How important is contact sparring in MA?

[Tony Dismukes]

I cannot claim something that is not realistically possible. In order to have such as study it would need to be falsifiable and repeatable. You would have to have the same type of attack, with the same factors, with the same person under the same stress. And it would have to be repeatable. That isn't within the scope of a scientific study.

That was kind of my point. I could certainly design a study to address the issue, but it would be wildly impractical to ever get it done properly in the real world. That's why I take issue when you say that you have scientific research backing up your claim that sparring is counterproductive for developing self-defense skills.

What is (and are referenced in mine and others links) are studies behind the the methodology in which we train. Training used to be simply by rote and nothing else. That instilled bad habits. Since training was changed to a scenario based format, using the totality of what I've described we haven't had any officers killed with an empty gun, full mags and a pocket full of brass. We haven't had any officers disarm someone and then hand the gun back to the bad guy. Call it anecdotal if you like, but it is real world examples that demonstrate one methodology was sub-optimal to the other. Doesn't make the methodology perfect and bad things still happen but mistakes have been learned from.

If you're strictly looking for stats and % then I can offer two off the top of my head. The first is with the Boatman edged weapon defense system. Prior to it being instituted, officers were being injured 86% of the time in edged weapon altercation took place. After implementation it dropped to 17% within two years.

That's all excellent support for the idea that your current training methodology is sound, something that I've never questioned. I'm not sure how it demonstrates that sparring is not useful for developing skills and attributes for self-defense. Was the previous "rote" training which has been improved upon sparring based? If so, how was the sparring conducted? If not, how do your improved results say anything one way or the other about the usefulness of sparring?

Personally, for my women's SD course, no woman I've trained has ever been successfully raped and of those that had an attempt the attempt was defeated. That is a small sampling in the totality of the overall population, but it is personal experience.

How exactly do you determine that none of your former students has ever been raped? Do you conduct annual surveys of every woman who has taken your course to ask "have you been raped this year?" Regarding those students you know of that successfully fended off a rapist - how many incidents are we talking about? 5? 10? 20? 50? How does that compare to the number of LEO use-of-force incidents that you have studied or been involved in?

My point is this:

If you have been personally involved in a large number of violent incidents and it's not required by your profession, then you are failing badly at the most important aspect of self-protection - staying out of trouble. You might be an expert in fighting, but not in actual self-defense.

If you have been personally involved in a large number of violent incidents and it is required by your profession, then you may be an expert in handling violence within the context you professionally deal with - cop, bouncer, soldier, corrections officer, etc - but not necessarily in other contexts. (This is a point Rory Miller has made repeatedly: the world of violence is too big for any person to be expert in it all.)

The conclusion from the previous two facts is that no one can honestly claim to be truly expert in all the aspects of how to train for civilian self-defense the way that a veteran cop can be an expert in taking down a suspect or a veteran boxing coach can be an expert at how to prepare for the ring. The extensive data set just isn't there to draw from. We can take the limited data we do have and extrapolate from the lessons learned in other contexts, but there's always going to be a degree of uncertainty.

Beyond that, I've tried to answer your questions to the best I've understood them and to the best of my ability. That's the best I can offer. I maintain my position because it is what I've seen and experienced and experienced from others. Sport sparring is best for sport, live/street/scenario 'sparring' is best for SD. I've listed the reasons why already so I won't rehash the same thing.

YMMV

In that case I'm wondering if you've actually understood my 3rd question in my 10:46 am post, because I haven't seen anything you've written that answers it one way or the other or even indicates that you even read it. I thought I phrased it clearly, but perhaps I was mistaken. Let me know if I need to clarify what I'm asking.

And just in case I'm going blind and somehow missing the answer - if anyone else can spot where Kong answered my question, please point it out to me or translate if I'm just being too dense to understand.

 

[K-man]

You posited a certain limited conception of sparring. To back that up you gave a list of 12 questions regarding our sparring practices, clearly expecting certain responses. Some folks, such as myself, gave answers showing that sparring can include much more than you seem to think. Do you still object to sparring when it includes all those options (different environments, weapons, multiple opponents, etc)? If so, why?

