Continuous vs Point Sparring

[MadMartigan]

Story time.
Many years ago, I (a young tkd 1st dan in my early 20s) was good naturedly continuous sparring with a karate black belt. The obvious contrast in styles and experience was that he was a better puncher than me; and I was a better kicker than him.

After we had been going for a while (light contact); I got a clear shot with a right leg turning kick to his head. He was a couple inches taller than me; and it was all I could do to stop the kick from following through the target (his noggin). Stopping the kick this way resulted in my leg being stuck over his shoulder and me off balance. He then proceeded to grab the leg and land a couple punches... until I landed on the floor.

Afterward he mentioned that this was why he didn't do high kicks. At that point I had to remind him of the rules of engagement we had been operating under. Since my kick was aimed and timed correctly, it was harder not to follow through than to just crack him over the side of the head. After asking him whether he would still have been able to counter me that way had I actually hit him 1st; he acknowledged that this would likely have changed the entire sequence of events.

I was remembering this interaction today, and got to thinking of the contrasting benefits of Point vs Continuous Sparring.
With Continuous, you develop carrying on fighting whether you've been hit or not etc...
While Point Sparring (assuming no one is getting points for cheezy, weak, glancing strikes that would never have followed through the target) acknowledges the impact a clean and powerful stike has on everything that happens next.

(This all goes without saying... Of course full contact is the gold standard and provides the best realistic training...blah blah, we know).
Right now, I'm just interested in comparative thoughts around this narrow subject matter (point vs continuous).
Go!

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Define point and contionous, there can be any rules applied to them. I have only done light contionous and step "sparring". On a tangent, why is it "point" and contionous? All competition has a point aspect, as how ever are going to determine a winner if no one gets KO'ed, KO is barred or the rules dont facilitate a KO, say light contact. Just weird, i have also seen heavy broken contact(best example would be HEMA, they break afetr each good blow), and contionous point contact.

If its for sparring, the nuances dont really matter, its for learning. If somone is off about sparring, you can use the close to hitting rules to ween them into it. Its kind of the live version of the "slip this punch" in pads. Only issue comes if you sell near contact as being the same as contact.

Addendum: actually on that, all sparring should be light contact rules, your not trying to knock the other person out. Maybe medium contact, if we use heavy to mean trying to hurt them.

 

[_Simon_]

Yeah great topic! And cool story too.

My foundation is in full contact continuous sparring, but the last few years I've actually entered point sparring tournaments. This tournament also holds continuous, but I actually really love point sparring, feels more exciting and dynamic, so I only entered this and forms.

To me point sparring really focuses on speed, accuracy, control, agility, timing, setting up for clean points etc.

Continuous, while also having these elements to some degree, seems more about dominating the match in its entirety, who got the most shots in and who defended the most too. But seems to look at the match as a whole rather than that single technique.

Both are fascinating for sure.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Point sparring is a form of martial arts contest where the rules award a point to the first 'clean' blow landed, according to the judges. It therefore favors speed and aggression over strategy and patience. Depending upon the rules in place and the judges, as well as other factors, it can also favor impractical, useless, or even dangerous techniques that have no place in the larger world of self-defense. Leaping in the air and tapping someone on the head, for example, is a valid point. And it will get you destroyed in a 'real' fight. There is almost no value in blocking unless it is an open, clearly obvious, block to strike. Subtle techniques which are extremely useful are not of value either, for many reasons.

Continuous sparring is a timed event that is more similar to a boxing match in that opponents continue to fight until time is called, at which time points are added up by judges and a winner declared based on who has the most points. It favors strategy and counter-engagement as well as speed and aggression. Stamina is more important in continuous sparring, as a 90 second round can cause many to gas out.

In both cases, points are awarded based on what judges see and recognize as a clean technique, which favors obvious blows and huge yells when landing a blow. More subtle and perhaps dangerous techniques are not of as much value, as they may not be seen when delivered by the judges, even if the opponent feels it.

In both cases, there are rule sets intended to protect the safety of the opponents, and safety gear is typically required as well. This lends itself to techniques that work within those rules, and discourage those that do not, no matter how effective they might be. We are wise to not allow eye gouges, for example. But self-defense? Hey, if the option is there, take it.

