Point Sparring

[shaolin-warrior]

First let me say that the opinions on this forum are so well thought out and presented, that it’s almost intimidating for me to post a reply. This is by far the best run and supported forums online, great job.
Now my opinion. With all the pro’s and con’s of point verses continual sparring, I chose to use the continual sparring format. One thing I noticed from past personal experience is that point sparring comes with some student expectation. I’ve seen students rejoice at landing a well placed punch or kick that wasn’t scored properly or wasn’t taken into account. Lowering their guard and looking dumbfounded that the point wasn’t awarded. They are sparring with blinders so to say, looking for the point even if it’s sloppy. With continual sparring they need to be aware of the counter, be able to set up the next strike or flurry of punches, or combination, slightly more realistic than the engage and retreat tactics of point sparring . This is where I ride the fence on sparring, with strict demands placed on the student by the instructor, and the proper instruction, point sparring can have its merits. For my lower ranking students I will point spar with strong emphasis on stance, body position, reading your opponent, target selection, attacking with good collisional energy and instructing them on critical distance. I feel that slowing down the pace for beginners and my more timid students allows me to help them filter the information that they may otherwise miss. Either way, full gear, helmets with face shields, cup for the gents, gloves and chest protectors. Light contacts for my juniors, my adults use a moderate amount of force. I do teach take downs, and how to defend and attack from guard.

 

[Stac3y]

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.

I have to say that, although I CAN kick to the head with power, I DON'T. Because I don't want to kick anybody's head off. We spar with contact from yellow belt on (when I started, white belts did, too, but there's been a sea change in the organization). We do "light to moderate" contact; heavier by mutual agreement. In point sparring, most people who have some skill, and aren't jerks, go fairly light to the face and head, especially with kicks. That doesn't mean they CAN'T kick to the head with power. Since you know these guys you're training with, you know they can't, but you might want to avoid generalizing about that.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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.

I pretty much agree with you, though I'd like to comment on the head kicking.

WTF rules proscribe continuous sparring, as most may know, and not only allow, but encourage head kicks. The head is worth a greater amount of points and low kicks are barred from use. Essentially you are dealing with a mid to high level kicking game. It is less the idea of hitting hard and fast than the idea of setting up the opponent, hitting fast, and having the ability to follow up the kick with more kicks without having to reset.

The same set of skills is useful (I presume) in point/stop sparring; better be able to follow up your kicks in the event that you miss or don't score.

One observation of kicks in WTF matches is that high kicks are sometimes done in a way that sacrifices stability in order to take the head shot. Aaron Cook's KO of Stephen Lopez is a good example: he got the point on a KO and fell on his rump. I'm not sure that the point would have been scored had Lopez not been KO'ed.

The point is that both stop and continuous sparring build in bad habits. Both are still point sparring and both allow for the use of gamesmanship to secure a victory, which would not be a viable option in an actual encounter.

I cannot speak for other rule sets that proscribe continuous sparring, but if they involve the scoring of points, then gamesmanship enters the picture.

Daniel

 

[sgtmac_46]

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?

Ultra light sparring, such as you're describing, where the point is simply to make contact, is not conducive to developing skills for self-defense........it instills some very false assumptions and bad habits, not the least of which is the habit of pulling punches and kicks, rather than driving them home with POWER! Also, if all you do is point spar, you never actually get hit (except by accident) and it's IMPORTANT to get hit if you want to defend yourself.



HARD-SPARRING, ala Boxing, Muay Thai and MMA, however, is very conducive to self-defense........and that's where some 'self-defense' oriented folks wander off the reservation, because they foo-foo HARD sparring (because they don't want to do it) and say 'Well, nobody pulls a knife, blah, blah, blah'.......that's true, but when we're talking about physical self-defense, we're talking about fighting, and fighting at it's core are two (or more!) BODIES slamming together violently!

You don't want the first time you get punched in the nose by someone who wants to punch you in the nose to be on the street..........no matter how many effective 'Self-Defense' techniques you've practiced, it won't matter if your brain gets reset by the fact that you're experiencing that kind of impact for the first time.

As Mike Tyson once said 'Everyone has a plan......til they get hit in the nose!'

Hard sparring is essential to self-defense training......but it has to be realistic, and it has to kept in context. But if you want to learn how to hit people and take a hit, you have HIT PEOPLE AND TAKE HITS! That goes for grappling techniques as well.......you need to apply them on someone who is ACTIVELY resisting and attempting to counter and apply techniques to you at the same time.


Now, sparring is the end of self-defense training, but it is one aspect and tool used to get people used to hitting and being hit.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi sgtmac_46,

Ultra light sparring, such as you're describing, where the point is simply to make contact, is not conducive to developing skills for self-defense........it instills some very false assumptions and bad habits, not the least of which is the habit of pulling punches and kicks, rather than driving them home with POWER! Also, if all you do is point spar, you never actually get hit (except by accident) and it's IMPORTANT to get hit if you want to defend yourself.

Absolutely agreed.

HARD-SPARRING, ala Boxing, Muay Thai and MMA, however, is very conducive to self-defense........and that's where some 'self-defense' oriented folks wander off the reservation, because they foo-foo HARD sparring (because they don't want to do it) and say 'Well, nobody pulls a knife, blah, blah, blah'.......that's true, but when we're talking about physical self-defense, we're talking about fighting, and fighting at it's core are two (or more!) BODIES slamming together violently!

Er, disagree here. In each of these cases (MMA, Muay Thai, boxing) sparring still creates dangerous habits and strategies. I agree that this is much better than the above mentioned method, but it is still not necessarily conducive to self defence. The best you can realistically say is that it prepares you for the shock of contact, and prepares you to be able to return said shock.... however, as it also teaches you to stay when you should escape, to expect "trained", or "skilled" responces from your opponent, to expect only certain types of attacks and more, it is still far removed from the aims of self defence, in which you aim to get out (ideally without letting it get to the physical point) and get home safe, no matter what you face.

