Do you think sparring is essential to learning how to defend yourself?

[Cyriacus]

By fighting, do you mean 'fighting' as in a ring or against a rival in some kind of schoolyard or pecking order type of thing?

I mean, Two people wildly throwing their weight at each other. Fighting Fighting. Not Sport Fighting.

@Cyriacus
And You dont believe that aiming those Fundamentals at a resisting Opponent is going to benefit You in any way? As a personal opinion I feel that any benefits that come from such a process are not worth the costs and time.

I personally see that as an Individual View, and not a fact, much like Your view on the below. You even say it Yourself.

And what about when no Pads or Gear are involved? If there are rules and expectations of safety then I don't see that much difference personally. Fighting is fighting - any attempt at fighting without doing such is NOT fighting IMO.

The same can be said of any Training Method short of going out and Brawling.

And what of the fact that Sparring is representing an Aspect of Fighting, and not Fighting as a whole? I personally see that as an individual view and not a fact at all. I don't spar and yet I fight.

So You go out Brawling? Also, Youre claiming that Sparring doesnt represent any aspect whatsoever of Fighting? Interesting view, albeit one that is not so much Opinion as Observation. Sparring is a practice in hitting an Opponent who is trying to hit You. Sounds like an aspect of Fighting to Me. Theres lots of different Sparring Methods out there, and not all of them are about Points and Touching, or Control and Technique. I believe its Chris, whos commented a couple of times about a Ninjutsu System that does Sparring, but the Sparring always ends up looking like Kickboxing. So if Youre Kickboxing, and the Sparring looks like Kickboxing... See where Im going with this?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I mean, Two people wildly throwing their weight at each other. Fighting Fighting. Not Sport Fighting.

Every single circumstance that I have either witnessed or been involved in where two people were doing this was a result of failure to utilize or effectively utilize verbal skills. Some circumstances that I have witnessed have involved one or both parties consuming alcohol, either prior to or in the process of whatever it was that led to the fight.

 

[jasonbrinn]

It is my opinion that since sparring is not 100% fighting then what is trained in sparring is not 100% of the actual techniques, concepts ,etc. taught to use in "fighting." So, sparring (in my opinion) is really something different and actually requires the ones who spar to "change" or mitigate what they are taught in an effort to train what they are taught. Also, during the sparring sessions the data received, lessons learned, timing, etc. are directly related to adapted techniques and methods required to make sparring safe NOT the actual system being taught for self defense so they actually add filler and bad data to the purity of the methods taught for actual self defense.

On the flip side, again in my opinion, if you actually spend all your time training the actual methods - then fight - then review the data from the fights and make training adjustments from such experiences - then fight - and on along this path you get somewhere better faster. Understand I mean this type of training to also be complimented by fitness training that addresses the actual kinds of physical and mental stressors that occur during a real event for the best results.

I have seen (and unfortunately experienced) most levels of sparring. I would like to say that IF, which is 99% not, I was going to entertain any kind of training again that encouraged anything remotely like sparring it would be of the "Dog Brothers" flavor (which I have actually done in the past).

Again - IMO sparring is not "essential" for self defense training.

 

[Blindside]

This is where a lot of misunderstandings arise; what is sparring? I do not consider force on force training simulations to be sparring or any near equivalent thereof. And the OP was pretty clear about what sparring was in the context of the post.

Well, yes I do think we should attempt to define sparring, the OP used:

Do you think sparring in it's traditional sense (freely trading, parrying, and blocking blows ) is needed in martial arts?

And while simunitions and the like clearly take away the importance of redirecting an opponents attack (duh ), they are absolutely useful for movement under pressure, maintaining good situational awareness, cover, and hitting targets under pressure. That sort of sounds familiar to me....

Sparring in the context of the OP, and in the context of what many of the respondants are saying, is two people placed against each other for the purpose of trading blows for a limited amount of time and within a rule context, written, spoken, or unspoken.

FoF training is also done with all of those standards in mind, you need to for the safety of the participants. As for "trading blows," I don't ever want to "trade blows," I want to hit him and he never hit me, I don't ever want to trade. Unfortunately it usually doesn't work out that way though.

For what I consider "sparring" it is exactly what the OP stated "freely trading, parrying, and blocking blows," but I usually try to mix things up a bit. All my beginners start with equal weapons (unarmed, knife vs. knife, stick vs. stick, machete vs. machete, etc) and then after their first year I mix things up. Usually starting with knife vs. club and unarmed vs. knife. I will also start people in compromising positions against the weapon (not 6 feet away). I absolutely consider this sparring, where most of the tools can come into play at hard contact. One of the things I repeatedly say in my class is "all training is artificial."

