[Freestyle/Sporting MA] From Ring to Street!

[Andy Murray]

I beleive I learned some things in competitive bouts that better equip me for 'real' confrontation.

We could spend all day 'slagging off' competitors and freestylers, but let's not. Instead, ask yourself what are the more positive aspects of testing yourself on the mat.

What do you get on the Mat, that you don't get from Kata?

Do tournament tactics and techniques translate to self defence?

:cool:

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Can I go for a different option? Tournament fighting only makes a difference if that's purely what you train for, in which case its damaging.

[Andy Murray]

There are a few different ways that could be read Jimmy. Could you explain what you mean?

[ladyhawk]

I've competed when there were no trophies and no medals. If you placed then at the end of the tournament you are called forward and recognized.
Kata helps you become comfortable with various moves and techniques but it's kumite that brings it all together and tests your abilities. This is where you learn to improvise and adapt or suffer the consequences. Nothing like getting hit in the head to make you realize you shouldn't have dropped your guard.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Okay, I'll elaborate, sorry that was badly put.

Training purely for winning tournaments in the most effecient way is not a good idea, but you almost never see this carried out. Training purely for point sparring as an example, and trying for the most effecient method, would involve little more than holding a fence and occasionally throwing single techniques using pure speed rather than power (yes people will say that they still have power, but you try comparing a fast move with poor mechanics to a slower one with good mechanics). Limiting yourself like this is damaging if, and only if, you are also taught that you are learning realistic self defense. You are learning some degree of self defense, but while someone training for a mix will learn a variety of techniques you will tend to only learn those which are effective in tournaments. One example of this is twisting kick, absolutely great kick, can sneak up under guards and hit just about any target, but its application really comes in if you use it to the thigh or the knee. Because of the mechanics of the kick it is simply not particularly powerful (it can be, but that's once you've mastered it), if you learn within tournament rules (remember I'm talking about point sparring and not necessarily other forms of tournaments) then you are learning to apply the technique to targets it is not designed for.

I think that made sense. I hope.

[Andy Murray]

We could spend all day 'slagging off' competitors and freestylers, but let's not. Instead, ask yourself what are the more positive aspects of testing yourself on the mat.
Do tournament tactics and techniques translate to self defence?

OK, the best qualified people to comment are probably those who have actually competed or fought.....................................

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I've fought, and I've done point sparring. Much less point sparring than actual fighting, it didn't reflect a genuine fight at all.

[CyCloNe]

Superb Thread/Poll Andy.

Having seen a little of both sides of the story (firstly training in traditional TKD and then moving to Kickboxing with a view to competing) I think your opinion varies hugely to your own experience.

I have trained with many students who's only focus is to compete and yes, they do sometimes get short sighted and loose focus as to why one would study in the martial arts. This however does not necessarily make them any less efficient than someone who trains for the other reasons, just perhaps more prone to thinking that real life situations are similar to competition fighting, this of course is a mistake.

In my opinion, it doesnt really matter what your training goal is, the point is that every hour you spend working on techniques, be those techniques street based or simple ways to score a point you are improving yourself.

I also feel that a lot of competition techniques are valid on the street. For instance, the good old inside and outside thigh kicks. The only reason for studying these techniques is to weaken an oponents frame and perhaps slow his kicks down. But due to the directness and speed of the technique it would be highly effective on the street, this is from experience, not opinion.

Rather than speculation and opinion, how about a few of you list your real life experiences and what you consider your training goals are, perhaps this would outline a more rounded answer to the poll?

Of course we are all proned to exagerate, its part of our nature but the more we do, the more we loose the clarity of the answer in which we seek. LOL! Perhaps I should start writing fortune cookies :D

[Andy Murray]

Call me Graf Zeppelin, cos I don't mind going down in flames. I thought this idea was interesting, so I'm gonna persevere.

In points fighting, the first person to score get's the point.
Points fighters spend a lot of time training their movements so they are telegraphed as little as possible.
Their objective is to get their weapon to the target in the shortest time possible, before they in turn can be struck.
This is done in a pressure environment, against someone who is doing the same thing you are trying to do.

I spent some time fighting for points. In my mindset, I tried to imagine that my opponent had his feet and hands dipped in broken glass. If he hit me, even once, I was going to get hurt. Unless I was playing for time, I used 90% hand techniques.

I feel that this translates well to street fighting. If I am threatened, then I have already been assaulted as far as I am concerned. I would hit first, and believe 200% that I will hit my opponent completely unawares. I know I am fast, I know I am strong, I know my opponent is dangerous, but I know I am not going to stop hitting him/them until all danger to me is past. I have to have these beleifs, otherwise, I will be ineffective.