You don't want the first time you get punched in the nose by someone who wants to punch you in the nose to be on the street..........no matter how many effective 'Self-Defense' techniques you've practiced, it won't matter if your brain gets reset by the fact that you're experiencing that kind of impact for the first time.

And we're back to agreeing again! However I don't think that sparring, hard or soft, is the best way to achieve that if your aim is realistic self defence. There are a large number of contact drills that can be used instead (many very close to sparring in that there is no set "technique", strategy, attack, defence, or other) which give you exactly this benefit in a realistic scenario, similar to what could be encountered, in which a realistic self defence responce can be employed (getting home safe).

As Mike Tyson once said 'Everyone has a plan......til they get hit in the nose!'

Hard sparring is essential to self-defense training......but it has to be realistic, and it has to kept in context. But if you want to learn how to hit people and take a hit, you have HIT PEOPLE AND TAKE HITS! That goes for grappling techniques as well.......you need to apply them on someone who is ACTIVELY resisting and attempting to counter and apply techniques to you at the same time.

I 100% agree that you have to learn to both give and take hits, and be able to keep going regardless, but....

When it is taken to the point of saying that hard sparring is "essential" to self defence, I completely disagree. As said, sparring as described here is still very removed from the methods you want to employ in a self defence situation, so a great deal of this type of training is frankly wasted energy that could be better used for other purposes (if self defence is truly the sole aim). The other thing that is rarely realised is that an attacker in a real situation is actually rarely going to "resist" and "counter" your techniques in the way that someone in a sparring situation would. Any view of you-tube fights, football skirmishes and so on don't show two people jockeying for position, countering, resisting, or anything of the like. What you see, though, is two (or more) people trying to hit each other (when it becomes a fight, otherwise it's just someone beating up someone else), and typically holding the other back and away, or at least in place for their punches. Defence, resistance, countering are almost never seen. Again, this takes away reality from the sparring environment, regardless of how "hard" the sparring is.

Now, sparring is the end of self-defense training, but it is one aspect and tool used to get people used to hitting and being hit.

(I'm going to assume you meant "not the end of self defence", right?)

And we agree again! But just because it gets you used to being hit and hitting does not, I'm afraid, make it realistic self defence training. But of course, I don't think that martial arts are designed for self defence at all anyway, the ideals are simply too far removed.

 

[Grenadier]

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.

A valid point.

This is why we have heavy bags mounted on the wall, where kicks of all types are practiced. Given its location, if anyone tries to just play "tag" with the bag, they're going to find themselves falling off-balance, and not understanding what it means to really hit an object with full power.

This is why I don't use swinging bags, since it allows some people to get away with poor kicking habits.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Ultra light sparring, such as you're describing, where the point is simply to make contact, is not conducive to developing skills for self-defense........it instills some very false assumptions and bad habits, not the least of which is the habit of pulling punches and kicks, rather than driving them home with POWER! Also, if all you do is point spar, you never actually get hit (except by accident) and it's IMPORTANT to get hit if you want to defend yourself.



HARD-SPARRING, ala Boxing, Muay Thai and MMA, however, is very conducive to self-defense........and that's where some 'self-defense' oriented folks wander off the reservation, because they foo-foo HARD sparring (because they don't want to do it) and say 'Well, nobody pulls a knife, blah, blah, blah'.......that's true, but when we're talking about physical self-defense, we're talking about fighting, and fighting at it's core are two (or more!) BODIES slamming together violently!

You don't want the first time you get punched in the nose by someone who wants to punch you in the nose to be on the street..........no matter how many effective 'Self-Defense' techniques you've practiced, it won't matter if your brain gets reset by the fact that you're experiencing that kind of impact for the first time.

As Mike Tyson once said 'Everyone has a plan......til they get hit in the nose!'

Hard sparring is essential to self-defense training......but it has to be realistic, and it has to kept in context. But if you want to learn how to hit people and take a hit, you have HIT PEOPLE AND TAKE HITS! That goes for grappling techniques as well.......you need to apply them on someone who is ACTIVELY resisting and attempting to counter and apply techniques to you at the same time.


Now, sparring is the end of self-defense training, but it is one aspect and tool used to get people used to hitting and being hit.

The problem with that theory is that the only way to learn self defence is to do hard sparring where getting hit is a regular occurance. Not everyone is in a position where they can walk around with black eyes, bruises, fractured cheek bones, missing teeth etc. My job, for instance, wouldnt allow me to show up for work covered in cuts and bruises. Also, some people want to study martial arts for many years and actually have it benefit them physically in the long term. The father of one of the girls where I train is an ex-pro muay thai fighter, he is 42 years old, can hardly walk and his face looks like he has repeatedly been hit with a baseball bat. Some people, like myself, like to learn some self defence as a 'hobby' but dont neccessarilly want all the physical torture that goes with it and I believe it is possible to learn a martial art and learn to defend yourself without all the over the top physical stuff. I also agree with chris, self defence is about doing what is necessary to get away and get the hell out of there. Sports like boxing and muay thai arent teaching these strategies (dont get me wrong, I love both muay thai and boxing), but for me self defence should be about doing the bare minimum necessary to get out of the situation. I do agree that sparring should best resemble an actual altercation but I just dont feel it has to be full on hard contact everytime to be worthwhile for self defence.

 

[sgtmac_46]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...face-burglar-got-wrong-72-year-old-boxer.html

There's a lot of smack talk about 'Boxing' and other heavy impact combat sports not being 'realistic'.......while pretending fight, but never actually hitting anyone being 'more realistic'.

The truth is far simpler than most folks really want to believe or accept......when we say 'self-defense' in the physical sense, we mean FIGHTING..........and that boils down to bodies smacking in to each in a violent and chaotic manner........the better you are at that, at FIGHTING, the better you are at the physical aspects of self-defense.

You don't learn how to hit people by thinking deep and esoteric thoughts about the reality of what it's going to be like if you ever actually do hit people.......you learn to hit people by HITTING PEOPLE!

