In defense of point sparring
Posted by: ShaolinNinja
In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 06:14 AM
I've heard many fighters criticise sparring that stops every time a point is scored. Continuous sparring seems to be far more in favour among those seeking 'realistic' training. I disagree with this attitude.
I think point sparring more closely resembles the reality of a streetfight. In continuous sparring, you've got on your gloves and pads, you move in, throw a few, block a few, move out, circle, go back in, back out again... This is how fights unfold in a boxing or mixed martial arts contest, but not in an actual fight. When you're fighting full-contact without pads, the blows you land should end the fight; with pads or light contact, they kinda hurt. In a real fight, if you land a good blow, the fight is over. Therefore point sparring is more realistic: when you land a good blow the fight stops.
Posted by: Gavin
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 06:47 AM
Point sparring is in no way realistic in anyway whatsoever IMHO. It drills people to pull their blows and generally promotes poor and weak intention behind everything. IMHO it is about as useful for preparing realistic combat as playing tag in the playground. Real life combat is not aback and forth affair it is an all out mess. Hard heavy contact sparring is far more useful to you on the street as it conditions you for taking blows, dealing with adrenaline and throwing/landing decent shots continously without a nice man shouting "Ippon... stop and start again!".
Posted by: JKogas
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 07:11 AM
Quote:
I think point sparring more closely resembles the reality of a streetfight.
So, you think that minimal contact to the body, no shots to the head with a ref stepping in every time a fake blow has been scored is tantamount to a street fight?
Brother, you must not get in very many fights.
Quote:
In continuous sparring, you've got on your gloves and pads, you move in, throw a few, block a few, move out, circle, go back in, back out again...
Gloves allow people to fight without injuring their hands too severely. They allow a person to be hit hard which is something that will happen in a real fight. Therefore with the exception of the gloves, the action is very similar to real fighting. Which is exactly what you want. You don’t want the street to be the first place you experience what it is like to be hit hard, or, to feel the real pressure that is existent in a street fight (instead of NO pressure and the fake striking found within point sparring)
Quote:
This is how fights unfold in a boxing or mixed martial arts contest, but not in an actual fight.
Got news for you --- boxing matches and MMA events ARE “real”, point sparring isn’t.
Quote:
When you're fighting full-contact without pads, the blows you land should end the fight;
“Should” is the operative word. But you’re not really fighting full contact when you’re doing point fighting. You’re not really fighting at ALL. So I’m not really sure how you’re even making this comparison and, believing at all in what you’re writing.
Quote:
with pads or light contact, they kinda hurt.
At least you are making contact. Of course you don’t HAVE to use pads. You can spar full contact without gloves and continuous action if you like, but that leads to injuries. Which is the whole reason behind wearing gloves, headgear, mouthpiece, etc., in the first place.
When you are doing point sparring, you’re not wearing any of this stuff in most cases because you’re not even landing SHOTS effectively (in most cases). Even if you were, the stopping of action is in now way realistic of real fighting.
Quote:
In a real fight, if you land a good blow, the fight is over. Therefore point sparring is more realistic: when you land a good blow the fight stops.
No, you only HOPE that when you land a blow, the fight stops. And of course, that isn’t realistic at all. One strike does not stop a fight in most cases. Even if you are Chuck Liddell, have to be prepared for a lengthy fight, which is the whole point of sparring to begin with.
What would happen if you landed one of your “deadly blows” (which “should” have stopped the fight) and the guy just stands there smiling at you?
One answer would be that, a lack of continuous action sparring would now come back to haunt you because you aren’t technically prepared, or physically prepared to continue.
-John
Posted by: TimBlack
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 07:25 AM
Point sparring is only more realistic if the level of contact in continuous sparring is ridiculously low - and of course this happens. The reason is that, without an acceptable level of contact, shorter fighters are at an enormous disadvantage because they simply cannot use their leverage on the inside to power shot and bring down an opponent.