Both have some value, IMHO. Both can be good entertainment, for participants as well as spectators. I do not think anyone argues that either one is a substitute for actual fighting, but the fact that a) we live in a litigious society, b) many participants are children or adults who have day jobs and don't want to show up to work with busted toes, hands, or faces, and c) for most, martial arts is a recreational activity and not a profession, make it a more rational choice for most modern martial artists.

I have not judged a lot of sparring contests, but more than a couple. I can say that I find it very difficult to pick out the clean techniques in a flurry of strikes. There is often disagreement from corner judges about what happened in any given clash. Some judges are better than others, of course, and I may just not be very good at it.

My focus is no longer on sparring or competing. I will spar in the dojo, but mostly to allow students to practice techniques on me, while I merely defend and move to give them the opportunity. I use that time to work on techniques that again would have no value in a competition, such as showing an opening and taking it away, taking blows in ways that I can absorb the strike and return the energy, etc.

I don't choose not to compete because I think I'm better than that, or that I fancy myself some sort of champion. I have driven home from tournaments nursing a broken hand from improperly blocking a kick, and I've accidentally broken a competitor's nose because he dropped his guard and I struck without thinking. I have won and lost, but mostly lost. I'm good with it, but I'm also done. It's not a question of not having anything left to prove, it's a case of not being interested in that anymore.

 

[isshinryuronin]

To me point sparring really focuses on speed, accuracy, control, agility, timing, setting up for clean points etc.

Continuous, while also having these elements to some degree, seems more about dominating the match in its entirety, who got the most shots in and who defended the most too. But seems to look at the match as a whole rather than that single technique.

Right about "clean" and precise technique - a big plus for point sparring, and the tendency for sloppiness in exchange for power and domination in continuous. Both have their advantages and liabilities in the overall scheme of fighting. Sort of two sides of the same coin. But in both cases, the coin is tournament competition. As Bill mentioned, subtlety and the most dangerous techniques are missing in both. That's the sport, and that's great. People just need to realize there is the non-sport aspect of karate as well.

 

[skribs]

Story time.
Many years ago, I (a young tkd 1st dan in my early 20s) was good naturedly continuous sparring with a karate black belt. The obvious contrast in styles and experience was that he was a better puncher than me; and I was a better kicker than him.

After we had been going for a while (light contact); I got a clear shot with a right leg turning kick to his head. He was a couple inches taller than me; and it was all I could do to stop the kick from following through the target (his noggin). Stopping the kick this way resulted in my leg being stuck over his shoulder and me off balance. He then proceeded to grab the leg and land a couple punches... until I landed on the floor.

Afterward he mentioned that this was why he didn't do high kicks. At that point I had to remind him of the rules of engagement we had been operating under. Since my kick was aimed and timed correctly, it was harder not to follow through than to just crack him over the side of the head. After asking him whether he would still have been able to counter me that way had I actually hit him 1st; he acknowledged that this would likely have changed the entire sequence of events.

I was remembering this interaction today, and got to thinking of the contrasting benefits of Point vs Continuous Sparring.
With Continuous, you develop carrying on fighting whether you've been hit or not etc...
While Point Sparring (assuming no one is getting points for cheezy, weak, glancing strikes that would never have followed through the target) acknowledges the impact a clean and powerful stike has on everything that happens next.

(This all goes without saying... Of course full contact is the gold standard and provides the best realistic training...blah blah, we know).
Right now, I'm just interested in comparative thoughts around this narrow subject matter (point vs continuous).
Go!

I think this is part of why things get skewed: rules. Grappling will win 100% of the time in light contact, because you can go full force in grappling without injuring your opponent.

 

[Yokozuna514]

Interesting topic. When it comes to continuous sparring, knockdown rules seem to be 'different' than what Bill described. Points are not awarded simply for clean blows. Half points can be awarded for a legal blow that causes the opponent to react with pain (ie: A blow significant enough to stop register the strike from the fighter) or removes their will to fight. A full point is awarded for a blow that stops the fighter from continuing to fight for more than 3 seconds or in the event of a knockout. No gear is worn for Knockdown save for an athletic cup for men and a chest protector for women.

Semi-knockdown is knockdown with gear. Gear encompasses shin guards, gloves, helmets and chest protectors. Chest protectors are not worn after 14 but that is also dependent on the tournament director who can raise the age of this requirement based on the experience of the participants that attend. Intensity is based on age and skill level (ie: The younger the participants the quicker the quicker the reaction time is for the judges to award a 1/2 point). Safety of the participants is paramount and thus children are 'eased' into semi-knockdown gradually to allow them to get used to the level of contact which will only increase as they get older and become more experienced.