Now, you can improve your hitting of people by examing the subject intellectually, but unless you then put that in to practice and actually hit people, then it's still just BS theory!



Back to my anecdotal link above.......72 year old Frank Corti probably never practiced a knife disarm or defense in his life.........but what he did understand, INTIMATELY, was slamming his fists in to other people's bodies in a violent and aggressive manner...........the result seems pretty self-evidence on the efficacy of 'mere sport' in dealing with a self-defense situation.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The problem with that theory is that the only way to learn self defence is to do hard sparring where getting hit is a regular occurance. Not everyone is in a position where they can walk around with black eyes, bruises, fractured cheek bones, missing teeth etc. My job, for instance, wouldnt allow me to show up for work covered in cuts and bruises. Also, some people want to study martial arts for many years and actually have it benefit them physically in the long term. The father of one of the girls where I train is an ex-pro muay thai fighter, he is 42 years old, can hardly walk and his face looks like he has repeatedly been hit with a baseball bat. Some people, like myself, like to learn some self defence as a 'hobby' but dont neccessarilly want all the physical torture that goes with it and I believe it is possible to learn a martial art and learn to defend yourself without all the over the top physical stuff. I also agree with chris, self defence is about doing what is necessary to get away and get the hell out of there. Sports like boxing and muay thai arent teaching these strategies (dont get me wrong, I love both muay thai and boxing), but for me self defence should be about doing the bare minimum necessary to get out of the situation. I do agree that sparring should best resemble an actual altercation but I just dont feel it has to be full on hard contact everytime to be worthwhile for self defence.

Well, you said the key words, that you're only interested in learning 'just enough' to deal with the lowest common denominator. There is a scale to these things. All training will fail at a certain level or number of opponents. How much you want to train physically and mentally are the measure of how low or high on the scale you go.

But the fact is that hard impact training gets you higher on that scale than the alternative. No amount of nuanced or clever arguments will change that fundamental reality, because when the talking turns to physical action, it's still bodies slamming together in a violent and chaotic manner.........


Now, there seems an attempt is made to differentiate 'Fighting' from 'Self-Defense' by claiming that it's 'just enough to get away'.......well, lets be clear what we are talking about. If one is wanting just enough to get away, he should be at the track working on his 1/4 mile! That is far more effective self-defense in keeping with that definition than anything else one can do.

If we define 'self-defense' in that manner, then excellent situational awareness, avoiding dangerous places, and being able to run really fast are all you need.


However, we both know that the definition of self-defense in the context we are discussing is 'fighting' an opponent who wishes to harm you or someone else in the event you cannot runaway.......and if that's the definition, the key word is 'fighting'................in essence the ability to physically impose your will on another human being in a violent and tumultous manner under the appropriate and legally justified circumstances using whatever means that are legally, morally and physically available.

“If you want to learn to swim jump into the water. On dry land no frame of mind is ever going to help you” -Bruce Lee

My perspective may be skewed by the fact that my purpose is different than your stated purpose, in other words I don't need to know just enough to resist and escape.........as a police officer society demands that under certain circumstances I not only not retreat, but engage and overcome, thereby becoming the aggressor. One cannot learn to overcome an opponent unless one trains to overcome an opponent.

I know that training works because i've utilized it for nearly 15 years, and in numerous situations involving violently resisting and assaultive individuals.......i've also seen the skills of officers who did not train their techniques against resisting partners fail in similar situations.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Well, you said the key words, that you're only interested in learning 'just enough' to deal with the lowest common denominator. There is a scale to these things. All training will fail at a certain level or number of opponents. How much you want to train physically and mentally are the measure of how low or high on the scale you go.

But the fact is that hard impact training gets you higher on that scale than the alternative. No amount of nuanced or clever arguments will change that fundamental reality, because when the talking turns to physical action, it's still bodies slamming together in a violent and chaotic manner.........


Now, there seems an attempt is made to differentiate 'Fighting' from 'Self-Defense' by claiming that it's 'just enough to get away'.......well, lets be clear what we are talking about. If one is wanting just enough to get away, he should be at the track working on his 1/4 mile! That is far more effective self-defense in keeping with that definition than anything else one can do.

If we define 'self-defense' in that manner, then excellent situational awareness, avoiding dangerous places, and being able to run really fast are all you need.


However, we both know that the definition of self-defense in the context we are discussing is 'fighting' an opponent who wishes to harm you or someone else in the event you cannot runaway.......and if that's the definition, the key word is 'fighting'................in essence the ability to physically impose your will on another human being in a violent and tumultous manner under the appropriate and legally justified circumstances using whatever means that are legally, morally and physically available.







My perspective may be skewed by the fact that my purpose is different than your stated purpose, in other words I don't need to know just enough to resist and escape.........as a police officer society demands that under certain circumstances I not only not retreat, but engage and overcome, thereby becoming the aggressor. One cannot learn to overcome an opponent unless one trains to overcome an opponent.

I know that training works because i've utilized it for nearly 15 years, and in numerous situations involving violently resisting and assaultive individuals.......i've also seen the skills of officers who did not train their techniques against resisting partners fail in similar situations.

You say there is a scale to these things, and I agree. I do believe you can go high on the scale by training over many years without necessarilly going really hard over a short period. I train with guys who have trained in striking and self defence every week for 30 years and I have no doubts they can defend themselves very well, I dont need to see them jump in the ring to prove it. In my opinion self defence is doing the bare minimum so you can escape, as soon as you can get out of there do so. Self defence is about being aware of your surroundings, how you can get away, how to talk to the attacker, knowing when to become the aggressor etc its not all about how to start throwing kicks and punches. If you get home safely your self defence techs have worked, hanging around to "finish someone off" just leaves you in further danger as they could have mates lurking around or have a weapon etc. These are just my opinions of course, but to me self defence and fighting are two different things, they do cross over at certain points but jumping in a ring and 'fighting' is only teaching part of self defence, theres a lot more to it than that.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You say there is a scale to these things, and I agree. I do believe you can go high on the scale by training over many years without necessarilly going really hard over a short period. I train with guys who have trained in striking and self defence every week for 30 years and I have no doubts they can defend themselves very well, I dont need to see them jump in the ring to prove it. In my opinion self defence is doing the bare minimum so you can escape, as soon as you can get out of there do so. Self defence is about being aware of your surroundings, how you can get away, how to talk to the attacker, knowing when to become the aggressor etc its not all about how to start throwing kicks and punches. If you get home safely your self defence techs have worked, hanging around to "finish someone off" just leaves you in further danger as they could have mates lurking around or have a weapon etc. These are just my opinions of course, but to me self defence and fighting are two different things, they do cross over at certain points but jumping in a ring and 'fighting' is only teaching part of self defence, theres a lot more to it than that.