Point sparring encourages a 'touch the other guy without getting touched' attitude to fighting, and that's just not what it's about. As Gav says, it lacks real intention, real commitment, to strikes. I'm not going to pretend that you can really go 'all out' every time you continuous spar, but you can have a decent level of contact, and therefore learn not to cower from multiple blows, and to take hits and continue to fight. In 'real life' one hit doesn't end fights very often - lots of punches in a short space of time do. Hard punches, but a reasonable number. Continuous sparring teaches you that when you attack, you have to keep pressing that attack until the other guy drops. Point sparring tells you to get your killer 'touch' in and then get out. I know which one I find more realistic
Posted by: Galen
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 07:45 AM
To start with, let me say that the title of this thread is ironic, in that point fighting, along with ANY other aspect of the martial arts, doesn’t need to be ‘defended’. If you, or I, or anyone for that matter, feels it has validity, it is valid.
No one should be feel the need to defend their style or manner of training to anyone but themselves.
Having said that, on with the show!!
Hiya Gavin!
Quote:
Point sparring is in no way realistic in anyway whatsoever IMHO.
COMPLETELY agree. Anyone who has done point sparring and any kind of realistic training or been in an actual scrap could not reasonably argue otherwise.
Quote:
It drills people to pull their blows and generally promotes poor and weak intention behind everything.
This is a matter of perspective. I know point fighters who have more ‘intention’ in their technique than the best ‘scrappers’ I have ever seen. They do control their techniques, yes, but I believe that control is every bit as important as commitment to the technique. As a matter of fact, one of the main facets of my training is exactly that” commitment. Intention. 1000 percent, on every technique. Point sparring is a wonderful way to practice this as long as your head is in the right place.
Don’t fool yourself into thinking that someone who point spars will, by definition, have ‘poor and weak intention’. They will only weak intention if they choose to have weak intention.
Quote:
IMHO it is about as useful for preparing realistic combat as playing tag in the playground.
Well, maybe not THAT useless, but I agree, it isn’t much of a primer for a realistic confrontation, but that does not for one moment take away the credibility. If you train for realistic confrontations, then I agree. If your training is not centered around realistic confrontations (and this is a PERFECTLY legitimate manner of training) then point sparring can be every bit as invaluable as any other manner of training.
Quote:
Hard heavy contact sparring is far more useful to you on the street as it conditions you for taking blows, dealing with adrenaline and throwing/landing decent shots continuously without a nice man shouting "Ippon... stop and start again!".
The tenure of your post seems to (and please correct me if I am wrong) invalidate any form of training that does not center around ‘realistic confrontations’. Personally, I see the value in both. To be frank, I don’t live a lifestyle that involves me in day to day confrontations, and in the 25 years I have been training, I have never had a ‘real’ physical confrontation that amounted to anything. I am not sure (and I reiterate that this is my own experience and perspective) that I see the value in spending my time training hour after hour, day in and day out, on the off chance that one day I maybe might get into a physical confrontation.
I would prefer a higher purpose, and more consistent return, for my training time spent.
Back on point (no pun intended), Gavin is completely correct in saying that point sparring isn’t much use in terms of training for realistic confrontations. However, don’t let that dissuade you from doing it, if it serves your purposes. Point sparring is VERY useful for teaching such things as distance, timing and control.
G
Posted by: Galen
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 07:50 AM
In response to the original poster…
Quote:
I think point sparring more closely resembles the reality of a streetfight.
Please be kidding.
This is not only wrong, it is dangerous. Anyone who trains exclusively in point sparring and believes they are training for street fighting is going to get their ass handed to them.
Hard.
Quote:
Therefore point sparring is more realistic: when you land a good blow the fight stops.
I see your line of reasoning, and for someone who has never experienced a real street fight, or realistic training scenarios, I suppose it makes sense, but it is so far out in left field that it actually scares me that you might believe this.
Please get some more experience, and re-evaluate this perspective. I could go on for an hour about why this is wrong, but only experience will sway you, I think. I just hope that such experience doesn’t land you in the hospital.
G
Posted by: Gavin
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 07:55 AM
Hey Galen! Hows tricks dude!