I'm assuming that this is the question referred to.

That was kind of my point. I could certainly design a study to address the issue, but it would be wildly impractical to ever get it done properly in the real world. That's why I take issue when you say that you have scientific research backing up your claim that sparring is counterproductive for developing self-defense skills.

That's all excellent support for the idea that your current training methodology is sound, something that I've never questioned. I'm not sure how it demonstrates that sparring is not useful for developing skills and attributes for self-defense. Was the previous "rote" training which has been improved upon sparring based? If so, how was the sparring conducted? If not, how do your improved results say anything one way or the other about the usefulness of sparring?

In that case I'm wondering if you've actually understood my 3rd question in my 10:46 am post, because I haven't seen anything you've written that answers it one way or the other or even indicates that you even read it. I thought I phrased it clearly, but perhaps I was mistaken. Let me know if I need to clarify what I'm asking.

And just in case I'm going blind and somehow missing the answer - if anyone else can spot where Kong answered my question, please point it out to me or translate if I'm just being too dense to understand.

I think you are both arguing the same side to be honest and you are both making equally valid points. To me the confusion arises from the ambiguous definition of 'sparring'. 'Sparring' in this context means about 80% of my training, yet basically in the conventional sense we don't spar at all. Basically in the context of this thread you are both arguing that both your forms of training equip you for the street, that is a street fight. KSD's training is designed with his profession in mind, your form of training equips you for the ring. Where some of us were arguing against against sparring in an earlier thread, no one is arguing against sparring in this one. What KSD is against are some forms of sport sparring and I would agree with him. To me, those forms of sparring would be against the principles of the training. I doubt there would be 'scientific' evidence on either side of the equation. I figure we are all going to have an opinion based on our own experience.
:asian:

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I'm assuming that this is the question referred to.

Yep.

I think you are both arguing the same side to be honest and you are both making equally valid points. To me the confusion arises from the ambiguous definition of 'sparring'. 'Sparring' in this context means about 80% of my training, yet basically in the conventional sense we don't spar at all. Basically in the context of this thread you are both arguing that both your forms of training equip you for the street, that is a street fight. KSD's training is designed with his profession in mind, your form of training equips you for the ring. Where some of us were arguing against against sparring in an earlier thread, no one is arguing against sparring in this one. What KSD is against are some forms of sport sparring and I would agree with him. To me, those forms of sparring would be against the principles of the training. I doubt there would be 'scientific' evidence on either side of the equation. I figure we are all going to have an opinion based on our own experience.
:asian:

Well, that's what I'm trying to get an answer to. Kong has declared that there is sport sparring for the ring and scenario training for the street. He has yet to acknowledge the existence of the non-sport oriented sparring that I have referenced. This type of sparring is not scenario training - it has a different focus and purpose - but it doesn't have all the limitations that he ascribes to sparring in general. I'm trying to determine if he still objects to this sort of sparring as one aspect of self-defense training or if his objections only apply to some forms of sport sparring as you say.

 

[drop bear]

I'm assuming that this is the question referred to.

I think you are both arguing the same side to be honest and you are both making equally valid points. To me the confusion arises from the ambiguous definition of 'sparring'. 'Sparring' in this context means about 80% of my training, yet basically in the conventional sense we don't spar at all. Basically in the context of this thread you are both arguing that both your forms of training equip you for the street, that is a street fight. KSD's training is designed with his profession in mind, your form of training equips you for the ring. Where some of us were arguing against against sparring in an earlier thread, no one is arguing against sparring in this one. What KSD is against are some forms of sport sparring and I would agree with him. To me, those forms of sparring would be against the principles of the training. I doubt there would be 'scientific' evidence on either side of the equation. I figure we are all going to have an opinion based on our own experience.
:asian:

See I don't necessarily think training against the principles is neccecarily a bad thing. As it can open you up to be more versatile. Anyone who does more than one style will train against their own principles.