See that's where we disagree. The notion that you can learn to fight without fighting, is like the notion you can learn to swim without jumping in the water. Only in martial arts do we see that kind of thinking.

You are right that there is more to self-defense, but actually hitting and fighting a resisting opponent is a key part of it..........it should be noted that there are plenty of folks doing martial arts for 30 years who, when push finally came to shove, found their skills wanting on the street........that's not the place you want to find out you had the wrong idea the whole time.

That is a HUGE part of the reason why a great many martial artists are so VERY resistant to the notion that hard sparring is necessary.......they haven't done it, don't want to do it, and are afraid to do it.........hard sparring challenges and risks the ego. To apply your skills against a resisting opponent risks finding out some of those skills don't work as well as we thought they did, and that we weren't as prepared as we thought.........for a great many folks an illusion is more comfortable than reality..........as a result of that fear, they rationalize and create a whole lot of logical sounding notions as to why it is bad or wrong......'It's not absolutely realistic to the street.......in the street it would be different.......in the street.......' but the truth is that this isn't the reason many of them don't do it, and teach their students not to do it.


The reality is that fighting is tought, hard and dangerous.......preparing for the possibility of engaging in a fight, therefore, can't be both effective and entirely safe/comfortable.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

See that's where we disagree. The notion that you can learn to fight without fighting, is like the notion you can learn to swim without jumping in the water. Only in martial arts do we see that kind of thinking.

You are right that there is more to self-defense, but actually hitting and fighting a resisting opponent is a key part of it..........it should be noted that there are plenty of folks doing martial arts for 30 years who, when push finally came to shove, found their skills wanting on the street........that's not the place you want to find out you had the wrong idea the whole time.

That is a HUGE part of the reason why a great many martial artists are so VERY resistant to the notion that hard sparring is necessary.......they haven't done it, don't want to do it, and are afraid to do it.........hard sparring challenges and risks the ego. To apply your skills against a resisting opponent risks finding out some of those skills don't work as well as we thought they did, and that we weren't as prepared as we thought.........for a great many folks an illusion is more comfortable than reality..........as a result of that fear, they rationalize and create a whole lot of logical sounding notions as to why it is bad or wrong......'It's not absolutely realistic to the street.......in the street it would be different.......in the street.......' but the truth is that this isn't the reason many of them don't do it, and teach their students not to do it.


The reality is that fighting is tought, hard and dangerous.......preparing for the possibility of engaging in a fight, therefore, can't be both effective and entirely safe/comfortable.

I suppose thats where its hard to draw the line as to how 'similar' it has to be to the 'street' for it to be effective. Where that line is drawn, I dont know. People say that boxing/muay thai prepares for the street because you actually get hit. In reality though, a boxing match is actually nothing like the street, there are rules, both opponenets know the rules, clothing that suits fighting is worn, there is a referee, your opponent has no mates to jump in, your opponent has no weapon and you know he has no weapon, you fight in a ring etc etc. Then there are martial arts with light contact but they train to fight multiple attackers and show defences against weapons (which isnt taught in boxing), but due to light contact apparantly they cant be effective. So going by the analogy about learning to swim without entering the water, its safe to say the only way to learn self defence is to walk the streets late at night and wait to get attacked because really there is little that can be done in the dojo that really simulates an actual attack. Then there is the usual assumption that the guy who attacks you "on the street" is some kick *** fighter which is rarely the case. Most times I see a fight (not all, but most) it is two drunken idiots throwing sloppy punches at each other and against them I would back an experienced martial artist any day of the week. Basically there is no answer to these questions and its why it constantly gets debated I imagine.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I suppose thats where its hard to draw the line as to how 'similar' it has to be to the 'street' for it to be effective. Where that line is drawn, I dont know. People say that boxing/muay thai prepares for the street because you actually get hit. In reality though, a boxing match is actually nothing like the street, there are rules, both opponenets know the rules, clothing that suits fighting is worn, there is a referee, your opponent has no mates to jump in, your opponent has no weapon and you know he has no weapon, you fight in a ring etc etc. Then there are martial arts with light contact but they train to fight multiple attackers and show defences against weapons (which isnt taught in boxing), but due to light contact apparantly they cant be effective. So going by the analogy about learning to swim without entering the water, its safe to say the only way to learn self defence is to walk the streets late at night and wait to get attacked because really there is little that can be done in the dojo that really simulates an actual attack. Then there is the usual assumption that the guy who attacks you "on the street" is some kick *** fighter which is rarely the case. Most times I see a fight (not all, but most) it is two drunken idiots throwing sloppy punches at each other and against them I would back an experienced martial artist any day of the week. Basically there is no answer to these questions and its why it constantly gets debated I imagine.

Here's the kicker......i've fought in the street. I've fought with resisting and assaultive subjects over nearly 15 years as an LEO, and I fought in the streets as a teenager who grew up in an area where fights were pretty common.

Here's what i learned.......the boxing skills I learned hard sparring as a youth were quite useful in dealing with individuals who tried to attack me........most unskilled fighters punch, that's what human beings do to start a fight, as a general rule. After the first punch or two they tend to duck their heads and grapple like a bear.

Boxing is simple and efficient punching..........folks who aren't trained to punch, but do punch, throw punches similar to a very sloppy, very inefficient, less powerful, slower, boxing punch.......that's been my experience.