I consider sparring to be one of the cornerstones, the other three being basics, techniques, and drills.

 

[MJS]

It is my opinion that since sparring is not 100% fighting then what is trained in sparring is not 100% of the actual techniques, concepts ,etc. taught to use in "fighting." So, sparring (in my opinion) is really something different and actually requires the ones who spar to "change" or mitigate what they are taught in an effort to train what they are taught. Also, during the sparring sessions the data received, lessons learned, timing, etc. are directly related to adapted techniques and methods required to make sparring safe NOT the actual system being taught for self defense so they actually add filler and bad data to the purity of the methods taught for actual self defense.

On the flip side, again in my opinion, if you actually spend all your time training the actual methods - then fight - then review the data from the fights and make training adjustments from such experiences - then fight - and on along this path you get somewhere better faster. Understand I mean this type of training to also be complimented by fitness training that addresses the actual kinds of physical and mental stressors that occur during a real event for the best results.

I have seen (and unfortunately experienced) most levels of sparring. I would like to say that IF, which is 99% not, I was going to entertain any kind of training again that encouraged anything remotely like sparring it would be of the "Dog Brothers" flavor (which I have actually done in the past).

Again - IMO sparring is not "essential" for self defense training.

Do you feel that the simulated training that LEOs and Military do, is good or bad? And why?

 

[jasonbrinn]

I hate to be dodgy about this but, it depends. I favor drills over simulations ALWAYS. The closer the drill can be to the actual thing the better obviously, and the more "elements" of what is experienced in the real thing the better.

LEOs and Military usually have "controlled simulations" where the focus is getting the methods and techniques right in an environment where misses are not immediately anchored to pain. Let's say you are learning to clear a room; 1. you are taught how and why classroom style, 2. you run through the elements specifically, 3. you do a few dry runs talked through them in a simulation, 4. there is a simulation with practice rounds, 5. there is a simulation with live rounds (potentially).

Now if we took that same scenario and applied what sparring is like it would be; 1. you are taught how and why classroom style, 2. you run through the elements specifically, 3. you do a simulation with aggressors placed randomly through the environment firing back. (I think this setup is NOT done not should it be).

Bluntly, drills are better than simulations, REALITY is better than both.

 

[Cyriacus]

Every single circumstance that I have either witnessed or been involved in where two people were doing this was a result of failure to utilize or effectively utilize verbal skills. Some circumstances that I have witnessed have involved one or both parties consuming alcohol, either prior to or in the process of whatever it was that led to the fight.

Yep

It is my opinion that since sparring is not 100% fighting then what is trained in sparring is not 100% of the actual techniques, concepts ,etc. taught to use in "fighting." So, sparring (in my opinion) is really something different and actually requires the ones who spar to "change" or mitigate what they are taught in an effort to train what they are taught. Also, during the sparring sessions the data received, lessons learned, timing, etc. are directly related to adapted techniques and methods required to make sparring safe NOT the actual system being taught for self defense so they actually add filler and bad data to the purity of the methods taught for actual self defense.

And if they dont dumb things down? I know of plenty of places that most assuredly dont, but I can just use Kyokushin Karate as an example. How They Spar and Train can barely be told apart.

On the flip side, again in my opinion, if you actually spend all your time training the actual methods - then fight - then review the data from the fights and make training adjustments from such experiences - then fight - and on along this path you get somewhere better faster. Understand I mean this type of training to also be complimented by fitness training that addresses the actual kinds of physical and mental stressors that occur during a real event for the best results.

Thats alot of fights.

I have seen (and unfortunately experienced) most levels of sparring. I would like to say that IF, which is 99% not, I was going to entertain any kind of training again that encouraged anything remotely like sparring it would be of the "Dog Brothers" flavor (which I have actually done in the past).

Again - IMO sparring is not "essential" for self defense training.

I agree. That doesnt make it bad though, or harmful. Thats what I was addressing. Some Sparring Methods do, but certainly not all.

I hate to be dodgy about this but, it depends. I favor drills over simulations ALWAYS. The closer the drill can be to the actual thing the better obviously, and the more "elements" of what is experienced in the real thing the better.

Drills, like Sparring, are not Real, and are not fighting. Simulations are closer to Fighting, yet You downtalk them. Interesting?