Having judged at this level, we do use the 'theory' of a 'clean' shot when it comes to kicks to the head only. All other targets are typically the same as full knockdown. If two fighters of 8 years old want to score a half point with a leg kick, they need to demonstrate that the leg kick elicits a reaction from their opponent.

The rule set favours the use of accuracy and power however the 'no face punch' rule can encourage fighters to be closer than may actually be practical if face punches were allowed. That is the sport and those are the rules. It is meant originally as a war of attrition and to make the matches longer then would be possible if face punches would be allowed. Also as Bill said, most people do this for recreational purposes and have day jobs that may frown on employees coming in with black eyes and missing teeth. It still can happen from a head kick but that requires a higher degree of skill to land.

This is not to say that this ruleset is better or worse than what Bill described, it is just different. The difference is to encourage participants to condition their bodies against full power strikes or to face the consequences for being unprepared.

 

[WaterGal]

While Point Sparring (assuming no one is getting points for cheezy, weak, glancing strikes that would never have followed through the target) acknowledges the impact a clean and powerful stike has on everything that happens next.

If you land a clean and powerful strike in continuous sparring, that has an effect on what happens next in the match. A KO can end the whole match. So I'm not really understanding what you mean by point sparring doing a better job of acknowledging the impact that that kind of strike can have.

 

[MadMartigan]

If you land a clean and powerful strike in continuous sparring, that has an effect on what happens next in the match. A KO can end the whole match. So I'm not really understanding what you mean by point sparring doing a better job of acknowledging the impact that that kind of strike can have.

True... but that only applies within the context of full or near full contact continuous sparring. Not the style I was referencing.

 

[WaterGal]

True... but that only applies within the context of full or near full contact continuous sparring. Not the style I was referencing.

That's fair. I'm used to continuous sparring between adults being medium- to full-contact, and point sparring being light- to no-contact. I haven't personally ever seen no-contact continuous sparring.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I haven't personally ever seen no-contact continuous sparring.

We've tried it, but continuous sparring eventually starts to snowball and morphs into adrenalin contact. That's probably why you haven't seen it. No-contact continuous is oxymoronic.

 

[JerryL]

It's all point sparring. The variation is what counts as a "point"... whether it's "contact" or "an unconscious opponent".

 

[skribs]

I call it "point-break" and "continuous", because you can have continuous point sparring. A "point" could be "I touched you" or it could be "I knocked you down", depending on the rules. Continuous sparring can also be for knockout/submission. In many arts, you'll have both a point system and a finishing condition. For example, Taekwondo has a point system (but you can win by knockout), and MMA you go for the knockout or submission (but can win on points if time expires).

One of the big advantages of point-break sparring is that it places a heavy emphasis on every failure. If your opponent gets a point, then that means you failed. Each success or failure is measured in split seconds, instead of over the course of a round. This applies in a self-defense situation where you want to avoid getting grabbed or tagged at all costs. For example, if your opponent has a knife, then every strike that lands is potentially a devastating blow. If you're fighting more than one opponent, then every time you're grabbed for more than a second or two, the other opponent(s) have a great opportunity where you're defenseless.

Let's move away from striking for a bit, and look at grappling. In BJJ, you can quite often stall at a position while you come up with your plan for the next move (or just to catch your breath). As long as you can defend against your opponent's attempts to change position, you have plenty of time. This would be the "continuous" sparring style. In my Hapkido class, if we take more than a few seconds to control our opponent, my Master says "you died". It means we've failed, and we need to try again.

On the one hand, I like that it pushes you to be explosive and precise in your techniques. If I am against a bigger, stronger opponent, then as soon as he realizes I'm fighting back, it's going to be much more difficult for me to apply my techniques. Therefore, we do not want to give them a chance to react. On the other hand, it comes at the cost that we don't do "failure drills". In gun-fu, a failure drill is planning to deal with a failure in your weapon. It could be clearing a jam, drawing another weapon, using your off-hand (in the event your main hand is injured or otherwise occupied). A BJJ fighter is going to go more in-depth on what to do if they fail in the first few seconds. For them, the round isn't over yet.

I personally think the only wrong method is to only do one or the other. I do wish we did more continuous sparring in hapkido. I've also seen BJJ belt tests which are more along the lines of point-break (i.e. "get out of this submission" or "advance your position").

