How do you define sparring?

[Daniel Sullivan]

Another thread about schools that do not have sparring seemed to generate a lot of responses where the posters all said very similar things but had different definitions of sparring.

So how do you, or your system define sparring? What is the goal of sparring in your opinion?

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

My own definition is not as rigid as some others. We frequently drill spontaneous reaction drills where uke will attack with his choice of a single or combination attack. The defender then responds in a freeform fashion using the tools and tactics taught in the prearranged lessons such as kata or partner kata or bunkai analysis.

Some would not consider this sparring because it does not have both sides endeavoring to 'win'. The distinction is not a huge one to me. I sometimes call this 'randori' in my dojo and the word does have a sparring connotation to it.

 

[Blindside]

Some sort of competitive action where both (or more) participants are striving to win under an agreed upon set of rules.

The purpose of sparring is to develop particular skills against (skilled) resisting opponents. The different participants may be seeking to develop different skills, as an example, one may be working on closing to grappling range, while the other is trying to keep them off with punching.

I consider feeder and receiver drills, no matter how freeform, to be drills not sparring.

 

[Thesemindz]

Sparring is an intermediate drill designed to help the students develop long range skills, timing, angles, conditioning, and perceptual speed in a spontaneous environment. It's not the purpose of martial arts training, it's not the end or the goal. It's not even a particularly advanced drill. Sparring is a color belt drill. And it's only one spontaneous drill amongst many. As the students advance, they will gradually move towards more fully integrated combat drills incorporating more and more of their techniques. At first, we generally only allow standing hand and foot strikes to the front of the torso. Eventually they should be using grapples, throws, elbows and knees, ground fighting, and strikes to the entire body of the opponent. I bit a guy once.*

It's different for different people, different schools, different styles. But I am teaching street fighting and self defense, and you can't learn to play unless you pick up the instrument. That means getting physical. The only reason we wait until intermediate to start our students sparring is so that they can learn enough to get something out of the exercise. But they start spontaneous training from the very first introductory class.

My old instructor used to say that the patterns (techniques, sets, forms) were the mother of the art. They nurture you and give you guidance. Spontaneous work (sparring, option drills, randori) is the father of the art. It pushes you, challenges you, and shows you where you are weak, and where you are strong.

It's lab work and field work. It's book smarts and street smarts. It's theory and practice. You want to be the best YOU can be? You need both. Without "sparring," it's all just air guitar.


-Rob

 

[Nomad]

Sparring is an elaborate game of refereed tag in a small space. The objective is to nearly touch, tap lightly, thump, or wallop (depending on degree of contact encouraged) a number of well-defined targets using specified legal strikes while protecting your own targets from you opponent's attempts to do the same.

Now, what sparring teaches is, to me, much more interesting. A couple of really important ones off the top are that it teaches you not to panic at incoming strikes, optimal distancing, targeting, and (hopefully) control of your techniques. There are lots more, depending on how the sparring is taught and run.

 

[MJS]

Another thread about schools that do not have sparring seemed to generate a lot of responses where the posters all said very similar things but had different definitions of sparring.

So how do you, or your system define sparring? What is the goal of sparring in your opinion?

Daniel

1) How do I define sparring: Sparring can have many different interpretations. IMO, it is the drilling of a particular skillset. In BJJ, sparring can be defined as 'rolling' or drilling various techniques in an attempt to get a submission, ie: lock, choke, being able to transition from one position to the other, while under pressure. Standing, we are trading strikes and kicks with someone else, in an attempt to land those shots, either for points, or a KO, depending on the goal.

We could also isolate a specific area. Ex: You could drill, again, in a live setting, with pressure, a particular punch, combo, kick, etc. Depending on the goal, sparring can be geared to different things. ie: If you're preparing for a point sparring match, of course, after each clean shot, the match is stopped and a point is awarded. You could do continuous sparring. You could gear the sparring towards MMA.

IMO, just because someone spars or says that they spar, does not mean that they're doing it for competition.

2) What is the goal of sparring: This will vary from person to person, again, depending on what the goal or focus is. For myself, I steer away from the point sparring. I've done it for many years, but my focus has changed. My sparring today is more boxing/MMA oriented. Usually when I spar with my teacher or with workout partners, I usually have a goal or focus in mind. Sometimes we gear up and just go. If we're just working hands, it has the look of boxing to it. Of course, the contact is heavy.

Sometimes I'll focus on clinch work, entering in, where I can drill elbows, knees, ground work, etc. Again, the goal will vary from session to session. It gives the person doing it, a chance to test a specific thing, in a live setting, with resistance and movement.

 

[bluewaveschool]

Without "sparring," it's all just air guitar.


-Rob

i'm stealing this line.

 

[Supra Vijai]

Similar to what dancingalone said, at our school we don't "spar". We drill the kata and introduce free form responses from time to time and the aim isn't to score points or pull off the most impressive take down etc, it's to survive and if possible disengage and move on (if street, if traditional then it's any of the traditional responses you know). There is no right or wrong, there is no failure, it's all a learning experience and done with the mindset of a life and death situation.

 

[Big Don]

At our school sparring is fighting without intent to hurt, badly. As we are told: "Two things will happen in sparring, you WILL get hit, it WILL hurt."
Sparring is about learning to function while under pressure, to take a punch or a kick.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

My own perspective on sparring is that, in the broad sense, it is a contest of sorts where nothing is riding on the outcome. It is not a formal fight (such as one that is part of one's fight record) and there is no prize at stake and nothing to be lost in the exchange.

Sparring, as I use the term, is a free form fight where blows are exchanged and techniques are tried out. Sparring is a partnered exercise in that both fighter are seeking to better their skills while at the same time, each helps the other to better their skill by providing a resisting opponent.

Sparring, as I use the term, differs from tournament preparation, where two opponents fight as if they were in a tournament with all tournament rules applying. I consider that to be a scrimmage.

I also differentiate between sparring and drills, which are often called a type of sparring (such as step sparring).

Drills are designed to ingrain certain responses to certain stimuli, while sparring provides an environment where those responses are tested in free form.

I consider sparring to be a valuable tool. I think that many people misunderstand sparring, thinking of it as being an analog for an actual fight, which it really is not. It does provide some of the elements of an actual fight, something that drills really do not accomplish, at least not to the same extent.

As I said, that is how I use the term. I tend to dislike broad or ambiguous terms, as broad terms allow more room for misunderstanding in communication. Of course use of more specific terms requires that each person in the conversation know, or have some idea of, what the others mean when they use certain terms.

Daniel