After a sparring session at the studio one night, my students and I were discussing the idea of the lessons you can learn when sparring with individuals outside of your own school and/or system.
Stepping out of your comfort zone and sparring with people, especially on their turf, is a great way to learn about your shortcomings under a pressure situation.
One of my students suggested that it’s a good idea. Since his thoughts, along with many others, are that “if it doesn’t work in sparring or in the ring, it won’t work in a ‘real fight.’”
My answer was:
“No, that’s not necessarily true.”
“Why?” he asked.
I explained: "Because, first of all, sparring with someone is a mutually agreed engagement, a duel if you will.
Secondly, sparring is rule-bound. Nobody in their right mind, including you, is going to go full out and start gouging eyes, breaking limbs, and fish-hooking people during a friendly match.
What it is good for is to see how you respond mentally and physically under pressure.”
My student was puzzled. “How can this be? Many of the well-known instructors teach self-defense using this method,” he said.
That IS true.
There are MANY instructors who pride themselves on testing everything in a sparring-based format, with the same idea that if it doesn’t work in the ring, it won’t work on the street.
Without taking anything away from sparring as an important training method, I think it’s important to understand that there are two cognitive errors in thinking this way.
Domain Specificity
First is “domain specificity,” assuming that expertise in one field, sparring in this case, translates to another (self-defense).
Let’s use MMA as an example. It’s a great sport, but the environment is controlled with specific rule sets. You’re also training to fight someone using these exact same rules; and in competition, someone in the same weight class.
You use certain types of “legal” striking methods using some type of kickboxing base, along with relatively safe grappling techniques and submissions in order to NOT maim your opponent.
And lastly, you are fighting to win – either by a KO, submission, or a decision.
Meanwhile, in self-defense, there are no rules.
They can grab hair, bite, and maybe use a weapon. Sometimes there are multiple opponents. You may be attacked in a stairwell or between cars in a parking lot… on gravel or shards of glass on the pavement.
Here, it isn’t about winning.
It’s about escaping and getting away without getting hurt.
The Ludic Fallacy
Let’s have a look at the second cognitive error.
A “ludic fallacy,” an idea developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book "The Black Swan" (2007), is when we attempt to apply rule-bound structures to endeavors outside the game itself.
So to take the example of MMA vs self-defense, a ludic fallacy in this case is if an MMA practitioner thinks that “I’m a champ in the ring, I can beat anyone on the street in a self-defense situation.”
We've already established that in a self-defense situation, there are no rules.
It’s what we call “asocial violence” – or "predatory violence."
2 Types of Violence & 2 Types of Predators
Sgt. Rory Miller, the author of “Meditations on Violence” and other excellent books on self-defense, explains that there are two types of such violence:
A "Resource Predator" – someone who wants something from you, e.g., car, money, phone, etc.; and a "Process Predator" – someone who commits violence for its own sake, i.e., for their own fun and enjoyment.
This is different from “Social Violence,” typically ego-driven fights where individuals essentially agree to fight by squaring up. Most times, you can avoid such types of violence by using “verbal judo” (verbally defusing violence) and proper awareness of your surroundings.
In the instance of ludic fallacy, we’re discussing the former: asocial violence.
Self-defense is unpredictable. It doesn’t start when the ref says “GO!” There are no indicators. No weight classes. Weapons could be involved… and it happens when you least expect it.
So the fallacy here is that if you can fight in the ring, then you’ll automatically be prepared for the chaos of a sudden predatory attack.
This is what Mr. Hock Hockheim, a Close Quarter Combatives instructor with decades of experience, calls “The Myth of the Duel” – in this case, judging the efficacy of an art using sparring or in the ring as synonymous with self-defense readiness.
Now don't get me wrong. I absolutely believe in progressive resistance training in martial arts; and using sparring as a tool develop specific attributes in real time.
But it's not the be-all end-all.
Particularly as it pertains to self-defense training. (and I discuss my thoughts on other variables in self-defense training in this article)
As a side note, the whole “it doesn’t work in the ring” or “I’d like to see that work in the ring” is a common argument on social media where many view certain types of training, such as practicing Kenpo Karate techniques, as inferior to arts using sparring as a base in their training.
But that is a whole other essay…