You may argue that in points fighting, the techniques you see are not designed to hurt, and are often flashy. This is true.
It requires little modification to make these effective.
That lunging backfist can become an eyestrike, that reverse punch can become a throat strike. Good points fighters strike in combinations, and are used to regaining safe distance after their salvo has been fired.

What say you?

Andy

[Saz]

I think you're right Andy. If point fighting is taught well, then it can and does translate well to street fighting. In the point fighting I've done, we get awarded the point if the technique would have knocked down/hurt the oppenent if it had connected at full strength. From training like this, we learn to move in quickly, attack, and move back out quickly, which would be vaulable on the street.

[stump]

I think points fighting is a fairly sketchy base to build proper fighting.

The main thing I think competing has going for it (in this context) is that it teaches you to deal with that huge surge of adrenalin that you also get before during a fight. That's something you can only get through confrontation IMO

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by stump
I think points fighting is a fairly sketchy base to build proper fighting.

Nobody is suggesting you do mate. Merely looking for the good in all things.

Good point about the adrenalin surge thing, though I don't feel this reaches the same level as it does on the street FMLI.

Andy

[Darzeka]

Do you still get the point if the other person hits you on the way out or just after you hit them?
Can you score points if the other person has already scored on this exchange?
Can you score multiple points (you hit three strikes in a combo)?

Just trying to figure out the rules of the points system.

In a real fight I would be trying to put them on the ground with my first series of attacks rather than go in strike/score then go out. IMO the combo should be a setup for a take down/lock/throw. But thats just me.

The only down fall I see about points fighting (I actually be wrong about this but anyway) is the aversion to vital point striking.
You can't really strike the eyes, throat, groin, kidneys, front of knee, temple, etc. with any force if you aren't trying to hurt them. Just wodering if there is an element of conditioning against lethal strikes, throws, etc.
And are the techniques you use going to lethal if you perform them properly? I'm not talking about changing a forefist to a finger thrust but changing the target of knee strikes and such which if I attack with is going to break ribs not bruise them (Muay Tahi knee to side of ribs just hurts a little because of the angle of the attack. Our knee strike comes in horizontal and is definately going to break something.)
The other thing is situation. The ring you fight in I accept as nessceary as you will have limited space in a fight but can you fight effectively with gloves on? Do you wear gloves? foot/shinpads?

I think that mainly it will be the person who will do the "illegal" things without hesitation that will win a "real" fight.

Flame throwers on standby. Asbestos suit ready. Fire exstinguisher primed.

[stump]

I agree Andy but it's a good place to start. My own first experiences in both competition and a streetfight was that i couldn't think or talk because of my lack of familiarity with dealing with adrenalin. A few competitions taught me to deal with the more unwelcome parts of the rush.

Apologies if I came accross as a bit final in condemning points fighting. But i think there are more cons than pros, and it's better to separate them completely.

[Kat]

Are we talking MMA here or stop every time you point or FC Karate,

What do you define as ring?

[Silver_no2]

Originally posted by Andy Murray
Do tournament tactics and techniques translate to self defence?
I think that they do translate to a certain extent. Several of the applications of the aikido techniques that we use in randori can be effective in a self defence situation. I have used two of them myself.


Originally posted by Andy Murray
Kata helps you become comfortable with various moves and techniques but it's kumite that brings it all together and tests your abilities. This is where you learn to improvise and adapt or suffer the consequences.
Couldn't agree more LH! If I had tried to do the lovely looking kata movements I would have been given a hearty smack and would probably not be able to use my hands to type this :D

Have to admit that my aikido is still not of a high enough level that I could rely solely on it. I would still have to batter the person using brute force and ignorance until I could find the opening for the technique that I wanted to use :D Until the techniques become second nature to me then it will always be a case of the second or two that I am thinking about what to do being more than enough of an opportunity for my enemy/opponent to hurt me.

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Darzeka
Do you still get the point if the other person hits you on the way out or just after you hit them?
Can you score points if the other person has already scored on this exchange?
Can you score multiple points (you hit three strikes in a combo)?

Just trying to figure out the rules of the points system.

In a real fight I would be trying to put them on the ground with my first series of attacks rather than go in strike/score then go out. IMO the combo should be a setup for a take down/lock/throw. But thats just me.

The only down fall I see about points fighting (I actually be wrong about this but anyway) is the aversion to vital point striking.
You can't really strike the eyes, throat, groin, kidneys, front of knee, temple, etc. with any force if you aren't trying to hurt them. Just wodering if there is an element of conditioning against lethal strikes, throws, etc.
And are the techniques you use going to lethal if you perform them properly?
The other thing is situation. The ring you fight in I accept as nessceary as you will have limited space in a fight but can you fight effectively with gloves on? Do you wear gloves? foot/shinpads?