 

[TSDTexan]

Point sparring is a form of martial arts contest where the rules award a point to the first 'clean' blow landed, according to the judges. It therefore favors speed and aggression over strategy and patience. Depending upon the rules in place and the judges, as well as other factors, it can also favor impractical, useless, or even dangerous techniques that have no place in the larger world of self-defense. Leaping in the air and tapping someone on the head, for example, is a valid point. And it will get you destroyed in a 'real' fight. There is almost no value in blocking unless it is an open, clearly obvious, block to strike. Subtle techniques which are extremely useful are not of value either, for many reasons.

Continuous sparring is a timed event that is more similar to a boxing match in that opponents continue to fight until time is called, at which time points are added up by judges and a winner declared based on who has the most points. It favors strategy and counter-engagement as well as speed and aggression. Stamina is more important in continuous sparring, as a 90 second round can cause many to gas out.

In both cases, points are awarded based on what judges see and recognize as a clean technique, which favors obvious blows and huge yells when landing a blow. More subtle and perhaps dangerous techniques are not of as much value, as they may not be seen when delivered by the judges, even if the opponent feels it.

In both cases, there are rule sets intended to protect the safety of the opponents, and safety gear is typically required as well. This lends itself to techniques that work within those rules, and discourage those that do not, no matter how effective they might be. We are wise to not allow eye gouges, for example. But self-defense? Hey, if the option is there, take it.

Both have some value, IMHO. Both can be good entertainment, for participants as well as spectators. I do not think anyone argues that either one is a substitute for actual fighting, but the fact that a) we live in a litigious society, b) many participants are children or adults who have day jobs and don't want to show up to work with busted toes, hands, or faces, and c) for most, martial arts is a recreational activity and not a profession, make it a more rational choice for most modern martial artists.

I have not judged a lot of sparring contests, but more than a couple. I can say that I find it very difficult to pick out the clean techniques in a flurry of strikes. There is often disagreement from corner judges about what happened in any given clash. Some judges are better than others, of course, and I may just not be very good at it.

My focus is no longer on sparring or competing. I will spar in the dojo, but mostly to allow students to practice techniques on me, while I merely defend and move to give them the opportunity. I use that time to work on techniques that again would have no value in a competition, such as showing an opening and taking it away, taking blows in ways that I can absorb the strike and return the energy, etc.

I don't choose not to compete because I think I'm better than that, or that I fancy myself some sort of champion. I have driven home from tournaments nursing a broken hand from improperly blocking a kick, and I've accidentally broken a competitor's nose because he dropped his guard and I struck without thinking. I have won and lost, but mostly lost. I'm good with it, but I'm also done. It's not a question of not having anything left to prove, it's a case of not being interested in that anymore.

Personal anecdote. In the Old school MDK Tangsoodo dojang that I attended while in high school, we sparred light contact and pulled back power when striking each other, but when kicking the heavy bag, or the kicking shield it was always at max power.

We were drilled until we had proper technique and control over how much power, and speed we had in our strikes.

We were told to use control. Control is evidence of technique mastery.

After I left San Antonio, and moved to Austin, I entered a karate tournament. I was disqualified in the first match because I KO'd an opponent. It was under A.O.K. ruleset... It was point fighting, but KOs were legal.

Later on, I was told that the judge was a BB of the same school and that they trained point fighting without committment. The REF was worried that I was going to hurt people because I wasn't pulling power back.

The late 80's saw karate tournaments become "safer" to appease Soccer moms, who wanted their sons to bring home 6foot trophys.

I entered the tournament to see if anyone could really fight. I wanted to fight people who could fight. I was very disappointed.

Gone were the days, that my teacher spoke of, when guys would show up and challenge the head instructor. Koreans who were sent to the hospital by other Koreans.

The 60s and 70s point tournaments were a lot more like knockdown back then. Broken ribs, collarbones etc. were par for the course.

Some more background....
Sparing at the dojang was always proceeded by at least a five mile run from the dojang to a city park.

It was to gas us out before we sparred. When we were not gassing out anymore from that five mile run it became seven miles.
We were usually shaking by the time we were being squared up.
I remember puking once because I had eaten just before class, thinking we would not be sparing that day.
My teacher made me learn a valuable lesson. Fight on an empty stomach. The fact that I was puking my guts out when we got to the park, only made me first up. I had the crap kicked out of me by class mates that were usually not that difficult.
He kept me sparing partner after partner, until I started fighting like I was supposed to. After my last round, was off to the side with dry heaves, until we started jogging back with all our bumps and bruises. I gained a gup belt the next class because I was questioned what I learned from last class, and from the way we trained our sparring.

