring I was referring to the style of stopping after contact/each point.

 

[Balrog]

Count me in as another "it depends".

ATA uses point/stop sparring. There's talk of us going to non-stop sparring with judges counting points, but I don't know how seriously (or even if) the powers that be are considering it. I personally think it would be a good change.

Keep in mind, though, that all sparring is good, in that it teaches you about footwork, reading your opponent, offense, defense, trap, unexpected techniques, moving on the V, etc. Obviously, in today's society, we can't score matches by who walks out of the ring vs. who gets carried out of the ring, but it's as close as we can get. I've never heard of anyone who trained with point sparring pulling a technique when they needed to use it to defend themselves.

 

[Grenadier]

Even if it's "just point sparring," someone who has trained well for such competition, isn't going to stop with simply one technique, that one should really be following up each technique, one after another, never stopping, until the referee calls for the stoppage.

Also, it's not about who hits the hardest, but who delivers the blow that *could* have done the most, if it's well controlled.

For example, the above situation where someone "taps" someone else with a "weak" round kick, yet the other guy smashes the first guy in the body with a punch that knocks him down, may very well look like the second guy *should* have won, but sometimes, people simply don't have all the details.

I've seen situations, where someone delivers a fast, strong kick that is exceptionally well controlled, inflicting simply surface impact. In many cases, the blow could have caused significant damage, had the person simply decided to aim 12 inches beyond the actual point of impact.

Had he done so, then the likelihood of the second fellow landing that 'knock down' punch is severely diminished.

 

[ap Oweyn]

Thank you all for your input. Just to clarify, when I said point sparring I was referring to the style of stopping after contact/each point.

Which is, at least in my experience, precisely what's generally meant by the term "point sparring." I can appreciate what people are saying about all sport formats assigning points. But honestly, what makes more sense? Referring to this as "point sparring"? Or referring to it as "point sparring where you stop after each hit versus the point sparring formats alternately known as kickboxing, muay thai, boxing, etc."?

Simplicity, folks.

 

[ap Oweyn]

Very simply, it comes down to why you are training. Sparring (in the common form) is simply not geared toward self defence at all, so if your primary reason for training is related to that, no form of sparring (continuous or point) is actually "good" (I'll explain that in a bit more detail in a moment). If, however, your primary focus is on competition, and your systems competitions are fought with a point-sparring style bout, it is ideal.

I have to disagree with this premise, Chris. I think it's based on a very specific, and not intrinsic, definition of "sparring."

Let's go back a bit, though, and cover what I mean when I say that if you are training primarily for self defence reasons sparring is not a good training idea at all. Sparring, in the common sense, is a limited free-form training drill within certain framework. That framework includes certain time restrictions (either regulated rounds, or simply knowing that you need to continue until the instructor says to stop), particular technical restrictions (no weapons in Karate, no kicks/strikes in Judo, no unarmed takedowns in Kendo etc), and so on. However each of those aspects remove it further and further from the skills and strategies required for self defence training and effectiveness.

This is what I mean about a specific definition. Time limits are a goal-specific variable grafted onto the toolkit we call sparring. But it's not the only one available. In the early days of JKD, Guro Dan Inosanto relates that they would spar two versus four people, with the objective being to get through two cones that designated "the exit." In other words, that sparring format had no time limit, addressed multiple attackers, and focused on the need to escape rather than stay in the engagement.

Sparring isn't reality. Training in general isn't reality. Not scenario training. Not drills. None of it. Reality is reality. Simple as that. And reality features so many variables that it seldom looks the same in two different engagements anyway.

Drills, forms, etc. all constitute a "limited free-form (or not) training drill within a particular framework." But we don't dismiss training overall.

All training has rules. They may not be stated, but they're there. "Don't really gouge your training partners' eyes" is a rule. "Use a training knife instead of a real one" is a rule. "Stop applying pressure when he taps" is a rule. Rules are simply the social contract that make it possible to simulate a physical altercation as closely as is feasible.

In sparring, there is no determined aggressor. Both partners are trying to land their own attacks first and foremost, and defending against the others attacks secondary.

Sparring is about whatever a qualified trainer thinks is a priority when he assigns it. And I think we need to step away from the notion that sparring can only be one thing. Sparring is a framework. It leaves a lot of room for customization.

If you want defense to be a premium, then emphasize it in your sparring. What you're describing is a logical consequence of a sparring format that emphasizes the accumulation of points. But it's not intrinsic to sparring. When we practice stick fighting, for instance, you better believe I'm emphasizing dealing with the opponent's weapon attack first.