LEOs and Military usually have "controlled simulations" where the focus is getting the methods and techniques right in an environment where misses are not immediately anchored to pain. Let's say you are learning to clear a room; 1. you are taught how and why classroom style, 2. you run through the elements specifically, 3. you do a few dry runs talked through them in a simulation, 4. there is a simulation with practice rounds, 5. there is a simulation with live rounds (potentially).

So Youd prefer it if They just read about the Formations necessary to ensure the Safety of all the Team Members involved, as well as the proper weapon positions, as well as reflexive firing? And Room Clearing Methods, and Breaching to Clear a Room, then Clearing it? Some things need to go beyond individual Theory to be chained together.

Now if we took that same scenario and applied what sparring is like it would be; 1. you are taught how and why classroom style, 2. you run through the elements specifically, 3. you do a simulation with aggressors placed randomly through the environment firing back. (I think this setup is NOT done not should it be).

Bluntly, drills are better than simulations, REALITY is better than both.

By that Logic, Training at all is counterproductive, since it isnt real.

 

[rframe]

Basic learning theories show that people learn in stages.

First you learn individual elements of a concept. For example, when learning to block you learn foot placement and foundation and the basic arm and hand movements. Your brain has to process each of these new things as single units until it's properly recorded. Then you start to learn to do these things together at the same time, building more complex motor skills. Then you start to learn to apply these new groups of skills through blocked practice with cooperative opponent, at this point it's still mostly rote memory movements but you're starting to see how it's used and make small adjustments, finally in free resistive sparring you're able to move into the level of learning called correlation where you learn that if your opponent moves like "this", then implement "that" block, and you start to see weaknesses in your own technique because they are not as effective as they should be so you start to adapt.

Without correlation (which I believe in martial arts is primarily going to occur during resistive training), it's basically just head knowledge, theory, and rote muscle memory skills and while you "might" respond to a real threat appropriately, it's not likely to be as effective as it could be with the confidence and experience you gain through more complete training.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I think that we are all in agreement that resistive training is a requirement in self defense training. But does all resistive training equate to sparring? I suppose that the answer will vary depending upon the individual answering and how sparring has been defined for them in their place of training.

 

[pgsmith]

On the flip side, again in my opinion, if you actually spend all your time training the actual methods - then fight - then review the data from the fights and make training adjustments from such experiences - then fight - and on along this path you get somewhere better faster.

In the self defense situations that I have personally been in, that would be an excellent way to end up dead. I have always made it a point never to 'fight' for fun. If I cannot avoid a fight, it's because someone is trying to kill me, therefore I respond with that same level of force. Thus, if you attempted to employ your training methods against me, you would either wind up in jail because you had to kill me, or dead. Not very conducive to proper training in my opinion, although you'd get plenty of opportunity to practice in prison.

IBut does all resistive training equate to sparring?

That, I think, is the biggest question. It has been my experience that actual technique is of far less importance than many other things for proper self defense unless a person is actually employed in a law enforcement, military, or security position. For the average Joe Martial Artist on the street, situational awareness, a calm demeanor, critical thinking skills, and a strong desire are all much more important than actual technique for self defense. Resistive training of some sort is a good way to train several of these desirous traits, but free sparring is only one kind of resistive training.

Just my two cent's worth, based on my experiences.

 

[Instructor]

Well, yes I do think we should attempt to define sparring, the OP used:



And while simunitions and the like clearly take away the importance of redirecting an opponents attack (duh ), they are absolutely useful for movement under pressure, maintaining good situational awareness, cover, and hitting targets under pressure. That sort of sounds familiar to me....



FoF training is also done with all of those standards in mind, you need to for the safety of the participants. As for "trading blows," I don't ever want to "trade blows," I want to hit him and he never hit me, I don't ever want to trade. Unfortunately it usually doesn't work out that way though.

For what I consider "sparring" it is exactly what the OP stated "freely trading, parrying, and blocking blows," but I usually try to mix things up a bit. All my beginners start with equal weapons (unarmed, knife vs. knife, stick vs. stick, machete vs. machete, etc) and then after their first year I mix things up. Usually starting with knife vs. club and unarmed vs. knife. I will also start people in compromising positions against the weapon (not 6 feet away). I absolutely consider this sparring, where most of the tools can come into play at hard contact. One of the things I repeatedly say in my class is "all training is artificial."

I consider sparring to be one of the cornerstones, the other three being basics, techniques, and drills.