Your argument is also the argument against kata. If it is not fighting it has no worth.

It even shoots the non contact guys in the foot. Because that is not really fighting.

And considering we really only have anecdotal it works for me arguments it is a big call to make to be honest.

 

[drop bear]

Fairly interesting commentary on mc map and the issues the practitioners had with it.

MCMAP Practioners: What do you view as the high and low points of your training? : martialarts

I am trying to find mcmap sparring but came across this first. This is kind of my issue with security guard training as well.

 

[K-man]

See I don't necessarily think training against the principles is neccecarily a bad thing. As it can open you up to be more versatile. Anyone who does more than one style will train against their own principles.

Then I would argue that the main principles work across all styles. Maintaining your centre, not clashing, keeping relaxed, proper breathing etc. apply to all martial arts I have experienced. What opposite principle should I embrace? Should I tense up and hold my breath?

Your argument is also the argument against kata. If it is not fighting it has no worth.

It even shoots the non contact guys in the foot. Because that is not really fighting.

Kata per se is not fighting. Once you unpack the Kata and start working on the bunkai it is certainly within the definition of fighting and in the context of this thread it is part of sparring.

And considering we really only have anecdotal it works for me arguments it is a big call to make to be honest.

There is no 'science' either way. YouTube can be trash or treasure and proves nothing. It may well be an example of something but that is all it is.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

Then I would argue that the main principles work across all styles. Maintaining your centre, not clashing, keeping relaxed, proper breathing etc. apply to all martial arts I have experienced. What opposite principle should I embrace? Should I tense up and hold my breath?
Kata per se is not fighting. Once you unpack the Kata and start working on the bunkai it is certainly within the definition of fighting and in the context of this thread it is part of sparring.

There is no 'science' either way. YouTube can be trash or treasure and proves nothing. It may well be an example of something but that is all it is.
:asian:

So what works? boxing's hunch or wing chuns straight back. How about wrestling's low hands and heavy legs vs Thai boxings high hands and floating front leg. Which of those martial arts is wrong?

Are you arguing kata from you own bias or are you applying it to the principle that if it is not realistic it is not relevant? Own bias sure. I know guys who kata,who fight hard,who say kata helps. Fair enough, but that is not your test for legitimacy is it?

YouTube is the best we have at the moment short of me falling back on my fifteen years of bouncing and fighting people and training with guys who have fought people in the ring and on the street. And that the method I advocate is right because it is my head on the block all the time if it goes pear shaped. So if I am wrong then I am in a lot of trouble.

And I can't because then everybody would just have to believe me due to some degree of worship rather than me actually having enough knowledge about the subject to put forwards an independent case.

And I am not here for that sort of validation.

 

[K-man]

So what works? boxing's hunch or wing chuns straight back. How about wrestling's low hands and heavy legs vs Thai boxings high hands and floating front leg. Which of those martial arts is wrong?

Neither because that is not a principle that crosses styles. They are characteristics of those styles.

Are you arguing kata from you own bias or are you applying it to the principle that if it is not realistic it is not relevant? Own bias sure. I know guys who kata,who fight hard,who say kata helps. Fair enough, but that is not your test for legitimacy is it?

If it wasn't realistic I wouldn't have it in my curriculum. I have invited anyone to identify any part of my curriculum that you couldn't use in a street fight and I will throw it out. If the kata bunkai was not a fighting system I wouldn't be training with Masaji Taira twice a year or visiting New Zealand later this month. In fact I wouldn't be bothered with it at all. Kata helps very little, at least what the average person sees of kata. Kata is like a zip file on your computer. Without expanding it, it does nothing. Do you need kata to be an effective fighter? No. Can kata make you a more effective fighter? Not really. Can the kata bunkai make you a more effective fighter? Most likely. But again, training kata is not a principle. Kata contain principles but kata training is methodology.

YouTube is the best we have at the moment short of me falling back on my fifteen years of bouncing and fighting people and training with guys who have fought people in the ring and on the street. And that the method I advocate is right because it is my head on the block all the time if it goes pear shaped. So if I am wrong then I am in a lot of trouble.