I've know some great MA's who love competition under point sparring rules. Fair play to them, makes them happy and they are good and fit because of it. Having known a few international players too... again cool with me. My comments were directed at the use of point sparring as mentioned in the original context of this thread which was using it as a tool to prepare for reality, which we both agree its not. In terms of invalidating it as a training method, like you said that goes down to what you want. If your training is centred around street combat then its utterly useless, as a fun recreational pastime for keeping fit and healthy then its cool.... whatever ever floats your boat (I only play tag with my kid and not in the dojo!
).
Good to hear from your again though matey!
Gav
Posted by: Galen
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 08:28 AM
Things are great here, my friend! Hope all is well with you!!
I was with you RIGHT up to the end of your post…so close!!
Quote:
…as a fun recreational pastime for keeping fit and healthy then its cool.... whatever ever floats your boat (I only play tag with my kid and not in the dojo!
I would venture to say that non-realistic training offers MUCH more than just a tool for keeping fit and healthy. I also do a fairly strict routine of weight training, and I keep fit and healthy from that alone.
Training in the martial arts does not have to center around realistic scenarios for it to offer more than fitness. There are some very central themes in the arts that are captured through point sparring, and non-realistic training. I have already mentioned three of them. Distance, timing and control. There are as many benefits to it as the practitioner wishes to find. The only danger, as it relates to this thread, is when the practitioner starts to see benefits that are not really there, such as thinking that point sparring will prepare you for a realistic confrontation.
What I find odd is that most places, and certainly the dojo I came up through the ranks within, think that point sparring does prepare you for real life. I am sure there are a lot of people reading this thread who like to think that the original poster is correct, when in fact they could not be more wrong.
Herein, however, is the dichotomy. While our infamous original poster seems to be laboring under the delusion that point sparring and its ilk will absolutely prepare him for a real life encounter (eep!!) you seem to be (and again, correct me if I am wrong) equating it with play time, and offering it no redeeming value in terms of what the martial arts has to offer.
I see a whole new thread here, and I don’t want to hijack this one, so lets just say that we both agree that point sparring does not really offer much in help in terms of preparation for a real life encounter.
Fair enough?
G
Posted by: Gavin
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 08:36 AM
Quote:
I see a whole new thread here, and I don’t want to hijack this one, so lets just say that we both agree that point sparring does not really offer much in help in terms of preparation for a real life encounter.
Fair enough?
Sounds cool to me buddy! 
Posted by: JohnL
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 09:26 AM
Point sparring has very little need of defending.
It's a good traing tool for developing any number of skills that are usefull to a Martial Artist.
Is it self defence? No.
Providing you understand that, there's nothing wrong with it.
Posted by: BrianS
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 09:30 AM
Quote:
Point sparring has very little need of defending.
It's a good traing tool for developing any number of skills that are usefull to a Martial Artist.
Is it self defence? No.
Providing you understand that, there's nothing wrong with it.
Continuous sparring to me would encompass all ranges until a clear victor is decided.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 12:00 PM
I don't think point sparring itself is so bad, if there is some realistic contact. At least your timing and distancing for stand-up can be worked properly, as the intent is there. The no-contact or very light contact stuff is really low on the utility meter to me.
Posted by: Crash
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 01:02 PM
Point sparring teaches you control, thats about it. The idea behind point sparring which was one strike one kill is rarely depicted anymore. The idea behind it was a way of I guess you could say practiceing killing blows with a partner (obviously not landing these techniques). Now it's just like a sad game of tag, whats more sad is when people like XMA stylists who favor this type of sparring think it's the be all end all of fighting and post it on a site full of people who know it's not.
let me help you out,
directions: #1, open mouth, #2, insert foot here.
Posted by: Galen
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 01:14 PM
Quote:
Now it's just like a sad game of tag
Generalize much??
And how many different point sparring schools have you attended to come to this all encompassing conclusion?
I know many schools that practice point sparring in a way that would make full contact fighters stand up and take notice.
Its all about intent, and how well the practice meets that intent.