Interesting. From my point of view the worst possible weapon to use against a knife is another knife. Now I have to control two blades instead of one. Then again I have never studied any of the FMA so I am coming from a Hapkido perspective. My favorite non firearm weapon v.s. knife is a good sturdy chair.

 

[Cyriacus]

Interesting. From my point of view the worst possible weapon to use against a knife is another knife. Now I have to control two blades instead of one. Then again I have never studied any of the FMA so I am coming from a Hapkido perspective. My favorite non firearm weapon v.s. knife is a good sturdy chair.

Hehe - This kind of assumes some kind of Fight takes place. When two folks have knives, normally only one of them will have His out, whilst He, You know, stabs You. And if, somehow, You do square off, neither of You are going to be thinking about each others knives.

You (Thinking): "IM GONNA STAB YOU!" *Add some Obsceneties*
Him (Thinking): "IM GONNA STAB YOU!" *Add some Obsceneties*

A strong Chair is a good call but. Id say a small table, a vase, or anything like that would work just as well. You dont need to take them out with it, just set them up to get in or out.

 

[MJS]

I hate to be dodgy about this but, it depends. I favor drills over simulations ALWAYS. The closer the drill can be to the actual thing the better obviously, and the more "elements" of what is experienced in the real thing the better.

LEOs and Military usually have "controlled simulations" where the focus is getting the methods and techniques right in an environment where misses are not immediately anchored to pain. Let's say you are learning to clear a room; 1. you are taught how and why classroom style, 2. you run through the elements specifically, 3. you do a few dry runs talked through them in a simulation, 4. there is a simulation with practice rounds, 5. there is a simulation with live rounds (potentially).

Now if we took that same scenario and applied what sparring is like it would be; 1. you are taught how and why classroom style, 2. you run through the elements specifically, 3. you do a simulation with aggressors placed randomly through the environment firing back. (I think this setup is NOT done not should it be).

Bluntly, drills are better than simulations, REALITY is better than both.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this Jason. The way I view a drill, is something that is done in a static fashion. Focus mitt training is a good example. You decide on the combos you want to do, and the trainer holds the pads accordingly. Little to no movement, nobody hitting back. Now, apply those drills to sparring, and you get much more out of it.

I think alot of the time, people tend to fall back on the crutch of saying, "Well, you can't replicate reality." and that is true. However, there are ways to get close. Again, in a Firearms Training Simulator, the badguy on the screen who's shooting at the cop, really isn't going to 'kill' him, if he gets hit, but its the stress and mindset of the training/drill, that will help the officer on the street.

Of course reality is the best. However, IMHO, I feel its better to learn from your mistakes, so to speak, in the training arena, rather than find out what you drilled, failed you, because you never really were put under any pressure.

 

[puunui]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this Jason. The way I view a drill, is something that is done in a static fashion. Focus mitt training is a good example. You decide on the combos you want to do, and the trainer holds the pads accordingly. Little to no movement, nobody hitting back. Now, apply those drills to sparring, and you get much more out of it.

That's one way of doing focus mitt drills, or pad drills, but from that beginning, the sky is the limit. There is no rule saying that you have to always do it like that. taekwondo's modern training methods, for example, do pad drills or focus mitt drills in an infinite variety of ways.

I think alot of the time, people tend to fall back on the crutch of saying, "Well, you can't replicate reality." and that is true. However, there are ways to get close. Again, in a Firearms Training Simulator, the badguy on the screen who's shooting at the cop, really isn't going to 'kill' him, if he gets hit, but its the stress and mindset of the training/drill, that will help the officer on the street.

How about those obstacle courses with pop up bad guys? I would think that helps as well.

Of course reality is the best. However, IMHO, I feel its better to learn from your mistakes, so to speak, in the training arena, rather than find out what you drilled, failed you, because you never really were put under any pressure.

Exactly. Pressure, even though it does not rise to the level of a real situation all the time, is still better than nothing.

 

[shihansmurf]

It's interesting that it's usually those that don't spar that think you don't need it, while most that do spar are convinced of it's necessity. There could be a hint here….
Bill Shaw :asian:

First off,

Welcome to Martialtalk, Sijo.

That said, I agree 100% with the above. I can only comment on my personal experiences but I've yet to see a martial artist from a school that didn't spar do well against one from a school that spars regularly. Its like the old saw about experience being something you acquire after you need it. Seems better to gain it in a controlled and safe enviornment. If you train to be able to use the skillset in an actual self-defense situation, then training against a non-compliant partner is totaly indispensible.