I sparred in the ring with skilled opponents who were BETTER than the folks I fought with in the streets........so that when someone threw a punch in the street, I saw it coming a mile away, and countered most of them before they even knew what was going on.

The idea that 'the ring isn't the street' is somewhat true, but many of those making that argument are coming to fault conclusions for different reasons than they are claiming........they simply don't want to spar hard, and have rationalized that hard sparring, since they don't want to do it, isn't useful or a good thing.

I, however, know first hand that hard sparring is quite useful preparation for fighting, even in the street. A punch is still a punch, and a kick is still a kick, even if you change the location.

Now, it's not the end all an be all........there are knives, guns, clubs, other weapons, of course, and multiple opponents..........but there are quite useful ways of HARD SPARRING with those things, as well, that are darn good and preparing to deal with that reality!

 

[Tez3]

I suppose thats where its hard to draw the line as to how 'similar' it has to be to the 'street' for it to be effective. Where that line is drawn, I dont know. People say that boxing/muay thai prepares for the street because you actually get hit. In reality though, a boxing match is actually nothing like the street, there are rules, both opponenets know the rules, clothing that suits fighting is worn, there is a referee, your opponent has no mates to jump in, your opponent has no weapon and you know he has no weapon, you fight in a ring etc etc. Then there are martial arts with light contact but they train to fight multiple attackers and show defences against weapons (which isnt taught in boxing), but due to light contact apparantly they cant be effective. So going by the analogy about learning to swim without entering the water, its safe to say the only way to learn self defence is to walk the streets late at night and wait to get attacked because really there is little that can be done in the dojo that really simulates an actual attack. Then there is the usual assumption that the guy who attacks you "on the street" is some kick *** fighter which is rarely the case. Most times I see a fight (not all, but most) it is two drunken idiots throwing sloppy punches at each other and against them I would back an experienced martial artist any day of the week. Basically there is no answer to these questions and its why it constantly gets debated I imagine.

I started my martial arts training many years ago with a group that does just as you say, point sparring, training for multiple attackers, loads of SD etc etc but in reality it was all pants! I had to change styles because the club closed and I went to a place where the sparring was full on and I can't tell you what a shock it was. The first time I got punched hard was horrendous, I froze in horror and got hit again until they realised I'd gone into total shut down. It's a common reacton it seems and one that will get you very hurt if attacked by anyone, it doesn't have to be a martial artist who hits you and rarely I think do they attack people on the street.
I was a brown belt at the time of changing clubs, fairly fast in sparring, I'd got trophies at point sparring comps but had never been hit harder than a tap for a point which hey I was tough I could take it!

It's not about whether MT/MMA/boxing is like being attacked in the street, the argument isn't that, it's that the strikes you take in these styles teaches you to fight against someone trying to hurt you, it takes away that shock of being hit, you don't freeze, you move, strike back etc. Thats the value of these styles. when you are sparring hard in these styles you don't actually think about having a ref, rules etc all you focus on is not being hurt, that's what your body and mind tells you not that 'oh it's safe sparring because I have someone watching me', not in the least, the adrenaline is flowing and you are as far as your concerned fighting for your life. Sometimes when the ref does stop you, you're surprised.

People training light contact aren't learning wrongly, I'm sure the techniques are effective but the people training light aren't. The very basic thing is to know you can take being hit because there's no one in the world who can fight anyone without being hit and thats the difference between life and death, can you take a punch, shake it off and carry on? If not, why not?

Btw, I can certainly take a punch now lol, I don't freeze, I get even and then some!

 

[sgtmac_46]

I started my martial arts training many years ago with a group that does just as you say, point sparring, training for multiple attackers, loads of SD etc etc but in reality it was all pants! I had to change styles because the club closed and I went to a place where the sparring was full on and I can't tell you what a shock it was. The first time I got punched hard was horrendous, I froze in horror and got hit again until they realised I'd gone into total shut down. It's a common reacton it seems and one that will get you very hurt if attacked by anyone, it doesn't have to be a martial artist who hits you and rarely I think do they attack people on the street.
I was a brown belt at the time of changing clubs, fairly fast in sparring, I'd got trophies at point sparring comps but had never been hit harder than a tap for a point which hey I was tough I could take it!

It's not about whether MT/MMA/boxing is like being attacked in the street, the argument isn't that, it's that the strikes you take in these styles teaches you to fight against someone trying to hurt you, it takes away that shock of being hit, you don't freeze, you move, strike back etc. Thats the value of these styles. when you are sparring hard in these styles you don't actually think about having a ref, rules etc all you focus on is not being hurt, that's what your body and mind tells you not that 'oh it's safe sparring because I have someone watching me', not in the least, the adrenaline is flowing and you are as far as your concerned fighting for your life. Sometimes when the ref does stop you, you're surprised.

People training light contact aren't learning wrongly, I'm sure the techniques are effective but the people training light aren't. The very basic thing is to know you can take being hit because there's no one in the world who can fight anyone without being hit and thats the difference between life and death, can you take a punch, shake it off and carry on? If not, why not?

Btw, I can certainly take a punch now lol, I don't freeze, I get even and then some!

Well said!

 

[ralphmcpherson]

I started my martial arts training many years ago with a group that does just as you say, point sparring, training for multiple attackers, loads of SD etc etc but in reality it was all pants! I had to change styles because the club closed and I went to a place where the sparring was full on and I can't tell you what a shock it was. The first time I got punched hard was horrendous, I froze in horror and got hit again until they realised I'd gone into total shut down. It's a common reacton it seems and one that will get you very hurt if attacked by anyone, it doesn't have to be a martial artist who hits you and rarely I think do they attack people on the street.
I was a brown belt at the time of changing clubs, fairly fast in sparring, I'd got trophies at point sparring comps but had never been hit harder than a tap for a point which hey I was tough I could take it!

