Sparring

[MJS]

This is a topic that usually comes up in certain discussions. Some people think that its a necessary part of training. Others feel that its not that important.

Where do you all fit into this? Do you spar? Do you feel that its a necessary part of training?

 

[Gemini]

Absolutely.

The long version of that was covered in a thread not to long ago called No Sparring = No Rank Advancement.
Sparring offers lessons that in my opinion are essential to martial training. While a regime may not to be centered around it as mine is not, to exclude it leaves valuable lessons unlearned. So yes, not only does "No Sparring = No Rank Advancement", it = you don't train in my school. I won't teach anyone who puts contraints on training. You don't have like it, but you do have to learn it.

​

 

[Big Don]

Without sparring, you might as well teach rifle marksmanship without rifles

 

[seasoned]

If it's the tag type where you stop after each perceived killing point and evaluate the results, then no.

If someone is allowed to stop after a light to moderate hit, to catch their composure, then no.

If you have so much protective gear on that techniques bounce off of you, then no.

If you can't live with the above, then what is the point? You may, be wasting you time, and you may need to stick with a kata based dojo.

 

[Blade96]

Oh yes. We definitely sparr.

 

[Tez3]

Without sparring, you might as well teach rifle marksmanship without rifles

Or swimming without water.

 

[dancingalone]

Sparring can cover a rather large amount of territory. We really need to define what we mean by sparring for it to be meaningful in inter-school discussions.

There's the type where you only spar until someone makes contact, scoring a point. I agree this is largely useless.

There is certain rules-based sparring drills like 'defense only' or 3 combination exchange which are good for working on specific skills.

There is continuous sparring which I think is a useful drill so long as the rounds are long enough or so long as you spar enough rounds to where fatigue sets in. This is useful for building fighting spirit, particularly if a reasonable amount of contact is allow such that pain is a very real possibility if you get tagged.

There is sparring against multiple opponents, again good for developing spirit, although you can learn range & perimeter management if you start out with that intent. I like this drill a lot for advanced students.

And of course there is sparring where take downs and controlling pins or locks are allowed. This is a staple in the classes I teach. It's as close as we can come to practicing our kata bunkai against a resisting opponent as possible, so I obviously think it is invaluable.

 

[baron]

Question in Okinawan when was sparring introduced into Karate? I was told the old timers did not spar. I was told that in Shotokan karate for example, that sparring was not part of the art untill after Funakoshi and that sparring caused a split in Shotokan karate. So if this is true that Funakoshi and other Okinawan masters did not spar then what would be the big deal.

Would we then conclude that Funakoshi would not of been promoted if he did not spar?

(But as we all know there are so many stories in the Martial Arts so I am not saying that the old timers did not spar. This is just what I have been told, that they did not spar.)

 

[ralphmcpherson]

In my view sparring is very important. Learning techniques in nice comfortable stances, aiming at a non moving target will only teach so much. Seeing an opening while off balance and trying to adjust quickly enough to employ a technique is something sparring teaches well. Evasive techs are also best learnt at real speed during sparring, as are reflexes, distancing, footwork and conditioning. We dont spar until blue belt where I train and by the time I hit blue belt I thought I was going great, my forms were good, my kicks were technically sound and I felt the fittest I ever had im my life............then I started sparring and everthing was thrown into disarray. There are some things you will only learn sparring a resisting opponent.

 

[MJS]

For the sake of discussion, I suppose we could define sparring as anything from the tappy-point sparring stuff we see at tournaments, all the way to MMA style. For any grapplers that care to chime in, we could define sparring as their 'free rolling' where they're pressure testing their material.

 

[Ken Morgan]

With swords????!!! Are you nuts????!!!!

Obviously we don't spar in Iaido, thats what kendo is for.

 

[WC_lun]

If your school has self defense as any sort of focus, you must have sparring to some extent. Sparring is an effort to expose students to the stress of live, free flow combat. Even then, notice how quickly most martial artists' skills degrade even in that type of controlled enviroment. A self defense event is usually much higher stress than sparring with greater adrenaline levels. Expecting a student to deal with the threat, the stress, and the physical efffects of adrenaline, with having no prior experience of any of things is not realistic. In fact, it is dangerous and is a great disservice to the student by telling them they can defend themselves, when they have absolutley no experience with those stresses.

 

[teekin]

Well, let us further define "sparring". When rolling you can roll to work on a technique against a fully resisting opponent with him
A. just countering and taking any obvious submissions or
B. he can be actively looking to hurt you.