I think that mainly it will be the person who will do the "illegal" things without hesitation that will win a "real" fight.

Flame throwers on standby. Asbestos suit ready. Fire exstinguisher primed.

Hi Darzeka,

I'll try to qualify my subject better, as you ask some important questions. I was mainly referring to the UK semi-contact points system. First person to score with a legal technique scores the point, even if the other person hits back.
Usually the points system is similar to; 1 poit hand to body. 1 point hand to head. 2 points kick to body. 3 points kick to head. 1 point for a sweep which drops the other person to their back, with a further point given for following up the sweep with a technique. A point is deducted for leaving the (usually matted) area every time after warnings have been given. Points are taken away for excessive contact (lack of control), and in some cases for loss of balance. Combinations aren't scored in points, only the first successful technique. There is a 'continuous' points system which is more akin to Amateur Kickboxing scored on a clicker system.

I was saying that the legal techniques can be turned into non-legal (read as effective) ones, but keeping all the good things. Non Telegraphy, speed, biomechanics etc.

Lau Gar as a style, became well known on the points circuit in the Seventies and Eighties, with fighters like Steve Babbs, Neville Wray, Kevin Brewerton, Sean Viera etc. Too many to mention really. Not that I would expect anyone here to have heard of them. These guys were willing to enter any points system, anywhere in the world, fight to their rules, and win at all costs. my own Sifu used to come back from the Florida Gold Coast championships every year with a big Prize. It was the intelligence, and adaptability of these guys that helped them overcome. They fought Traditional Karateka, Tae Kwon Do, Kickboxers etc. Analysed the styles weaknesses, and beat them. Even when often these styles can have very biased refereeing.

Semi Contact fighters wear hand pads, footpads, shin guards, groin guards, gum shields and head guards.

It is by no means a complete figting system, I'm just saying there are some good bits that translate into other areas.

Some of the Lau Gar guys later went on to Pro KickBoxing, and one even Heavy Weight Boxing, yet i could still see Lau Gar in their movements.

Errm, Hope that helps Darzeka :)

Apologies if I came accross as a bit final in condemning points fighting. But i think there are more cons than pros, and it's better to separate them completely.

Not at all Stump, sometimes you gotta be prepared to look at things with an open mind. The adaptation that these old points fighters did, was akin to what the JKD guys do, in picking out the bits that work, from the bits that don't. It's easy to dismiss the points circuit as glitzy and egotistical, with guys just playing psychological tag. If you can take something of value from it though, surely that's a good thing?

Are we talking MMA here or stop every time you point or FC Karate,

Hi Kat, I started off talking about point stop.
What do you define as ring?

'Ring' was possibly a poor choice for the title in light of the replies I have had thus far. Point stop, as I suspect you already know, is fought in a square area of variable size. The larger Tournaments are on matted areas.

Until the techniques become second nature to me then it will always be a case of the second or two that I am thinking about what to do being more than enough of an opportunity for my enemy/opponent to hurt me.

Very wise Silver. Once a technique is second nature to you, you can adopt it to fit the circumstances.

Flame away :D

Andy

[Kat]

OK then
I say ring is good for anybody who is serious about fighting.Not nesscessarily for the stategies or techniques but more for the situation of pressure that it puts you in.Feeling the intensity of having another person after you.Not someone that you train with every week.
I would recommned those who haven't stepped in the ring for at least 3 x 3min rounds of Muay Thai or Boxing should at least attempt to experience something simular.MMA is where its at now for me,I get to close grapple take down grapple lock etc and sometimes I even win.(I do strike I just wanted to hear the bitching if I left it out)

I know MMA is not real,the floors softer,their's no mates out the back,and the fact that hes wearing lyrca shorts but hey I enjoy it.

Point fighting (as in stop point)can't see that having much tranlation at all,flow is very important in the stuff I practise.But each to his own.

[Andy Murray]

.(I do strike I just wanted to hear the bitching if I left it out)

:p LOL Point fighting (as in stop point)can't see that having much tranlation at all,flow is very important in the stuff I practise.But each to his own.

Hi Kat,

It's merely one aspect of the things I have spent time on, and not as others might think my sole strategy. I always feel it is better to be the person striking first, as it sets up everything else. The tools are there in points fighting, to be used or ignored as in everything.
If I can modify a points technique to take out the eyes of an aggressor, or his ability to breath, then surely it translates pretty well?
It is not my sole function as an MArtist, merely another spanner in my toolbox. I don't discount any form of practice, merely absorb what I find useful, as someone once said. Try it and judge for yourself.