It's not about whether MT/MMA/boxing is like being attacked in the street, the argument isn't that, it's that the strikes you take in these styles teaches you to fight against someone trying to hurt you, it takes away that shock of being hit, you don't freeze, you move, strike back etc. Thats the value of these styles. when you are sparring hard in these styles you don't actually think about having a ref, rules etc all you focus on is not being hurt, that's what your body and mind tells you not that 'oh it's safe sparring because I have someone watching me', not in the least, the adrenaline is flowing and you are as far as your concerned fighting for your life. Sometimes when the ref does stop you, you're surprised.

People training light contact aren't learning wrongly, I'm sure the techniques are effective but the people training light aren't. The very basic thing is to know you can take being hit because there's no one in the world who can fight anyone without being hit and thats the difference between life and death, can you take a punch, shake it off and carry on? If not, why not?

Btw, I can certainly take a punch now lol, I don't freeze, I get even and then some!

I agree with that tez, as I said earlier in this thread I dont agree with light contact point sparring as being hit and learning to hit hard is important. I do, though, think that that is just a part of self defence, its an important part but not the whole thing and a lot of clubs that teach "light contact" may also focus on many other aspects of self defence such as multiple attackers and weapons defence which many places with "hard contact" may not focus on. For instance, there is a new guy training at my club at the moment who has a muay thai background and his sparring is brutal, its really good. But he is blown away by what he is learning in terms of self defence techs, the grabs, wrist locks and particularly defences against knives are all new to him and he is loving it. He said to me the other night how up until now he had not analysed self defence the way he is now as in the past his answer to any threat was simply to start throwing punches. Im not saying one is better than the other, just that there are many aspects to consider in self defence, not just fighting.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I agree with that tez, as I said earlier in this thread I dont agree with light contact point sparring as being hit and learning to hit hard is important. I do, though, think that that is just a part of self defence, its an important part but not the whole thing and a lot of clubs that teach "light contact" may also focus on many other aspects of self defence such as multiple attackers and weapons defence which many places with "hard contact" may not focus on. For instance, there is a new guy training at my club at the moment who has a muay thai background and his sparring is brutal, its really good. But he is blown away by what he is learning in terms of self defence techs, the grabs, wrist locks and particularly defences against knives are all new to him and he is loving it. He said to me the other night how up until now he had not analysed self defence the way he is now as in the past his answer to any threat was simply to start throwing punches. Im not saying one is better than the other, just that there are many aspects to consider in self defence, not just fighting.

There are many aspects to self-defense, but when it comes to the fighting aspects of self-defense, the answer to how to learn to fight.....is to fight.

Drill the techniques that you want to install until you are physically proficient, and then apply them as realistically as possible against a resisting opponent(s).........and that doesn't apply to just empty hands, that applies to knives, guns, sticks.

How that applies to knife training is the same.........train the proper responses to being attacked by a knife, and then have a resisting opponent try to run you through with a training knife or a shock knife.

I'm a firm believer that every tool, weapon or technique should be pushed until it breaks in order to know it's limitations and improve it.

We can take the principle of hard sparring and apply it to a number of aspects of physical self-defense to stress test and improve our skills.

 

[Tez3]

There are many aspects to self-defense, but when it comes to the fighting aspects of self-defense, the answer to how to learn to fight.....is to fight.

Drill the techniques that you want to install until you are physically proficient, and then apply them as realistically as possible against a resisting opponent(s).........and that doesn't apply to just empty hands, that applies to knives, guns, sticks.

How that applies to knife training is the same.........train the proper responses to being attacked by a knife, and then have a resisting opponent try to run you through with a training knife or a shock knife.

I'm a firm believer that every tool, weapon or technique should be pushed until it breaks in order to know it's limitations and improve it.

We can take the principle of hard sparring and apply it to a number of aspects of physical self-defense to stress test and improve our skills.

Exactly!
I knew any amount of knife defences, attacks against multiple attackers, attacks from behind but none of it was any good if you weren't accumstomed to being hit AND still be able to use those techniques. Since changing clubs ten years ago now I've seen no end of people do the same as me when hit. We've even had someone leave because he didn't want to be hit, well no one does not even MMA fighters or boxers, but it's part of being a true martial artist and it does no one any favours going lightly in trainly to the extent that you can't pull of the techniques when you need to.
When we train MMA techniques, drilling and learning we do go lightly, no point in having injuries if you don't have to but when sparring we will go hard enough for you to know you can both put the techniques on and that you don't panic when on you so you can attempt escapes. We do the same for SD.

Interesting we don't drill gun disarms we drill hanging on to your gun! With my job and those of the military personnel we have, we drill not losing your weapon lol! Our instructor showed us a nice drill where you put a choke on with one hand and keep your weapon in the other, yes it's put on hard! Chokes were the other thing I used to freak out at when frst done, now you'd better make sure it's on fast or I'll get you lol. So easy to panic when put in a choke but now I'm so used to it, I can react fast. You can't get used to chokes if just done gently, you don't get the panic effect, sounds cruel but it's very necessary.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm, this has gotten interesting. I've read through what has been written here over the last day or so, and there's a few points I wouldn't mind making.

Sgtmac_46, I have a lot of respect for you and your posts here, however I feel you are missing what is actually being said, and indeed may be reading certain things into posts that I don't think are actually there. To begin with, I haven't seen a single person here claim that non- or light-contact is good for any form of self defence or fighting (yes, they are quite different, but I'll get to that in a bit), or indeed that hard contact is not beneficial (I would actually say it's a requirement if you are being serious about any self defence benefits from your training at all). The point made has been that hard sparring is not required. You have then equated fighting and self defence by limiting the self defence aspect to purely physical aspects. So maybe a clarification of terms may be in order (from the non-sparring camp).

Fighting: Two or more people "duking it out", exchanging blows in an attempt to "beat" the other person(s). In this form there is not an attempt made to flee, or look for opportunities to flee (possibly for fear of being seen as a coward, social or cultural conditioning).

