Where Are You on The Sparring Scale?

George Carlin, the famous comedian, has a routine where he talks about the other driver.

He comments on how we all think we are good car drivers. Competent. Everyone else falls somewhere on a scale. Those who are driving the same speed that we are, are also good drivers. Those who are driving faster than we are are 'maniacs,' and those holding us up are 'jerks,' or worse.

I think you'll find a similar scale when talking about sparring in martial arts:

Your Sparring Comfort Zone

Your comfort zone is what you would call 'appropriate' sparring. Anything less violent is perceived as "wussie." And anything closer to realism is "crazy."

There is a scale, isn't there?

At one end of the spectrum, we have folks who pull their punches and kicks, never make contact, and follow sparring rules of no punching to the face, no kicking below the waist, etc. (This is about as far away from real street defense as one can get.)

Next, you have people who allow some contact, but still limit the targets -- no shin kicks, no groin shots. No eye jabs.

A little more open sparring allows all targets, some contact, but control is exhibited. Nobody gets hurt. You don't actually poke "into" the eye or hit the groin directly. The emphasis is on control.

If you go just a little further on the scale, you have sparring that looks very much like the last definition, but people do get a little 'roughed up.' You still exhibit control. You punch at full speed, but not at full power.

Somewhere in this mix, you have full contact, hit as hard as you'd like, but the opponents wear a ton of protective gear, resembling the Michelin Tire Man.

Where Do Fall On The Scale?

Do you see how the scale progresses?

You should devise your own scale, in the correct order and progression for the "fight training" you have witnessed. Your order of sparring realism will probably be different from mine.

That's OK.

Of course, the opposite end of the spectrum from no-contact, rule-bound sparring would be an "100% No-Rule Fighting Session" -- lasting until someone couldn't continue. (Not the smartest way to train, in my opinion.)

Where Our Definitions May Differ

You'll notice I didn't include UFC, No-Holds barred, and other rough-in-the ring- competitions in this discussion. Neither did I include one-step sparring.

The UFC really is bound by rules -- lots of them. So, I would probably put it lower on the scale than some of you would. To me, it lacks realism. Because of the 'perceived' roughness involved, many of you would put it closer to free fighting. That's your prerogative.

And for me, one-step sparring, two-step sparring, or even my own idea of spoking (outlined in 'Secrets of Teaching Martial Arts More Effectively,' http://kerwinbenson.com/secrets_of_teaching_mart.html ) are not really sparring. I would give them their own category. You are learning efficient response -- but you aren't testing what you already know as much, in these drills.

Reassess Your Training Style

I hope this article causes some of you to reevaluate how you train. Do you need to go up one rung on the ladder (scale), and make your training more realistic? Are you fooling yourself into believing that you are learning street self defense? Is your training "too tame?"

Or is your training too wild? Is it so freestyle that you aren't learning to make your techniques work, and it's becoming more of a sloppy spar/fight? Do you need more systematic, controlled practice?

Maybe you need to drop one or two rungs on the scale.

Finally, there is nothing that says you have to stay at one level of training. Learn the benefits of all levels of control. Open up to learn realism, and become more regimented for your precision.