Andy

[Kat]

Absolutely,I think it all must be helpfull in the long run,all formats seem to teach distancing targeting etc.I feel a lot of this comes down to the person,and how he responds to a situation.So applying the mental pressure to perform in any format cna't be bad.

Self defense, well I am still of the opinion that alot of it is common sense,and reamaining calm enough to actually use that common sense.

And so I think I will tick the box that says TF are pretty hard dudes even when oiled up and wearing lycra shorts :D

[Darzeka]

Seeing as how rare "common sense" is shouldn't we be looking for "uncommon (good) sense"?

I can see how the point stop fighting could help with the first in scores but maybe they should add a deduction if you still get hit or an extra one for blocking the opponents attack? I know this would encourage defensive fighting but it is still much harder to defend and not get hit than to attack and hit.

I can also see how the speed neccessary to score could help if you intend to use low impact hurtwagon techniques (eye gouge/ groin strikes/neck strikes/etc.) to stun or setup your opponenet and a follow up "goodnight" technique (too many to list).

Just out of curiosity what type of throws do you do? Just sweeps or body throws, momentum throws and body drops? Would they all score the same?

How would you guage "excessive" force on a throw? The harder you throw the less it hurts. But you can use less "lets see how far through the mat I can throw you" force and more "If you land on your shoulder then all the force will be transfered there, and it will break" nasty technique.
Would that come under "sportsmanship" guidelines?

In summary I think that a combination of as many types of training will train all the apsects you will need to become a "dangerous" MA.

[stump]

Though the rules differ between associations i think generally there are no throws allowed in points.

I remember a few years ago there was a new style of points fighting called Ju Jitsu kumite i think which tried to combine points fighting with limited grappling. Haven't heard anything about it for a while. I think it got sidelined by the growth of MMA in Europe.

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Darzeka
Seeing as how rare "common sense" is shouldn't we be looking for "uncommon (good) sense"?

I can see how the point stop fighting could help with the first in scores but maybe they should add a deduction if you still get hit or an extra one for blocking the opponents attack? I know this would encourage defensive fighting but it is still much harder to defend and not get hit than to attack and hit.



I agree with that in principle, but in reality refereeing these matches is difficult, and even amongst two judges, it's difficult to decide who has struck first, as the speed of some players is so great. If you add in judging defences as well as strikes, it's absolutely impossible I'm afraid.

Points fighting is a practice of limited value in reality, I was merely suggesting that I had taken some good things from it personally, and it doesn't deserve to be so readily dismissed as it is at times (Usually by those who can't do it well).

As said elsewhere, it's a sport, and anything competitive raises standards, making people analyse themselves and others.

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by Andy Murray

Points fighting is a practice of limited value in reality, I was merely suggesting that I had taken some good things from it personally, and it doesn't deserve to be so readily dismissed as it is at times (Usually by those who can't do it well).


I agree. For one, I'm not very good at it. And I'm quite disparaging of it. But the problem I think is that it has come to occupy such a central place of importance, particularly in karate. As one exercise amongst many, I think it has some good points and certainly has something to teach. But when most of your training becomes geared towards this sort of competition, which is the case in many, many karate clubs, then that's a dangerous thing in my opinion.

Mike

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan


I agree. For one, I'm not very good at it. And I'm quite disparaging of it.

1/ But the problem I think is that it has come to occupy such a central place of importance, particularly in karate. As one exercise amongst many, I think it has some good points and certainly has something to teach.

2/ But when most of your training becomes geared towards this sort of competition, which is the case in many, many karate clubs, then that's a dangerous thing in my opinion.

Mike

1/ Could you explain what you mean by a 'central place' please Mike. Do you mean more and more people are practicing 'only' the sport aspects of Karate and less of the Classical Karate? If so, what is the ratio of one to the other?

2/ Dangerous in what way?

Andy

[morphus]

If someone can't fight competition style, does that make them bad at self defence in the street? I don't think so personally, I am not a competition person, i have entering a quite a few now though(point scoring), i've actually only won two fights - i have learned from the experiencebut because i'm not a good competition fighter doesn't mean i'm not good at self defence.

full contact ...now that's a different matter, depends on the rules one trains for.

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by morphus


1/ If someone can't fight competition style, does that make them bad at self defence in the street?

2/ - i have learned from the experience but because i'm not a good competition fighter doesn't mean i'm not good at self defence.

3/ full contact ...now that's a different matter, depends on the rules one trains for.