With respect, there is an enormous amount of crap on YouTube. Half the time it is not even labeled correctly. Who determines what is good and what is bad? Just because something is not on YouTube doesn't prove anything. Sorry that is one of the biggest load of brown stuff that we have to contend with on MT.

And I can't because then everybody would just have to believe me due to some degree of worship rather than me actually having enough knowledge about the subject to put forwards an independent case.

And I am not here for that sort of validation.

And this sentence seems not to make sense! Are you saying that without YouTube we would just have to take your word for something? If that is the case I would agree. I can accept on face value what you claim to have done and what you claim to be. If push came to shove or the situation arose I could train with you and see first hand what you are talking about. I don't need YouTube. You could do the same with me. I know Chris Parker is genuine. I have trained with him. He would vouch for me. When it comes to others from overseas that put up fantastic claims there is no way that we can readily check them out. Every one of those guys who posted video of themselves proved themselves to be much less than they claimed. Then you have the same situation with DonnaTKD ...

Other guys like Brian VanCise or Rich Parsons have the runs on the board. They don't need to put something on YouTube for me to believe what they say. It doesn't take a lot to sort the wheat from the chaff.
:asian:

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I could certainly design a study to address the issue, but it would be wildly impractical to ever get it done properly in the real world. That's why I take issue when you say that you have scientific research backing up your claim that sparring is counterproductive for developing self-defense skills.

You would not be able to design a study on this issue at all. As I mentioned, a scientific study, beyond a simple hypothesis, would have to be testable, demostratatable and repeatable. In order to do this you would have to replicate the exact conditions of an altercation each and every time. That just isn't possible. You can take issue with what I've stated if you wish, but I'm talking about the totality of training methodology. I maintain that how you train is how you react under stress. I don't see how that is even debateable. If what I and others have provided isn't sufficient for you to establish this as factual then either disregard it or continue your own research.

So I will maintain that sparring (with the definition I've provided previously i.e. sport based) is sub-optimal because it trains only a limited response and does not address the totality of an altercation. Does this mean it is useless? No, and I don't believe I ever said it was. My term is sub-optimal because it is limited training. Let me see if I can use an illustration to explain my point. Many people that own a firearm purchase a gun, buy some ammo, go to a range and shoot a paper target. In this they can learn how the firearm works, learn it's parts, clean the firearm, learn trigger control and become quite proficient and accurate with the weapon. Does this make them well prepared for an armed altercations? No, not really. Yes, it does help and can work successfully in many situations. But it does not train one for other factors should they arise. For example, it doesn't help with seeking cover or concealment or even differentiate between the two. It doesn't train the person for clearing a weapon malfunction under stress. It doesn't train them to shoot with the support hand, or reload one-handed under fire. It doesn't teach them about 'slicing the pie' or any of the other tactical things we do i.e. tap-rack-access', 'rip and rack' etc. So a person with only paper target shooting experience 'can' successfully defend themselves and indeed I would encourage anyone that owns a firearm to train as much as possible. But it does not train for factors that can and do happen beyond 'the basics'.

As such, sport sparring does have useful training that I and others have detailed. You learn how to move, counter punch, stay on balance, take a hit etc. All good stuff. But if that's all you do for dynamic training then you've not trained for the other stuff I've detailed multiple times that can and do happen. So while 'sport sparring' has some good stuff, it is sub-optimal to training that includes all the useful stuff it contains plus adds training on all the other factors I've detailed. And I've also used the term 'detrimental' and I stand by that as well. Going back again to the guy putting the triangle choke on the other guy. It worked. And hooray for him. But again, change one factor and it would have had a different outcome. He's fortunate that there wasnt' a second (or third) attacker. He was so dialed into getting the choke that he wasn't aware of anything around him (tunnel vision). Doesn't mean scenario training would have saved him had the factors been different, but at least he would have be aware of options other than what he trained for.