Both are sparring but in scenario A. you have much more freedom to make mistakes and experiment but it lacks the realism of a real match, can be done fast or slow
B. you have to execute each move rapidly without error, you must stay tight and not loose ballance durring transitions, you can not show weakness or mercy, done at full speed and close to full power.

Same applies to striking. ( although I think striking w/o sparring, eventually hard sparring, is kind of pointless)

Is this critical? for whom? Depends on what Martial Art they do and why they do it in the 1st place. No it's not critical for everyone. Is Tia Chi a Martial Art? Do they need to spar?

Lori

 

[Bruno@MT]

This is a complex topic imo.

Sparring as in 'free fight' is not allowed in our organization. There are several reasons for this. One of them is that it runs counter to the entire concept of what we try to learn. But that doesn't mean that we don't try to bring realism to our training. We do pressure test.

For example, last week we had a training where we pressure tested all forms of tai sabaki, sometimes with different attacks strung together, sometimes without knowing what was coming, and executed at full speed. That is definitely not sparring, but it is realistic training.

Other kinds of presusre testing include have a dedicated attacker and dedicated 'defender' who just tries to end the assault. Based on the skill set of the people involved, it could mean only hitting the chest, or only hits and kicks to the chest, etc. And as the skill of those involved improves, so can the variety of the attacks.

 

[dancingalone]

Question in Okinawan when was sparring introduced into Karate? I was told the old timers did not spar. I was told that in Shotokan karate for example, that sparring was not part of the art untill after Funakoshi and that sparring caused a split in Shotokan karate. So if this is true that Funakoshi and other Okinawan masters did not spar then what would be the big deal.

Would we then conclude that Funakoshi would not of been promoted if he did not spar?

(But as we all know there are so many stories in the Martial Arts so I am not saying that the old timers did not spar. This is just what I have been told, that they did not spar.)

No one really knows the time line, but it does depend on the style you are talking about.

For example shito-ryu (Mabuni Kenwa was an Okinawan, so it is a toss-up whether people count it as an Okinawan style or not - amusingly most outside the style say it is Japanese yet a significant contingent of shito-ryu stylists say it's Okinawan) has had sparring within almost from the beginning. There are pictures of Mabuni donning kendo armor expressively for this purpose.

Shotokan, generally considered a Japanese style now, has had sparring as a key component for decades now, although yes you are right that it was mostly brought in by Funakoshi's students.

I do not know when jiyu kumite was adopted in goju-ryu. It is true that there are many goju-ryu dojo today that still do NOT spar at all. I for one have chosen to use it extensively for advanced students after they have been training for a year or two, and my own teacher an Okinawan also used various sparring drills in his instruction.

You can see the same "some do, others don't" splintering in other styles like uechi-ryu, chito-ryu, shorin-ryu, etc. As a generalization, I would say most karate dojo in North America do have one form of free sparring in one fashion or another.

As for the old-timers... well, we know that several of the Okinawan masters like Kyan Chotoku or Motobu Choki sought out fights to test their skill, and at least one account says that Kyan killed a man in one of these 'tests'. I think these anecdotes bear out the idea that even the older masters thought there was value in training and verifying their skills versus a resistant opponent.

 

[ap Oweyn]

Is Tia Chi a Martial Art? Do they need to spar?

Lori

If they intend to apply taiji, then yeah I think they do. And if they don't intend to apply taiji, then no it isn't a martial art in that particular case. Just my view. It's entirely possible to practice many martial arts in a way that conveys very little martial prowess. Taiji practiced in a park every morning may carry lots of healt benefits, but will yield very little insight on how to use taiji to defend yourself.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Without sparring, you might as well teach rifle marksmanship without rifles

Meaning no disrespect, this is simply not a valid comparison.

I'm not advocating 'no sparring' but this analogy is inapplicable, as in marksmanship, you do not have people actually shooting back at you. I'm sure that there are things that can be done at a shooting range to put the shooter under pressure, but none of that equates to sparring unless your marksmanship classes include paintball, laser tag, or some other form of simulated combat. To my knowledge, marksmanship classes do not include such things in most cases (correct me if I am wrong, as it is certainly possible).

Very few sword arts outside of kendo involve sparring, as they are not fencing. Most all of these are kata based and in some cases, date back to a time period when swords were the most advanced martial weapon of the day. While they may have had the occasional pressure test, so far as I know, sparring was not a part of the regular curriculum.

I'm sure that there are other arts that were entirely kata based as well.

