by Chris McKinley on Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:00 am
Strange (and everybody),
RE: "my definition of sparring is that both parties do not know what the other will do next and at what time.". I agree. What distinguishes it from drilling is that element of uncertainty, no matter how small. In fact, I believe it's the ability to "dial in" that variable, both more and less of it, that makes all levels of intensity of sparring useful. For instance, let's say you're wanting to take a new tactical idea you've learned and want to see where the opportunity for using it might occur in a real situation. You wouldn't want to start with anything-goes, full-contact sparring because the proper context for using that given tactic might never arise. You could spar several rounds before anything close to a proper opportunity for it came up.
Of course, you do want to keep at least some degree of randomness to make it more natural, otherwise it's just a 'you do A and I'll do B' drill. Let's say your tactic is a specific kind of takedown from clinch. One of the things you can do is rule out long-distance kicks and no more than a brief exchange of hand strikes before agreeing to close to clinch. Depending on the circumstances, it might be helpful to rule out the straight single and double-leg shots from here as well, or else the fight may go to ground before the exploration can happen. Other than these restrictions and once in clinch, anything else goes.
While there is a certain degree of artificiality about it, limiting the sparring to the particular range that the tactic in question is relevant is a good way to multiply the number of opportunities for its application dramatically (which is the advantage of a specific drill) while still retaining a good degree of the uncertainty, the challenge to one's ability to see opportunities for it, and the challenge to one's ability to time the application correctly (which is the advantage of full-on, anything-goes sparring). IOW, you get a little of both, and you can alter the ratio to your specific training needs by further limiting the parameters of the sparring or by relaxing them as the case warrants.
In our example, the trainee still has to contend with the full arsenal of everything else the opponent can bring to bear in the clinch range, so the application will not be easy. In fact, it may still prove too difficult at first, or for less experienced students. In that case, dial back on the intensity by limiting the exchange to medium or even light contact and/or ruling out elbows and knees. The point is, with some thought (and with a distinct absence of machismo), it's possible to tailor the training to the precise needs of the individual at that moment.
To complete our example, let's say the trainee has identified the proper context and appropriate opportunities for applying his new takedown. He's worked it repeatedly in the narrowly defined parameters as set above. Let's say he's now able to identify and apply the move correctly at least half the time against a variety of opponents, and can do so consistently throughout the training session, if not over several training sessions. At this point, he's learned and practiced the move in context, and his instructor might wish to test/increase the robustness of that move by having him use it in sparring sessions with increasingly relaxed parameters. Now instead of clinching range only, the sessions could introduce the inclusion of both long-range strikes and kicks, or perhaps allow elbows and knees to be used, or allow shots going to the ground, or eventually all of the above. Once all ranges are included, the intensity level can be raised to medium, and eventually to full-contact.
If these other intensity factors are introduced intelligently and gradually, the trainee learns to contextualize his new skill into an increasingly wider and more realistic context. In the technical parlance, these processes are called permeation and generalization. In order for the skill to be fully useable in real combat, both the scope and the intensity of the context for its use must gradually, but eventually, be increased to that which is identical to the native context of the skill, i.e., full-on and anything-goes, possibility of weapons, starting from a diminished capacity, presence of environmental obstacles, bystanders, multiple opponents, darkness, heat, cold, rain, etc. IOW, you can make the experience as intense and realistic as you want, and the skill as robust as you need it to be for the needs of that trainee.