Isolated technique practice can be extremely effective against hold & grab attacks. I mean you’re already there, in position, ready to go. As long as your opponent doesn’t respond unexpectedly (the potential of which can be the strength or weakness of a technique) you should be good to go! That is, if he goes down as expected. Remember, if all you do is get him to let go, the fight is still on. But now you are no longer in position – which WAS your advantage.

Lee and I teach our students that the grab isn't the attact. The attack is what follows after the initial grab. That being said, I instruct my students to address the grab as it is better to engage the opponent when he has at least one of his tools tied up.

Just a thought.
Mark Chapman

 

[MJS]

That's one way of doing focus mitt drills, or pad drills, but from that beginning, the sky is the limit. There is no rule saying that you have to always do it like that. taekwondo's modern training methods, for example, do pad drills or focus mitt drills in an infinite variety of ways.

Of course. And I'm sure movemen could be added in, ie: the pad holder advancing or retreating, from the puncher, to give them a more realistic feel.

How about those obstacle courses with pop up bad guys? I would think that helps as well.

Sure.

Exactly. Pressure, even though it does not rise to the level of a real situation all the time, is still better than nothing.

Exactly.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

It's interesting that it's usually those that don't spar that think you don't need it, while most that do spar are convinced of it's necessity. There could be a hint here….

I spar. Kendo, taekwondo, and hapkido. I will reiterate that while I don't think that it is essential, I think that it is helpful. I do think that some kind of hard contact/pressure test is essential, however.

 

[Blindside]

Interesting. From my point of view the worst possible weapon to use against a knife is another knife. Now I have to control two blades instead of one. Then again I have never studied any of the FMA so I am coming from a Hapkido perspective. My favorite non firearm weapon v.s. knife is a good sturdy chair.

The FMA perspective is generally "use something," a chair is good, pool cue is good, laptop bag is good, whatever. But a knife is convenient to carry, and so is just another available tool. (edit: It actually also teaches how to control their weapon while bringing yours into play, which is very very valuable. If you can control their weapon while one of your hands if free to do whatever, then this provides a valuable skill and opportunity.) The reason for isolation of a weapon set in the beginning is to start understanding the range of a particular weapon, both of your use and of theirs. We also vary the length of the weapon, so a person could have a longer or short stick/machete or longer or shorter knife. It is really driving the student to understand the "edge of range." In my experience bladed weapon arts do that better than most others, the margin for error is simply far lower.

I will be the first to say that the "duelling" approach that is most often seen in FMA is not very realistic for "real life." I don't expect my students to get in a machete duel. Real life is asymmetric, but we deal with that in the sparring environment as well, and those are the matches that I find the most fun and informative.

 

[puunui]

I will be the first to say that the "duelling" approach that is most often seen in FMA is not very realistic for "real life." I don't expect my students to get in a machete duel. Real life is asymmetric, but we deal with that in the sparring environment as well, and those are the matches that I find the most fun and informative.

Someone gave me a dog brothers gathering video (don't know the exact term used) and what I remember from that is that you didn't see any of the intricate movements that are normally associated with FMA. It looked more like well timed bashing more than anything else. I only watched a small portion of the tape though.

 

[Blindside]

Someone gave me a dog brothers gathering video (don't know the exact term used) and what I remember from that is that you didn't see any of the intricate movements that are normally associated with FMA. It looked more like well timed bashing more than anything else. I only watched a small portion of the tape though.

As a practitioner of FMA, I see all of the movements that I train for in DB matches. Well time bashing? Sure, they are stick fighting. Guy trying to take my head off with big stick? Zone to the outside to avoid the attack and then lean back in and hit him. Simple, elegant, very effective, why would that not be a part of every combative art? Alternately zone to the inside with a roof block and then hit him, or better yet snake over with your left hand to capture their weapon arm and hit him repeately with your weapon. That technique shows up in every weapon based martial art that I have ever seen.

With regard to "intricate movements" there is often a common misconception between "drills" and "sparring." Drills don't have to look like sparring. Drills are often set up at artificial ranges to allow lots of repetition. In the case of Pekiti, many of the drills take place in medium range which is simply for training, for application you transition through the medium range as fast as possible. But the drill allows lots of reps to let you survive that zone and move through it. The important thing is that the student needs to understand the difference between the two.

Fighting with two sticks doesn't look like two people doing siniwali patterns, the siniwalli patterns are just there to train you to use your weapons in a somewhat systematic manner. It is a drill. A good instructor has to move his students beyond the drill into application, and from application to resisted training.