Self Defence: One or more people being confronted/attacked by one or more aggressors. This situation has defined aggressors, and the attackers attempt to injure/intimidate/menace the defenders, and the defenders concern themselves with their safety first and foremost. This can take many forms ranging from avoidance of dangerous situations, through to defusing aggression, pre-emptively striking, and all out physical assaults. The aim, as opposed to fighting, is never to stay and fight though.

Any realistic self defence training will involve hard contact. That can be achieved in a number of ways, however the real argument here is that sparring is not actually the ideal method (although it certainly can help), mainly due to the fact that it deals with the concept of "fighting" rather than the aim of self defence. Now, for yourself, as you said you are an LEO, and as such have a different set of requirements (including needing to be the aggressor in cases, stand-and-fight in others, and so on), but surely that means you recognise that what you are describing (as suits your needs) is not what would be classed as self defence here?

To go through the benefits and issues with sparring, and it's help or hindrance with self defence capabilities, let's make a list.

PRO 1: Sparring teaches you to handle the chaos of a "live" environment (for want of a better term).
PRO 2: Sparring (hard) gets you used to both hitting and getting hit, overcoming the emotional barriers that can very easily get in the way, especially if you have never done this before.
PRO 3: Sparring (hard) sharpens timing, distance (both offensive and defensive), as well as acting as a "correcting" mechanism for your techniques (if you are bending your wrist when you punch, it'll hurt. So you change).
PRO 4: Sparring gets you used to a degree of adrenaline.
PRO 5: Sparring helps your aerobic fitness, helping you to not "gas out" early on.

Some good pros there, I feel. We'll come back to them.

ISSUE 1: Sparring is training in tactics and strategies for fighting, rather than defence, ingraining habits that can be dangerous (not escaping if and when an opportunity presents itself).
ISSUE 2: Sparring gives you an unrealistic opponent, one trained in the same (or similar) methods and techniques to yourself, giving rise to a degree of predictability in the attacks you face, and the defences applied.
ISSUE 3: Sparring gives an unrealistic expectation of preparation, knowing ahead of time (even if only ten seconds or so) who your opponent is, how many there are (typically one), what the conditions are etc. You also know the direction they are coming from (typically directly in front of you as you, allowing both you and them time to get into position/posture).
ISSUE 4: In order to achieve safety, a number of tactics/techniques are disallowed, particularly the more damaging or immediately effective.

So the question becomes not if hard sparring has benefits, but if it really is the best method for self defence? What if there was a way of training that incorporated most or all of the benefits of hard sparring, with few or none of the issues? Happily, the answer is yes.

There are a large number of methods employed to do that, a few are as follows:

Piggy in the Middle Drill: The defender is in the centre, with a large number of "attackers" surrounding them. The attackers attack the defender one at a time, or in groups or two or more, with weapons or without, in any way they want. The defender has any method of responce they want. Contact can be very hard, and protective equipment can be worn if desired. Ramp up to taste. (PROS:1,2,3,4,5, ISSUESdepending on skill levels) 1)

Boogeyman Drill: During a regular training session one of the students (unknown to the rest of the group, although they will know that it is a concept that will be employed) is designated as a "boogeyman". During the class, that person can attack any other member of the class (even the instructor...) at any time, in any way, with any attack or weapon. Whoever is attacked responds in whatever way they can. Lots of fun when the "attacker" in another drill suddenly finds themselves under attack... (PROS: 1,2,3,4, ISSUES: None as listed)

Whack-a-mole Drill: Put on some good headgear, and put in a mouthguard. Your attacker hits you hard in the head, you immediately turn to apply a drill (strike a pad, defend a rush-tackle, cover against strikes, perform a takedown, etc) (PROS: 2,3,4, ISSUES: 3 (althought that can be overcome with multiple partners)).

These are just a few drills, there are many many more. To note, though, RBSD systems do not spar. Systems such as Ninjutsu do not spar. Traditional sword systems do not spar. Many others do not spar. I must say that I am a little unsure why you feel that the only reason other martial artists don't spar is that they are scared of it. Personally, I have done my time in sparring systems, and we encourage our seniors to cross train in systems such as MMA, BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and others for many reasons. The reasons we don't spar is that it goes against what we understand to be truly effective in generating success and the correct skill set, nothing to do with fear. In fact, I have recently been telling my students to be careful of too much safety in training (training weapons that are too safe, for example) as it leads to dangerous feelings of safety, as I feel that an element of danger is necessary for these arts (on many levels, not just the immediately practical).

For the record, here is a clip of Richard Dmitri applying his RBSD concepts (non-sparring) against a BJJ guy (very hard sparring), just to see the results:

The only thing being said here is that sparring is not the only way to get the skills you are talking about, and there seems to be universal agreement that for self defence, if real contact and hard conditioning are not included, then the training will be rather lacking. That said, this thread is about the benefits/issues with point sparring (as it occurs in non-contact sporting systems; get a point and stop etc), so this conversation of hard sparring versus not sparring at all isn't really the argument. Again, we all seem to agree that hard-style training and contact are important... provided you are training for self defence reasons (just that sparring isn't the only way to achieve that, nor necessarily the best, at least for everyone). Of course, this is making a basic assumption that everyone is training for those reasons. Remember, if someone is training in their system in order to enjoy competition and win tournaments, and those tournaments are designed around point-sparring style matches, it's absolutely ideal. Different strokes and all that... But back on the topic of point sparring, okay? I think we've taken this part about as far as we can.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Hmm, this has gotten interesting. I've read through what has been written here over the last day or so, and there's a few points I wouldn't mind making.

Sgtmac_46, I have a lot of respect for you and your posts here, however I feel you are missing what is actually being said, and indeed may be reading certain things into posts that I don't think are actually there. To begin with, I haven't seen a single person here claim that non- or light-contact is good for any form of self defence or fighting (yes, they are quite different, but I'll get to that in a bit), or indeed that hard contact is not beneficial (I would actually say it's a requirement if you are being serious about any self defence benefits from your training at all). The point made has been that hard sparring is not required. You have then equated fighting and self defence by limiting the self defence aspect to purely physical aspects. So maybe a clarification of terms may be in order (from the non-sparring camp).