And don’t t forget, it’s the practitioner, not the activity itself, that defines its value.
G
Posted by: Xibalba
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 01:24 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Now it's just like a sad game of tag
Generalize much??
And how many different point sparring schools have you attended to come to this all encompassing conclusion?
I know many schools that practice point sparring in a way that would make full contact fighters stand up and take notice.
Its all about intent, and how well the practice meets that intent.
And don’t t forget, it’s the practitioner, not the activity itself, that defines its value.
G
Our club practices both point and continuous style fighting. The only difference between the two is that in point fighting, we are running "rings" and stopping for points. I have had my bell rung/ the wind knocked out of me/been smacked silly numerous times in "point" sparring. To call point sparring a "sad game of tag" shows that you may have never practiced it with someone who is trying to win "points" by knocking you silly.
The one beef I have with point sparring is that the sole practice of point sparring (to the exclusion of other kinds of sparring) can lead to the "one technique wonder" syndrome - i.e. stopping your attack after one technique "scores". This is why we practice continuous sparring as well.
Peace,
Mike
Posted by: Zombie Zero
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 01:37 PM
I feel it's important to practice both point sparring and continuous. Each has benefits the other doesn't offer.
To me, the focus of continuous sparring is getting in as many shots as you can in the allotted time.
Point sparring is more like a game of chess, where you look for that one narrow, exploitable opening in your partner's defense that allows you to launch a precisce, clean, technical shot - while making sure you don't also leave yourself open.
Continuous can also be compared to chess, in that when you strike, you have to make sure you're not going to be counterattacked. If your strike fails, you'd better have a backup strategy, and a good defense.
Posted by: Alejandro
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 01:53 PM
Nice posts everyone. I have nothing to add that hasn't been stated, just clarification.
If the "continuous sparring" being spoken of here is what is commonly seen in modern competitions, then that lacks much value as well, and isn't "better" IMO. Continuous sparring, as it is called, is simply point fighters who don't stop after each executed point-based technique. It has become popular in recent years among the modern organizations (NBA, IKSA, etc.) in response to point fighting criticism. What I have seen has appeared to be an extremely pitiful attempt at kickboxing.
The exception that I have seen is when actual competitive kickboxers entered a continuous sparring competition...and were promtly disqualified for excessive force.
Take a peek at a kyokushin (full contact knockdown karate), MMA, kickboxing or even boxing match and contrast.
Posted by: Supremor
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 02:29 PM
This thread as I read it, was about "point-stop" sparring, rather than point sparring in general. Point sparring says nothing about the level of contact allowed, the rules of competition, legal target areas etc.
2 examples of what I would call very effective point sparring:
1) Ameteur boxing- olympic boxers train for point sparring, but don't lack power.
2) Sanshou competitions are broadly run on point sparring lines- competitors are given points for their strikes, and extra points for throws and takedowns. This is all full-contact.
So I think that if we were to have this debate, it must be with a more accurate use of terms.
The negative elements of point sparring, and any sparring system that is, are the following elements (remembering that sparring is only one tool among many):
1) Point-stop: When you achieve a clean hit in a fight- that should be the start of your attack. To neglect the follow-up techniques in sparring gives a "one-hit KO" myth.
2)Light-contact or no-contact: the most important concern is not a matter of not getting used to being hit, although that is important. The most dangerous thing about light contact sparring, is that it reinforces notions of scoring and stopping, posing to show scoring, and not using methods of power production properly. An example of this is "bouncing" in some taekwondo and karate tournaments, where the bouncing shows a complete misunderstanding of power production- the fact that power needs a solid footing to allow transferrence of power from the feet up. When sparring, one must be ready to hit hard (within reason), and one must be ready to get hit hard. Without this, the sparring is completely out of context from the reality of a violent confrontation.
3)Restrictive rule-sets: These include most importantly- lack of head punching, lack of leg kicks, lack of sweeps and takedowns. I can accept the lack of extensive grappling in sparring, if and only if it is trained in another context. For example, doing kickboxing sparring with gear, and then doing grappling BJJ/Wrestling style.