The lesson was running to or from a fight was a decision you were to make whole heartedly. Commit or avoid. Most fights are to be avoided, and avoid with 100% commitment.
If you fight, you fight through all discomfort, and you do not hold anything back.


This answer was pleasing to our boss.


We were not sports oriented, nor was there emphasis on personal development in the sense of becoming better people. The mindset was there is no winning or loosing here, only avoiding death or injury by defending yourself or others.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My last tournament, I broke my opponent's nose. I was not trying to break his nose. He dropped his guard as he was backing up, and I hit him. I felt bad about it. I hadn't though about the punch, either. It just went all by itself. Mushin moment, I guess.

But it made me realize that I do not train to spar. I train for many different things, but sport is not one of them. I am not against sport karate. I enjoy watching it, I think it's fine, but it isn't my thing anymore. I would have to train a different way.

So I no longer compete. I am not posturing or proclaiming any kind of superiority - I was never that good at sparring in competition anyway.

 

[JowGaWolf]

After we had been going for a while (light contact); I got a clear shot with a right leg turning kick to his head. He was a couple inches taller than me; and it was all I could do to stop the kick from following through the target (his noggin). Stopping the kick this way resulted in my leg being stuck over his shoulder and me off balance. He then proceeded to grab the leg and land a couple punches... until I landed on the floor.

Afterward he mentioned that this was why he didn't do high kicks. At that point I had to remind him of the rules of engagement we had been operating under. Since my kick was aimed and timed correctly, it was harder not to follow through than to just crack him over the side of the head. After asking him whether he would still have been able to counter me that way had I actually hit him 1st; he acknowledged that this would likely have changed the entire sequence of events.

This is the challenge that you'll have with light sparring. Even though you aren't getting hit with hard strikes, you and your sparring partner have to be honest about what would have landed and the possible impact it would have if it was originally thrown hard. Both have to be honest about the attacks they use. Landing a light strike doesn't always mean that you have the capability to land a hard version of that. This usually occurs with new and weak techniques (weak as in not used to using a specific technique). As long as both are honest about that, you'll get a lot of good use of that type of sparring. But it requires a lot of honesty and the ability to acknowledge when a mistake was made. Your partner should be able to clearly see when you are pulling power from a strike. In situations like that, my general rule is that if a person is able to land a slower lighter strike against my will, then they can clearly land a more power version of that. That's when I start correcting my poor defense so that not even lighter strikes land.

Since my kick was aimed and timed correctly, it was harder not to follow through than to just crack him over the side of the head. After asking him whether he would still have been able to counter me that way had I actually hit him 1st; he acknowledged that this would likely have changed the entire sequence of events.

This is the feedback that you want to hear from a sparring partner. This informs you that your kick was on point and that it would have affected him in a negative way. All without having to kick someone's head off to approve otherwise. Even if this kick was weak for you, it's still a danger for your partner as it's possible to fight or spar against someone with a more powerful kick that will get through just like your pulled kick did.

People sometimes forget that you may not be the one landing the same technique.

I prefer continuous sparring because it includes recovery, refocus, cardio, and follow up combos. You not only have to deal with the strike that lands but you also have to deal with the strikes that follow.

 

[JowGaWolf]

My last tournament, I broke my opponent's nose. I was not trying to break his nose. He dropped his guard as he was backing up, and I hit him. I felt bad about it. I hadn't though about the punch, either. It just went all by itself. Mushin moment, I guess.

But it made me realize that I do not train to spar. I train for many different things, but sport is not one of them. I am not against sport karate. I enjoy watching it, I think it's fine, but it isn't my thing anymore. I would have to train a different way.

So I no longer compete. I am not posturing or proclaiming any kind of superiority - I was never that good at sparring in competition anyway.

I don't train to spar either. I spar to learn how to use my techniques and how to deploy them with the focus of landing a solid strike. This also includes learning how to exploit openings and vulnerabilities of my opponent. If I see an opening and my opponent doesn't know he's open then I'm going to take it by habit. I already know that I'm not a good fit for today's popular point sparring. Some techniques require that I strike my opponent hard so that it disrupts his ability to counter with a strike. Not every technique works at a lower power level.