Fighting: Two or more people "duking it out", exchanging blows in an attempt to "beat" the other person(s). In this form there is not an attempt made to flee, or look for opportunities to flee (possibly for fear of being seen as a coward, social or cultural conditioning).

Self Defence: One or more people being confronted/attacked by one or more aggressors. This situation has defined aggressors, and the attackers attempt to injure/intimidate/menace the defenders, and the defenders concern themselves with their safety first and foremost. This can take many forms ranging from avoidance of dangerous situations, through to defusing aggression, pre-emptively striking, and all out physical assaults. The aim, as opposed to fighting, is never to stay and fight though.

Any realistic self defence training will involve hard contact. That can be achieved in a number of ways, however the real argument here is that sparring is not actually the ideal method (although it certainly can help), mainly due to the fact that it deals with the concept of "fighting" rather than the aim of self defence. Now, for yourself, as you said you are an LEO, and as such have a different set of requirements (including needing to be the aggressor in cases, stand-and-fight in others, and so on), but surely that means you recognise that what you are describing (as suits your needs) is not what would be classed as self defence here?

To go through the benefits and issues with sparring, and it's help or hindrance with self defence capabilities, let's make a list.

PRO 1: Sparring teaches you to handle the chaos of a "live" environment (for want of a better term).
PRO 2: Sparring (hard) gets you used to both hitting and getting hit, overcoming the emotional barriers that can very easily get in the way, especially if you have never done this before.
PRO 3: Sparring (hard) sharpens timing, distance (both offensive and defensive), as well as acting as a "correcting" mechanism for your techniques (if you are bending your wrist when you punch, it'll hurt. So you change).
PRO 4: Sparring gets you used to a degree of adrenaline.
PRO 5: Sparring helps your aerobic fitness, helping you to not "gas out" early on.

Some good pros there, I feel. We'll come back to them.

ISSUE 1: Sparring is training in tactics and strategies for fighting, rather than defence, ingraining habits that can be dangerous (not escaping if and when an opportunity presents itself).
ISSUE 2: Sparring gives you an unrealistic opponent, one trained in the same (or similar) methods and techniques to yourself, giving rise to a degree of predictability in the attacks you face, and the defences applied.
ISSUE 3: Sparring gives an unrealistic expectation of preparation, knowing ahead of time (even if only ten seconds or so) who your opponent is, how many there are (typically one), what the conditions are etc. You also know the direction they are coming from (typically directly in front of you as you, allowing both you and them time to get into position/posture).
ISSUE 4: In order to achieve safety, a number of tactics/techniques are disallowed, particularly the more damaging or immediately effective.

So the question becomes not if hard sparring has benefits, but if it really is the best method for self defence? What if there was a way of training that incorporated most or all of the benefits of hard sparring, with few or none of the issues? Happily, the answer is yes.

There are a large number of methods employed to do that, a few are as follows:

Piggy in the Middle Drill: The defender is in the centre, with a large number of "attackers" surrounding them. The attackers attack the defender one at a time, or in groups or two or more, with weapons or without, in any way they want. The defender has any method of responce they want. Contact can be very hard, and protective equipment can be worn if desired. Ramp up to taste. (PROS:1,2,3,4,5, ISSUESdepending on skill levels) 1)

Boogeyman Drill: During a regular training session one of the students (unknown to the rest of the group, although they will know that it is a concept that will be employed) is designated as a "boogeyman". During the class, that person can attack any other member of the class (even the instructor...) at any time, in any way, with any attack or weapon. Whoever is attacked responds in whatever way they can. Lots of fun when the "attacker" in another drill suddenly finds themselves under attack... (PROS: 1,2,3,4, ISSUES: None as listed)

Whack-a-mole Drill: Put on some good headgear, and put in a mouthguard. Your attacker hits you hard in the head, you immediately turn to apply a drill (strike a pad, defend a rush-tackle, cover against strikes, perform a takedown, etc) (PROS: 2,3,4, ISSUES: 3 (althought that can be overcome with multiple partners)).

These are just a few drills, there are many many more. To note, though, RBSD systems do not spar. Systems such as Ninjutsu do not spar. Traditional sword systems do not spar. Many others do not spar. I must say that I am a little unsure why you feel that the only reason other martial artists don't spar is that they are scared of it. Personally, I have done my time in sparring systems, and we encourage our seniors to cross train in systems such as MMA, BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and others for many reasons. The reasons we don't spar is that it goes against what we understand to be truly effective in generating success and the correct skill set, nothing to do with fear. In fact, I have recently been telling my students to be careful of too much safety in training (training weapons that are too safe, for example) as it leads to dangerous feelings of safety, as I feel that an element of danger is necessary for these arts (on many levels, not just the immediately practical).

For the record, here is a clip of Richard Dmitri applying his RBSD concepts (non-sparring) against a BJJ guy (very hard sparring), just to see the results:

The only thing being said here is that sparring is not the only way to get the skills you are talking about, and there seems to be universal agreement that for self defence, if real contact and hard conditioning are not included, then the training will be rather lacking. That said, this thread is about the benefits/issues with point sparring (as it occurs in non-contact sporting systems; get a point and stop etc), so this conversation of hard sparring versus not sparring at all isn't really the argument. Again, we all seem to agree that hard-style training and contact are important... provided you are training for self defence reasons (just that sparring isn't the only way to achieve that, nor necessarily the best, at least for everyone). Of course, this is making a basic assumption that everyone is training for those reasons. Remember, if someone is training in their system in order to enjoy competition and win tournaments, and those tournaments are designed around point-sparring style matches, it's absolutely ideal. Different strokes and all that... But back on the topic of point sparring, okay? I think we've taken this part about as far as we can.

Fair enough, and respectfully there may be some talking around the same points using different terms and generally saying some of the same things in dramatically different ways...........that tends to happen as different training methodologies develop different terms for similar concepts.

As to point-sparring I think it's safe to say that it's usefulness in self-defense is very limited.