I think a problem in this debate is that people fail to realise that NO sparring system will be enough in itself to train for self defense. You can merely maximise its effectiveness and train the bits missing in other ways.
Posted by: Xibalba
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 02:39 PM
Quote:
I think a problem in this debate is that people fail to realise that NO sparring system will be enough in itself to train for self defense. You can merely maximise its effectiveness and train the bits missing in other ways.
Great point (no pun intended!), sir, and excellent post!
Mike
Posted by: Supremor
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 02:45 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I think a problem in this debate is that people fail to realise that NO sparring system will be enough in itself to train for self defense. You can merely maximise its effectiveness and train the bits missing in other ways.
Great point (no pun intended!), sir, and excellent post!
Mike
But I would in hindsight add to that statement by saying that some sparring systems are not only LESS effective, but actually DETRIMENTAL to one's fighting ability.
Posted by: Xibalba
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 02:48 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think a problem in this debate is that people fail to realise that NO sparring system will be enough in itself to train for self defense. You can merely maximise its effectiveness and train the bits missing in other ways.
Great point (no pun intended!), sir, and excellent post!
Mike
But I would in hindsight add to that statement by saying that some sparring systems are not only LESS effective, but actually DETRIMENTAL to one's fighting ability.
Again, agreed.
Maybe we have another potential discussion thread here, regarding common characteristics among effective sparring methodologies...?
Mike
Posted by: MattJ
Re: In defense of point sparring - 08/31/06 04:32 PM
Quote:
Point sparring teaches you control, thats about it.
let me help you out,
directions: #1, open mouth, #2, insert foot here.
Thanks, but I think I can keep my foot off the menu. If you read my post, I did say that point type sparring with realistic contact is not altogether useless.
The lack of contact in most point-sparring matches is what is more detrimental, IMHO.
*MattJ kindly helps remove Crash's foot from Crash's mouth*
Posted by: steelwater
Re: In defense of point sparring - 09/04/06 10:38 PM
We do extremely heavy continuous sparring at our school. Currently my entire right hand is swollen (from hitting someone extremely hard with an improper punch), I believe I have 3 fractured toes on left foot (because someone blocked a roundhouse with their knee) and I'm in constant pain because my muscles and bones are sore.
And I absolutely love it.
However, I have competed at tournaments and most point sparring is very lame. Especially "state olympics" and the such. It's more of a game of tag than any kind of fight. That is, until you get kicked in the face.
Posted by: TimBlack
Re: In defense of point sparring - 09/05/06 10:44 AM
Quote:
We do extremely heavy continuous sparring at our school. Currently my entire right hand is swollen (from hitting someone extremely hard with an improper punch), I believe I have 3 fractured toes on left foot (because someone blocked a roundhouse with their knee) and I'm in constant pain because my muscles and bones are sore.
But is crippling yourself self-defence? lol
Posted by: hedkikr
Re: In defense of point sparring - 09/05/06 04:54 PM
Point sparring as it's done on the Open Circuit (XMA, NASKA, etc.) is a bad example of point sparring. My experience there taught me that techniques, even under the best of conditions, would be ineffective.
This differs from WKF sparring (although I'm not willing to say it equates to real fighting). In WKF, the goal is to score w/ good technique & fighting doesn't stop unless the Ref says "Yame" (stop). They must continue to attack.
Even continuous fighting like MMA doesn't allow all real SD techniques. Those illegal techniques (eye, throat & groin attacks, hair-pulling, biting, etc.) are some of your best weapons in a real SD situation.
So why spar @ all? One needs to improve their timing, distance, targeting, shifting, fear/stress-control, pain management & yes, techniques. This can be done in any form of sparring (although some are better & cover more attributes than others).
BTW: the one-punch KO isn't a myth (Duh!)
owari
Posted by: Gavin
Re: In defense of point sparring - 09/06/06 09:16 AM
Quote:
BTW: the one-punch KO isn't a myth (Duh!)
It is with the way most people train to punch!