I think this is the question you're talking about:

I'm not sure how it demonstrates that sparring is not useful for developing skills and attributes for self-defense. Was the previous "rote" training which has been improved upon sparring based? If so, how was the sparring conducted? If not, how do your improved results say anything one way or the other about the usefulness of sparring?

I think I've talked about the first sentence. Second sentence would not be 'sparring' in the sport MA sense, but similar in that two people are doing a full contact drill concerning something. Be it a punch defense, escape defense or whatever. As to your last sentence, it has improved because the insufficient training has been eliminated which translates to different results in the field. As mentioned prevously, we no longer have officers disarming someone and then handing the gun back to them. The training is still the same full contact, still the same disarming method. But the training doesn't 'stop' right there to take another turn. The scenario continues until a full conclusion has been reached.

Sport sparring could do the same thing by simply adding appropriate real world factors such as has been described. But then it now becomes scenario based by defacto. Anything addd to a 'sport' sparring session that more closely reflects real life would be of benefit. The more the better.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Your argument is also the argument against kata. If it is not fighting it has no worth.

I'm not sure what you're saying here? Kata is a valuable training tool. Would you clarify please.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

You would not be able to design a study on this issue at all. As I mentioned, a scientific study, beyond a simple hypothesis, would have to be testable, demostratatable and repeatable. In order to do this you would have to replicate the exact conditions of an altercation each and every time. That just isn't possible.

Actually, researchers in the medical and social sciences deal with this kind of problem all the time. Medical conditions and social interactions are never exactly the same from instance to instance. For example, no two cancers or cases of MS are exactly the same. Even so, we are able to test drugs for treating cancer and MS.

The way researchers handle it is to work with large numbers of subjects and randomize the test condition that each subject is assigned to. This way, all the uncontrollable random variables in individual instances will balance out between the test groups. (There are a lot of finicky details required to get things right, but that's the basic idea.)

To design a study of the type we are talking about, you'd have to do something like the following:

Select the variables you wish to study (let's say the effects of scenario training vs full contact sparring vs using both on outcomes in real world violent encounters)
Select a population of interest (let's say police officers)
Gather a large sample of individuals from within that population (here it starts getting tricky because you want the sample to be representative of the population you are studying. For example - officers who volunteer for extra training may not be typical of cops as a whole. Getting this right is a huge problem in the social sciences.)
Randomly assign individuals into your test conditions (Tricky again. You wouldn't want to let subjects volunteer for the type of training they prefer, because then your test groups will probably start out with different personality characteristics which may affect the outcomes. You wouldn't want to have divvy up the test subjects by departments because those departments might be operating in geographic areas with very different populations, crime statistics, etc. This is one of those steps that gets impractical unless you are a dictator who can just decree that law enforcement agencies cooperate fully with the scientists doing the study.)
Make sure that subjects within each test condition get the same treatment. This means your procedures for conducting scenario training or sparring have to be standardized in such a way that later researchers can duplicate it.
Decide what outcomes you are looking at. This gets tricky again. Suppose you just looked at "percent chance an officer sustains an injury during a use-of-force incident." Maybe you might find that officers in the sparring condition did better. On the other hand, maybe officers who sent through scenario training which included de-escalation techniques were less likely to have use-of-force incidents in the first place! Deciding what to look at is an important factor in research.

*NOTE* - You'll notice that we have nothing in place to replicate the exact conditions of each altercation. The way it works is that each test group will probably encounter thousands of altercations or potential altercations within the duration of the study. The details of each encounter will be different (belligerent drunk looking for a fight, professional burglar just trying to get away, disoriented mentally ill subject off his meds, etc, etc), but they will average out between the groups as long as you've done your job properly in randomly assigning individuals into your test conditions. It's not like physics where you can control every variable in an experiment. Medical science and the social sciences depend on this averaging effect to cancel out the myriad variables that cannot be controlled.

