I have nothing against point sparring- but I do have something against point-stop sparring. I simply fail to understand how it is useful. Afterall, not only is the whole one-hit ko philosophy flawed IMO, but trying to judge what is the first strong techinque to score, can be a nightmare for the judge/referee.

I agree the format has it's draw backs, the worst being the tendency to stop after a perceived score, but that also is the fault of the referee.

Say I step in and reverse punch you to the head with a big Kiai and stop. Meanwhile you counter punch my head, while I am posing for my point.

Even if I got there first, a good referee would call it an exchange no point, because I stopped and didn't cover. A bad referee would give me a point because I got there first.

Is it difficult to judge, sure but so is basketball. Truth is if you are stingy with your points, it's generally not that tough to determine who won an exchange or who is the dominate fighter.

Now say you don't stop, well then you have a giving quarter issue, if I come in and land a hard blow, but I pull it, you have to give me quarter, and back off not come right in while I am open from extending a technique (no difference then class sparring).

Except in competition, that often doesn't happen, so you either need to go full contact or have some sort of break or stoppage.

Personally I like point fighting with stoppage. Real fights don't go 3-5 minutes, so how is that any more realistic?

The problem is we are simulating fighting, which is near impossible to do, no matter what rule set you use it's a combat sport.

I say just lock all the fighters in the gym and come back in an hour and see who is still standing, then hand him a trophy.
Undefeated in all of Asia!