In a self defence scenario, there is a determined aggressor (the attacker or attackers), and defence (whether by avoidance, de-escalation, counter-attack, or pre-emptive offence - remember, the best defence is sometimes a good offence!) is the first concern. The idea of sparring is to outclass your opponent, in a self defence situation that takes a back seat to getting home safe and unharmed.

Again, you're placing restrictions on sparring that aren't inherent. Who says that a sparring session has to begin with someone ringing a bell? It could just as easily begin with a verbal or visual cue tacked onto the end of a bit of roleplaying. Just takes a bit of imagination and the right equipment. (And perhaps a bit of patience as you try to decipher someone's attempts at deescalation with a mouthpiece in.)

In sparring there are, as I mentioned, agreed upon time constraints, whether formal rounds, or simply continuing until the instructor tells you to stop. During this time, you stay in the match until it's over - in other words, you don't escape or "end" the conflict in a way that would allow you to escape.

Why not? What, inherent to sparring, prevents you from setting those conditions? "This match is over when Chris manages to run over to that point and grab the flag, simulating his getting to the top of the alley and taking off at a run."

In a self defence situation, this should be a high priority. You should be looking to remove yourself from danger as quickly as possible (yes, I am taking into account places that have a Stand-Your-Ground law, in those cases if you can leave, do so. And if not, such as in your own home, or when out with others, the aim should be to end it as soon as you can), and this is the opposite of what sparring teaches you (on an unconscious level) to do.

Then the instructor should reevaluate how he or she is using sparring. Sparring itself isn't calling the shots. And there are more options than "use" and "don't use."

In sparring there are known parameters of what you will face. There will only be one opponent, for instance. You will only face techniques of a certain kind (as listed above). Even in MMA, although there is a slightly broader range of techniques, from stand-up striking to ground-based grappling, as well as striking on the ground, and grappling standing up, complete with kicking, it is still limited by it's own environment.

That's the nature of training, unless we can think of some training method that isn't limited by its environment. But multiple attackers are certainly possible in sparring. And range of technique is as well, given the right equipment.

What's the superior alternative?

You won't come up against a knife suddenly produced, for instance.

Why? We've done it. Producing a rubber knife in a sparring match doesn't create the trauma of actually getting stabbed. But it certainly teaches you to take into account the possibility. Match your equipment and rules to your training priorities. That's all.

The other guys corner won't jump on your back while your pounding down on his friend.

Why? We've done that in sparring as well. Had "onlookers" leap into the fray. It almost invariably ended in the hero flat on his back, but you can bet he was more cognizant the next go round.

Suffice to say in a self defence situation, none of these known parameters exist. You don't know if he has friends you can't see, a weapon hidden on his body that'll get pulled out later, or what he'll even come out with in the first place.

Again, reality isn't something you can train. You can only "triangulate" it by employing various training methods. There's always going to be that final leap in logic to be made when something actually happens. But that doesn't mean you dismiss anything that doesn't account for every variable. I've yet to see any other training method that doesn't suffer the same shortcomings you describe here.

For these and more reasons, sparring is the antithesis of self defence training. That said....

Nah. Sparring isn't, in and of itself, self-defense training. But that's a far cry from being the opposite of self-defense training.

Sparring certainly does have benefits. It is a great way to put more of a fitness aspect into the training, as it is a great workout, it gives great improvements to endurance, allows a great way to distance and timing, and above all else can show what is ingrained under pressure without the fallback of specific techniques. With the question of point sparring in particular, well, if that's the way you will be using the system, it's great! If not, well, maybe not then.

Agreed.


Stuart

 

[Chris Parker]

Really don't have any argument with anything you're proposing here, Stuart (save your comment about my saying that sparring, as described here, is the antithesis of self defence. I stand by that). Only to say that I was taking my cue as to the form of sparring being discussed from the topic thread of "point sparring", and my repeated use of the phrase "sparring, in the common form/sense", included in your quotes. So I feel that such limitations are implied in this thread already, and that was the situation I was addressing.

Most of what you are commenting on I would categorise more as free-form responce training, rather than sparring (again, as is commonly refered), the introduction of a knife (for example) is not seen in sparring matches. But it can be, and is, seen in free-form responce training, which is not what I would class as sparring.

 

[ap Oweyn]

Really don't have any argument with anything you're proposing here, Stuart (save your comment about my saying that sparring, as described here, is the antithesis of self defence. I stand by that). Only to say that I was taking my cue as to the form of sparring being discussed from the topic thread of "point sparring", and my repeated use of the phrase "sparring, in the common form/sense", included in your quotes. So I feel that such limitations are implied in this thread already, and that was the situation I was addressing.