Replicate and repeat with variations. Suppose our study showed the sparring group had a better outcome. Does that mean sparring is better? Not necessarily. Maybe we just had a badly designed scenario training program. Suppose our study showed the scenario training group had a better outcome. Does that mean scenario training is better? Not necessarily. Maybe we just had a crappy approach to sparring. That's why we need a clearly defined protocol for each test condition, so that later studies can come back and tweak the methodology. After you've done a bunch of these studies with different approaches to sparring and scenario training, you'll hopefully have a clear idea of what type of training lead to what kinds of outcomes.

I think we probably agree that without a billionaire to fund this research and a dictator to order departmental cooperation, these studies are probably never going to get done.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Fairly interesting commentary on mc map and the issues the practitioners had with it.

MCMAP Practioners: What do you view as the high and low points of your training? : martialarts

I am trying to find mcmap sparring but came across this first. This is kind of my issue with security guard training as well.

This is a big issue with any training in a profession where it is mandated or required by a commanding officer or a boss. Or it is just some thing you have to have to work in for that profession. (ie. whether police, corrections, security, military) Quite often you get a bunch of people who just do not want to be there or it's priority is so low that nobody cares during the training. At one of our Training Halls we routinely had army personnel coming in. Without exception all of them were handled by guys who were regularly training with us for three months or more. If one of our guy's had been around longer than six months they could do whatever they wanted when grappling. The reality is that with physical skill sets like we utilize in the Martial Sciences you cannot get good with just a few hours of training. You really need to put in the work.

Now if someone really trains hard and I mean logs in a lot of hours in MCMAP or Army Combatives, etc. they can be very good at what they do. They just need the training hours!

What is funny is that many military, police, corrections, security instructors whether they be in Army Combatives, MCMAP, Defensive Tactics, etc. have not really put in that much training time. Sure some have (and they are the exception) but a lot of them are not really that good. That is based on my personal experience with several of them.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I think we probably agree that without a billionaire to fund this research and a dictator to order departmental cooperation, these studies are probably never going to get done.

Agreed, and thank you for the post.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I think this is the question you're talking about:

No, it was this one:

You posited a certain limited conception of sparring. To back that up you gave a list of 12 questions regarding our sparring practices, clearly expecting certain responses. Some folks, such as myself, gave answers showing that sparring can include much more than you seem to think. Do you still object to sparring when it includes all those options (different environments, weapons, multiple opponents, etc)? If so, why?

However, I think you've started to answer it with the following:

Sport sparring could do the same thing by simply adding appropriate real world factors such as has been described. But then it now becomes scenario based by defacto. Anything addd to a 'sport' sparring session that more closely reflects real life would be of benefit. The more the better.

It sounds like you are saying you have less objection to sparring as a training method for the street when we include factors such as different environments, weapons, etc. Am I right?

I do disagree with this statement: " But then it now becomes scenario based by defacto." I regard sparring (even with outside, with weapons and multiple opponents) as being different in purpose from scenario training. As I said earlier, scenario training is ideal for developing the big picture - see the threat developing, try to avoid or de-escalate, decide whether to fight, decide when to fight, get away, deal with aftermath, etc. Sparring is better for developing specific skills and attributes necessary for certain aspects of a fight which can go by very quickly in scenario training.

Let's take an example. You set up a scenario where I am being set up by a couple of muggers. The first engages me in conversation while his partner comes up to grab me from behind. Ideally I would have seen the setup coming and positioned myself so that neither mugger got behind me and I had a clear avenue of escape. I messed up on that so now mugger #2 is coming up behind me while mugger #1 blocks my line of escape. I do manage to spot the setup before mugger #2 gets hold of me, so I hit mugger #1 with a quick strike into a takedown and take off running, get to a position of safety, and call the police.

How much time did I spend on the actual physical fighting part of this scenario? A few seconds perhaps? Even if we run a bunch of different scenarios in a row, I'm probably only going to get a very short time practicing the actual skills of hitting someone who doesn't want to be hit, throwing someone who doesn't want to be thrown, or escaping someone who has knocked you down and doesn't want to let you get back up. I could spend a whole afternoon doing scenario training and get a lot of practice in avoiding a fight, learning when to initiate a fight if I can't avoid it, learning the right moment to disengage and escape from a fight if possible, and learning how to handle the aftermath - but end up with only a few minutes working on the actual fighting skills.

