The Library: General Interest: Training Topics

»Main Index
»General Interest
»Empty-Hand Studies
»Weaponry Studies
»Advanced Training
»Training the Spirit
»Training the Mind
»Elective Studies

Based on who’s talking, sparring is either the best test or the worst of what one learns. This essay reviews why both points of view might be wrong.

Does Sparring Work?

Anyone who has been around the fighting science community for a while is aware of the “sparring versus not-sparring” argument, or rather, “this sparring versus that sparring” argument. The differences between them are sometimes great, but are misleading if not completely confusing.

Sparring is really any form of simulated combat in which two or more students attempt to attack each other. Unfortunately, this is hardly a complete definition of sparring, but any attempt to add even one more detail begins to alienate how some people do it.

First, is sparring better than “not sparring?” Some groups dismiss sparring entirely (“non-sparrers”), for a variety of reasons. Groups who do spar (“sparrers”) are quick to criticize the non-sparrers accordingly. Here are the basic arguments:

How do you develop the necessary hand-eye-foot coordination at full speed, unless you are attacking?
How do you develop any sense of reaction time or blocking skills, unless you are being attacked?
How do you understand how to distance yourself, close in, or step around an attacking opponent without live interaction?

These are excellent arguments, and the non-sparrers will often explain that these attributes can be learned in other ways, in a non-competitive atmosphere, with maximum regard for safety. For example, students can face each other and one can throw attacking techniques while the other responds with defensive techniques. After a while, they switch off, and speed can be increased. For full-speed training, kata are used, in which the student performs pre-set open-air techniques against imaginary opponents.

Regrettably, this is a very short-sighted response. The obvious failure of this thinking is that hand-to-hand fighting, whether self-defense-based or survival-based, is among the most competetive activities imaginable. Arguably, sparring itself is not nearly as competitive as someone earnestly trying to kill you. Further, the second part of the argument, regarding safety, makes the unwarranted assumption that all common sense is suspended when two students spar. Nearly all groups make appropriate accommodations for safety, a point which will be discussed later. Finally, two students practicing drill-style does not provide the chaos and confusion of a determined, resisting attacker, nor does it provide either student a realistic sense of how offense and defense blur together. And the obvious problem with kata-style simulations is that the opponents are always under control of the student’s imagination: real opponents move unpredictably, often when and where the student cannot see.

Sparring allows students to interact with real footwork, real timing, and a real sense of feedback: if the first student makes a tactical error, the second student is quick to take advantage of it. In sparring, all decisions, whether good or bad, have immediate and real consequences. There may be a bruised shin or sore shoulder, but at the end of training, all students go home unharmed but wiser. Theoretically, there can be ways to replace sparring with other types of training activities: but sparring remains the most efficient way to provide all of these training goals together at one time.

Given that sparring seems to work on paper, the bigger argument becomes the correct way to provide it. There are two major schools of thought that frequently clash. Unlike the first arguments about sparring or non-sparring, there are no easy rebuttals. Instead, there are fair criticisms, and unfair responses to each side.

The first group is seen in many self-defense oriented schools around the world. Competitive sparring is promoted, in which students are divided into ranks (usually belt colors), and positioned against one another in a round-robin approach. These students wear protective gear such as helmets, guards, pads, and mitts; they then score points by striking pre-set targets on the opponent.

The second group is growing in popularity, and uses direct contact. Students are divided into weight classes, not skill level, and may or may not use round-robin sparring: like boxing or wrestling, opponents can be paired up in a variety of ways. Generally, modified boxing or combat gloves are worn, and participants will wear either a Judo-style gi or even wear boxing or wrestling attire. If a point system is used, it is based on takedowns and falls (like wrestling); more frequently, points are not necessarily tracked. Instead, a participant wins by either forcing the opponent to surrender (“I can’t beat this guy”), submission (“I can’t get out of his hold”), or he is unable to continue (knockout, injury, or fatigue).

If you are in a sparring system, you already know which group you are in, even from these brief summaries.

Proponents of the first group say their system is safe, fun, and everyone can participate equally. The students benefit from hitting or kicking targets at full speed, and rules carefully provide uniformity of execution.

Proponents of the second group say their system provides realism: you may be mismatched against your opponent’s skill level; fortunately, you can use creativity to defeat him. The opponent is determined to defeat you, and a strike to the head will hurt if you fail to stop it. Rather than win based on points, you need to overpower your opponent to win, as in real life.

This is about as congenial as the arguments get. In critiquing the other style, each group provides some sharp commentary. For example, the first group is usually cited with the following:

Positioning students of equal skill levels against each other does not provide any participant with a strong advantage or disadvantage: as a result, students become trained to assume their opponents will never be very threatening. True. In life, there is rarely an equal chance of winning. A student must assume that his opponent could be very dangerous, and must therefore use creativity or resourcefulness to win. By mixing students of equal skill levels, you evolve into a sense of mediocrity. Mixing students of different skill levels is instructional for the weaker students, but also for the stronger students.
Striking only at targets which earn points prevents students from hitting tactically smart targets. True. A good fighter knows that targets exist all over the opponent; however, if a student’s training is continually reinforced to hit “point scoring” targets, he or she will train only to hit those targets. Outside of sparring, the student may neglect a choice target to reach a risky target simply because he or she has insufficient experience.
The use of abundant padding and protective gear conditions students to neglect their defense. True. Small children benefit from having padding and protective gear; however, students progressively learn to rely on their padding to stop the pain of impact. A casual observer of this style of sparring will observe many, if not most, students failing to stop an incoming strike by simply allowing their pads to absorb the shock. Students should be weaned off padding quickly, so that they recognize the importance in avoiding or stopping an opponent’s attacks.
There are no penalties for impractical techniques. Mostly true. A student who directs an exotic, spinning kick against an opponent will likely not be struck in return, assuming he makes contact at all. In the second group, a student will be tackled almost instantly if he tries a lengthy complex move against his opponent. Of course, many students will rely on a core of simpler techniques designed to score points quickly, so the criticism is not absolute. However, this itself leads to the problem described earlier of reinforcing “point” moves instead of “effective” moves.
The first group’s sparring methodology fails to incorporate the brutality and confusion of a real fight. True. Students when sparring will stand a set distance from each other, close in slightly, and then often trade strikes and kicks in furious bursts. Studies of attacks around the world disprove the realism of this idea. Attacks generally start with a tackle or a clinch followed by a throw. When striking is used, the aggressor usually relies on wild swinging punches to the head or face followed by a tackle or clinch. Kicks are rarely used, and generally consist of probing, swinging kicks used to open distance for a second or two; again, this is followed by one of the two participants closing into a clinch or tackle to circumvent these kicks. Sparring in the first group’s fashion exposes the students to little realism beyond a schoolyard fight.

The first group is quick to direct different criticism to the second group:

Techniques and rules are designed to favor certain styles of fighting. Somewhat true. Certainly, there are advantages to studying styles such as Brazilian jujitsu or judo or wrestling when engaging in the second group of sparring, because training methods in those styles are directed toward success in sparring. The fact is that nothing prevents other styles from adapting their training activities to match: it is purely the prerogative of the style to do so or not do so. Many other systems do not. A better criticism would be leveled at the individual students within those styles who train for sparring at the expense of realistic self-defense. Although a minority, some students are in fact well-prepared for the sparring ring, but inadequately prepared to deal with an attacker elsewhere.
Weapons are excluded. True. Virtually all the systems and mixed martial arts who focus on the second group of sparring disregard the commonality of weapons within real attacks. Of course, to be perfectly fair, the first group fails to do so as well. A reformation of this criticism really should be directed only at those in the second group who advertise the realism of their training with any variation of the comment: “If you don’t see it in the ring, you don’t see it in the street.” This comment fails to hold truth beyond the first few seconds of an unarmed attack.
Submission fighting is not based in reality. True. One of the more controversial claims by far, the concept behind submission fighting is that forcing your opponent into a difficult hold (a Kimura-style arm bar, a rear naked choke, etc.) constitutes a submission: further resistance results in injury, and so one participant concedes rather than risk injury. This concept only exists in the sparring ring, and not in nature overall. While law enforcement, security, and bouncers can benefit from knowing submission holds, the average person learning to survive a common situation will be in greater peril by applying submission holds. An opponent will not concede, and unless the student is prepared to hold a determined attacker indefinitely, the student risks being killed by trying such a hold outside the ring. A true attacker does not want you to submit: he wants you incapacitated immediately. This changes the entire atmosphere of sparring from friendly competition to outright escape and neutralization.
Prolonged wrestling is not representative of actual fighting. True. A typical fight lasts only fifteen to twenty seconds, and rarely goes above thirty seconds in duration before an individual is incapacitated or the fight is disrupted or a participant escapes. Many fights, as witnessed on countless hours of security camera footage, last even less than ten seconds. Lengthy matches of a minute or more, broken into rounds, and fully refereed, inject a high degree of idealist mentality. Participants in the second group understand this; indeed, their non-sparring drills done elsewhere in class are far more realistic. Nevertheless, the criticism is valid but also applies to the first group as well, who use variations on this organization as well.

Although both sides present very good arguments, neither is ultimately victorious in their claims. If you participate in either group, some predictions are possible: (a) You have heard these criticisms before, (b) you agree with the charges directed at the other group, but (c) disagree with the ones directed toward you on a technicality.

Is there a better way? This is even more controversial, but some observations can be made:

Sparring must involve active resistance between students, and not casual exchanges of textbook techniques.
Sparring should involve one person trying to tackle or clinch against the other, who in turn should effectively be looking to escape the attack...as he would do in reality against a predator.
When possible, sparring should involve more than two attackers, and careful use of weaponry introduced.
Students of all skill levels should be mixed together, so that less experienced students can more quickly sharpen their expectations of what it means to fight; more-experienced students can have over-confidence checked by having a less-skilled fighter escape and counterattack.
Younger students may benefit from protective gear, but eventually should be weaned off this protection. If your style promotes full contact fighting, gloves to protect the hands may be desirable.
If the initial attack takes longer than 30 seconds, the students should break and try the attack again in a few moments. Prolonged fighting progressively eliminates realism and serves only to breed fatigue.
Be wary of submission holds. If the attacker executes a submission hold on the other student, it should be in a “multiple opponents” context. If the escaping student applies a submission hold, he must seek to break contact and evade the inevitable counterattack, or he loses.
Sparring should not be seen as the sole form or primary form of training. Like any training activity, the effectiveness is ultimately limited by expectation and over-drilling. Some students will need more sparring; others may need less sparring. The instructor needs to make this decision based on the individual student’s needs.

These suggestions may not be applicable to all training methods, but can, when implemented, have a dramatic effect on the effectiveness of sparring. Again, some of these may be completely wrong for you and your needs, but attempt to bring home a little more realism. Good luck, and good sparring.