Daniel

 

[Chris Parker]

If they intend to apply taiji, then yeah I think they do. And if they don't intend to apply taiji, then no it isn't a martial art in that particular case. Just my view. It's entirely possible to practice many martial arts in a way that conveys very little martial prowess. Taiji practiced in a park every morning may carry lots of healt benefits, but will yield very little insight on how to use taiji to defend yourself.

Hmm, gonna disagree with you, there, Stuart. Respectfully, you understand, but, well, you're wrong!

Okay, I'll be a little more serious.

As I've said a number of times, there are as many reasons to train in martial arts as there are martial art students, and not all of them train in them to "apply" them. Not all arts are designed to be "applied" in such a manner, either. Ken's already mentioned Iaido and Jodo, and I'll expand on Bruno's answer in a moment, but to that you can also add Kyudo, pretty much all Koryu systems, and many more. Let's take Kyudo.

Kyudo is trained as a solo experience with the aim of perfect unison between self, the bow, the arrow, and the target, even beyond the idea of accuracy in the shot itself. There is no opponent, there is only the target and yourself. But then again, the art teaches you how to draw a bow, notch the arrow, aim accurately, and fire towards a target. It certainly covers both the description of "martial" and "art", to my mind.

Now, if I understand your argument, you are claiming that if it is removed from combative purpose, or self defence application, then it ceases to be a martial art. I'd actually argue the opposite. And it comes down to the application of terminology.

For me, a martial art is beyond simple technically applicable concepts, frankly it has outgrown such base ideologies. Military skills and methods are not martial arts per se, they are military skills and methods. Self defence skills are devoid of the breadth of conceptual detail and knowledge, the depth of subtlty that martial arts encapsulate. They are by necessity simple, gross motor, reliable. Maybe if we think of them as cars (sorry, watching Top Gear right now....), that may help. A military approach can be either a tank, or a jeep. A jeep can have some civilian usage, with soem sacrifice and a fair amount of compromise, but a tank really doesn't. Self defence is a basic, sturdy vehicle, maybe a Ford Transit van for instance. Martial arts, on the other hand, are the luxury and high-end machines, filled with things that are not really necessary, move away from the pure practicalities of the van, in order to give various experiences. And there are as many of these luxury vehicles as there are drivers, some customised to the specific needs of the driver, others more considered "classics", others factory-standard but well-equipped. Hmm, may have gone off on a tangent there....

So it really does come down to why someone is training in a particular art themselves. If it is for self defence, then that should be the priority. If it is sport, then that should be the priority.

Now, as it comes to sparring, I think you and I have been here before, but here we go again! For me, sparring is far from ideal, as it is completely removed from the reality of what I train for, in all the myriad forms that I do. My reasons are many, and listed in various other threads here, but in brief, my biggest complaint is the lack of reality involved. That is closely followed by the restrictions on applicable tactics and expressions of the strategic methods of my art.

This is different to saying that free-form, spontaneous expression of tactics and technique against random, unnominated attacks, all the way to full speed and power, pressure testing, and so forth are bad. In fact, I think they're essential, especially if you're looking at defensive skills being developed. But the common cry of "it's as close as you can get" is frankly wrong. It's not really close at all, when you get down to it. And there are better methods that are far closer to reality and the skill development required. Once again, these are detailed on other threads, but if you ask, I'll go through them here again.

In terms of the tactics that Bruno was talking about, sparring demands certain things, like staying involved in the situation when escape is possible or advisable (and it's one of our first choices, really!). To truly apply the tactics and strategies of our art, frankly, you should be able to run away! And that isn't really given as an option in sparring.

So, uh, no. Sparring is not essential. Unless, of course, it is preparation for sparring-style application (such as sporting competition). But testing of applicability and skills under pressure in a variety of free-form scenario drills, if such applications are your aim, absolutely is.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

For the sake of discussion, I suppose we could define sparring as anything from the tappy-point sparring stuff we see at tournaments, all the way to MMA style. For any grapplers that care to chime in, we could define sparring as their 'free rolling' where they're pressure testing their material.

Sorry; way too broad to answer the question of whether or not sparring is necessary. Unrealistic sparring is inferior to no sparring.

If you are practicing for tournaments and the tournament rules specify tippy-tappy-tag, then congratulations: you're playing a game and not practicing a martial art.

Or the tournament rules specify kicks only, no punches, strategically placed padding a time limit, and no sweeps or grapples, with the victor simply dishing out more hits than received, then congratulations: you're playing a game and not practicing a martial art.