That's where sparring comes in. I can spend hours upon hours getting good at hitting someone who doesn't want to be hit, stopping someone else who is really trying to hit me, keeping my cool after someone has successfully hit me and rattled my brain, throwing someone who doesn't want to be thrown, stopping someone who is really trying to take me down, and escaping someone who is doing his best to hold me in a bad position. Then if and when it comes down to those few seconds of physical confrontation in a real encounter or a training scenario, I am much more likely to be successful.

That's why I view scenario training and sparring (note - I did not say "sport sparring") as complementary pieces of a whole, not exclusive options.

 

[Hanzou]

When I think scenario training, this comes to mind;

 

[Tony Dismukes]

When I think scenario training, this comes to mind;

That's really not scenario training. It's cooperative technique demos with a few seconds of badly done play acting before uke launches his attack and is defeated. Properly designed scenario training doesn't look like that at all.

 

[Buka]

Tony nailed that right on the nose.

The bad thing is, I'm guessing the people participating don't realize that.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

It sounds like you are saying you have less objection to sparring as a training method for the street when we include factors such as different environments, weapons, etc. Am I right?

I do disagree with this statement: " But then it now becomes scenario based by defacto." I regard sparring (even with outside, with weapons and multiple opponents) as being different in purpose from scenario training. As I said earlier, scenario training is ideal for developing the big picture - see the threat developing, try to avoid or de-escalate, decide whether to fight, decide when to fight, get away, deal with aftermath, etc. Sparring is better for developing specific skills and attributes necessary for certain aspects of a fight which can go by very quickly in scenario training.

Let's take an example. You set up a scenario where I am being set up by a couple of muggers. The first engages me in conversation while his partner comes up to grab me from behind. Ideally I would have seen the setup coming and positioned myself so that neither mugger got behind me and I had a clear avenue of escape. I messed up on that so now mugger #2 is coming up behind me while mugger #1 blocks my line of escape. I do manage to spot the setup before mugger #2 gets hold of me, so I hit mugger #1 with a quick strike into a takedown and take off running, get to a position of safety, and call the police.

How much time did I spend on the actual physical fighting part of this scenario? A few seconds perhaps? Even if we run a bunch of different scenarios in a row, I'm probably only going to get a very short time practicing the actual skills of hitting someone who doesn't want to be hit, throwing someone who doesn't want to be thrown, or escaping someone who has knocked you down and doesn't want to let you get back up. I could spend a whole afternoon doing scenario training and get a lot of practice in avoiding a fight, learning when to initiate a fight if I can't avoid it, learning the right moment to disengage and escape from a fight if possible, and learning how to handle the aftermath - but end up with only a few minutes working on the actual fighting skills.

That's where sparring comes in. I can spend hours upon hours getting good at hitting someone who doesn't want to be hit, stopping someone else who is really trying to hit me, keeping my cool after someone has successfully hit me and rattled my brain, throwing someone who doesn't want to be thrown, stopping someone who is really trying to take me down, and escaping someone who is doing his best to hold me in a bad position. Then if and when it comes down to those few seconds of physical confrontation in a real encounter or a training scenario, I am much more likely to be successful.

That's why I view scenario training and sparring (note - I did not say "sport sparring") as complementary pieces of a whole, not exclusive options.

Okay, I see now where we were not on the same sheet of music before. Your post did a good job of clearing it up. Yes, I agree with what you're saying and I think we're only differing on some terminology. Another good post

 

[Hanzou]

That's really not scenario training. It's cooperative technique demos with a few seconds of badly done play acting before uke launches his attack and is defeated. Properly designed scenario training doesn't look like that at all.

So I'm guessing more like this;

 

[Buka]

I have a question for you guys.

Does anyone know anybody, who isn't a Martial Artist, that would absolutely kick your *** in a fight?