Fair enough. I do think it warrants clarification, though, that point sparring (and even the broader classification of competitive sparring that you describe) is a subset of the larger framework of sparring.

There is an element of semantics to this though.

Most of what you are commenting on I would categorise more as free-form responce training, rather than sparring (again, as is commonly refered), the introduction of a knife (for example) is not seen in sparring matches. But it can be, and is, seen in free-form responce training, which is not what I would class as sparring.

That's the semantics. And I don't say that as an insult. It's just a fact of life that we couch things in the terms we're used to. Whether you call it "sparring" or "response training" or "scenario training" comes down to what you're used to.

Not coming from a particularly competitive background myself, I don't really have those specific associations with sparring. To me, sparring is simply gearing up with the appropriate equipment (including weapons) and testing hypotheses. It takes place on a sliding scale. Sometimes sparring will focus on one or two variables or techniques (which I often call sparring drills, to make things extra murky) and sometimes the parameters are wider than that.

I just think we need to be careful to establish the baseline assumption that sparring offers a framework and that what the trainer does with that framework is what really affects outcomes, positive or negative. If we don't make that clear, then we run the risk of creating counterproductive biases, in my view.

I think this is at least partially a simple question of terminology though.


Stuart

 

[kungfu penguin]

my only complaint is that it can develop bad habits. i have seen points awarded for strikes that would never win in an actual scenario, like jumping up backfists or blind flailing of an arm that gets a soft but lucky contact. i was even asked by a coach to step down as a judge, because i would not call a technique that had no stability or even an illusion of power a point. one of said coache's students got into a fight and did a crappy 1 point technique, and got served his head he even yelled foul when he was poked in the eye ! that coach a few years later got into a situation, and was was beaten to within every inch of his life. he was lucky to survive that encounter . so again, if you can teach it with strong basics and throw out the fancy stuff that does not work then ok

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Even if it's "just point sparring," someone who has trained well for such competition, isn't going to stop with simply one technique, that one should really be following up each technique, one after another, never stopping, until the referee calls for the stoppage.

Also, it's not about who hits the hardest, but who delivers the blow that *could* have done the most, if it's well controlled.

For example, the above situation where someone "taps" someone else with a "weak" round kick, yet the other guy smashes the first guy in the body with a punch that knocks him down, may very well look like the second guy *should* have won, but sometimes, people simply don't have all the details.

I've seen situations, where someone delivers a fast, strong kick that is exceptionally well controlled, inflicting simply surface impact. In many cases, the blow could have caused significant damage, had the person simply decided to aim 12 inches beyond the actual point of impact.

Had he done so, then the likelihood of the second fellow landing that 'knock down' punch is severely diminished.

I can see where you are coming from but I still believe that training for years and years to hold the kick back 12 inches could cause bad habits to creep in, even the angle you kick from or the support foot have to change to deliver a kick when "holding back". Also, a lot of the time people can get points for a kick where realistically they didnt have another 12 inches in them. For instance, I train with a few guys who can kick to the head but with no real power as flexibility or technique prevents them kicking to the head with power, so they just dont attempt these kicks. In point sparring these same guys could attempt head kicks and lightly touch the side of someone's head and get awarded the point giving them the false impression that they "kicked someone in the head'. In continual sparring you'd better not throw any strike unless you can do it hard and fast because no one is going to stop the fight so you can reset and get back into position.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey, Stuart,

Yeah, again I'm not disagreeing with anything you say, but when the topic of the thread is "point sparring", I kinda took that as a basis for the discussion. So if we were just discussing free-formed training methods (including various forms of sparring itself), then yes, more clarification is certainly prudent. But if the thread already gives a narrow form, that, to my mind at least, takes out most of the forms you are discussing. But that's where I'm coming from, and I do like quite a lot of the drills/ideas I'm seeing in what you're saying here.... oh, my guys are gonna love these....

 

[ap Oweyn]

Hey, Stuart,

Yeah, again I'm not disagreeing with anything you say, but when the topic of the thread is "point sparring", I kinda took that as a basis for the discussion. So if we were just discussing free-formed training methods (including various forms of sparring itself), then yes, more clarification is certainly prudent. But if the thread already gives a narrow form, that, to my mind at least, takes out most of the forms you are discussing. But that's where I'm coming from, and I do like quite a lot of the drills/ideas I'm seeing in what you're saying here.... oh, my guys are gonna love these....

I gotcha Chris. And yeah, I don't think I ever stated as much, but point sparring (as Wey and I are using the term) is guilty of everything you describe. And more. I think it's an awful format.

Yeah, lemme know how they go with your group. Cheers!


Stuart