If you are practicing for a tournament where you charge in and the first person to land a solid blow is given a point, with the victor simply dishing out more hits than received, then congratulations: you're playing a game and not practicing a martial art.

If you are practicing for a tournament where two people roll around on the ground and try to submit or pin eachother with striking of any sort prohibited, then congratulations: you're playing a game and not practicing a martial art.

If you are practicing a set of movements in the studio, park, or your back yard with no knowledge of the application of those movements, but are deriving fitness benefits from the execution of said set of movements, then congratulations: you are participating in an exercise program and not practicing a martial art.

I did not include MMA in any of my above commentary. Primarily because MMA really is not an 'art'; it is a rule set that allows techniques from many arts to compete in an open tournament setting. There is no rank advancement: only competition record. MMA is a sport that, to my knowledge, doesn't claim to be a martial art. Competitors consider themselves athletes and are not hung up on whether or not their sport is 'traditional' or not. As there is no rank advancement via the kyu/dan system or any variation thereof, MMA really is outside of the scope of this discussion. Same goes for boxing and sport fencing, which like MMA, have no mechanism for advancement independent of competition.

Nothing wrong with games: football is a game and it is a very tough game to play. Games are fun and there are many valuable lessons to be learned, both in the playing of them and in preparing to play them. But games (and all sports are games) are not martial arts. I'm not holding them up as inferior to martial arts: some games are certainly more challenging than some martial arts.

Nothing wrong with fitness programs either, be they MA derived or not. Fitness programs do what they are intended to do more effectively than a martial art.

Given what I have said above, I suppose then that the question of what constitutes a martial art then comes up. Many do not consider fencing, boxing and wrestling to be martial arts, but kendo, judo and BJJ magically qualify.

At least with kendo, the argument can be made that it contains kata, is trained in the traditional way, blah blah blah. But in the end, the bulk of kendo is essentially striking with a bamboo jo to designated areas using designated techniques. While the school where I train and teach does practice kata, I have heard that kata in kendo has been minimized to a great degree in many schools (no hard facts on that; only hearsay).

If sparring and competition are a core part of the art, as in BJJ and Judo, then no, there should be no advancement without it. If the art does not include a sparring element, for whatever reason (no sparring in kyudo, for example), then sparring should not be considered a qualification for rank advancement.

If you are practicing unrealistic sparring with no venue for competition in a setting where only members of your own school will fall for your techniques and you and your fellow practitioners dress up in costumes and claim to actually be or in the process of becoming a *insert name of ancient warrior*, then congratulations: you're not practicing a martial art or playing a game; you're larping.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

This is different to saying that free-form, spontaneous expression of tactics and technique against random, unnominated attacks, all the way to full speed and power, pressure testing, and so forth are bad. In fact, I think they're essential, especially if you're looking at defensive skills being developed. But the common cry of "it's as close as you can get" is frankly wrong. It's not really close at all, when you get down to it. And there are better methods that are far closer to reality and the skill development required. Once again, these are detailed on other threads, but if you ask, I'll go through them here again.

In terms of the tactics that Bruno was talking about, sparring demands certain things, like staying involved in the situation when escape is possible or advisable (and it's one of our first choices, really!). To truly apply the tactics and strategies of our art, frankly, you should be able to run away! And that isn't really given as an option in sparring.

So, uh, no. Sparring is not essential. Unless, of course, it is preparation for sparring-style application (such as sporting competition). But testing of applicability and skills under pressure in a variety of free-form scenario drills, if such applications are your aim, absolutely is.

I enjoyed reading your post as I do with most of them.

Help me understand this please. As a karate man, I believe there are fundamental strategies embedded within the kata I practice. Most of the strategies I favor involved closing with the foe, striking him in hopefully a destructive fashion and then ending the altercation with a forceful take down or a controlling pin of some fashion.

We can practice these so-called bunkai in a cooperative fashion with a partner where each one of you take turns playing a mannequin for the other to manipulate. At some point however, I think it is imperative to gradually decrease the level of cooperation from the partner until there is none and the two are now actually engaged in a form of free sparring with each seeking to implement the lessons learned from our kata. Of course, the application now looks nothing like our pretty prearranged drills, but we have learned to use the specific teachings in 'organized chaos', and I think this is as close as it gets to real combat as we can simulate in our dojo.

We are seeking to take our kata and gradually build from a static solo exercise to a prearranged partner drill and then finally to a reasonable free form expression. I don't see how we can make a truer simulation. Do you? We have no running kata, so I would preclude discussion of running or other similar strategies as an alternative, even though certainly it might be a best option in reality.