1/ Nope, it's still down to the individual. Yet you do get people who couldn't cut it on the mat going;...blah blah I'm too deadly to compete...blah blah might kill someone.....blah blah blah.

2/ That's good, as I was suggesting that there were things of value to be learned, simple as that.

3/ It is, and it does. Full contact has some different pro's n cons.

Thanks Morphus.

Andy

[Mike Flanagan]

Hi Andy

Originally posted by Andy Murray


1/ Could you explain what you mean by a 'central place' please Mike. Do you mean more and more people are practicing 'only' the sport aspects of Karate and less of the Classical Karate? If so, what is the ratio of one to the other?


Well, opening up a hornet's nest, what do we mean by classical karate? But before I go down that rocky road I'll try to answer your question.

Free sparring is something that is practised in nearly all karate clubs, usually its the only partner work that is 'free', ie. its not at all choreographed. Now you might say fine, but we only do a small amount of free sparring in our club. And that may be so, but even in prearranged partner work most karate clubs focus on 1) long range techniques that are synonymous with competition style free sparring and 2) long range techniques whose purpose is neither self-defence or sport but rather self-development. So even when sparring itself doesn't occupy a 'central place' the techniques of long range free sparring often do occupy that place.

In terms of ratio of sport to classical techniques I'd say its at least 99% sport and/or self-development in most clubs, including those clubs that don't do competition. IE. the techniques practiced are those of modern (post-1920's) sport based karate rather than classical (pre-1920's) self-defence oriented karate. The movements are very similar but their purpose changed in the transition from classical to modern karate. If this seems an odd thing to say, consider the basic blocks of karate - rising, downward, inward, outward, knife-hand. Have you ever used them in their basic form in either a real self-defence situation or a competition environment? I'm guessing not because, as most karateka discover, they don't really work in their basic format. One has to wonder why we learn them when they blatantly don't work.


2/ Dangerous in what way?


It teaches you:
1. not to attack the joints, genitals, eyes, neck or legs.
2. not to kick below the waist but actually condones performing high athletically demanding kics
3. to target out of range, ie. pulling your blows too short (but 'pulling your blows' doesn't do it justice. You won't score if your arm's bent. You have to pretty much straighten it as your fist meets the target in order to score)
4. not to grab
5. not to bite, spit, slap, hook or uppercut
6. to withdraw as soon as you successfully land a blow

and so on

But what's almost worse your adversary isn't doing any of those things either. So when you face an adversary who wades in, grabs you and knocks you off balance while continuing to bash you with his oher fist, you're not ready for it. Too much practice at free sparring and your programming yourself 1) to expect certain unrealistic behaviour from your attaker and 2) to react in an appropriate way yourself.

Now I know there are people who will say "actually we incorporate these things into our sparring" and that's great. And I acknowledge there are good things about sparring, in particular learning to cope with an unchoreagraphed assault. But so often sparring becomes much more than just one exercise among many, rather than one means (amongst many) to an end it becomes the end itself. And then people make the mistake of thinking that this is how it works in the harsh reality outside the dojo.

Climbing down off my soapbox,

Mike

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by morphus
If someone can't fight competition style, does that make them bad at self defence in the street? I don't think so personally, I am not a competition person, i have entering a quite a few now though(point scoring), i've actually only won two fights - i have learned from the experiencebut because i'm not a good competition fighter doesn't mean i'm not good at self defence.


I agree. If you regard competition style sparring as an exercise, then you can endeavour to learn good lessons from it without picking up the bad habits that go with it. But you can be shonky at free sparring but good at self-defence. I'd like to think this is where I'm at. Certainly I'm sure I'm not very good at sparring, I just don't practice it enough and I never was that good to start with. Yet at the same time I'm also confident that my self-defence skills have improved dramatically in recent years.


full contact ...now that's a different matter, depends on the rules one trains for.

Again though, it has its strengths and weaknesses. Any sport, or any exchange with a set of rules, by definition has limitations. I'm sure though that full contact will iron out a number of the failings of touch contact sparring.:)

Mike

[Cain]

If u spar in competitions, or if u just spar, u will know where u stand, u can't ignore sparring or competing in tourneys, even if it is not close to the real thing.....after all something is better than nothing.....

|Cain|

[Cain]

Oh forget competitions, ppl will get the wrong idea from my posts, just take it as sparring.....

|Cain|

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan
Hi Andy



1/

Well, opening up a hornet's nest, what do we mean by classical karate? But before I go down that rocky road I'll try to answer your question.

2/

Free sparring is something that is practised in nearly all karate clubs, usually its the only partner work that is 'free', ie. its not at all choreographed. Now you might say fine, but we only do a small amount of free sparring in our club. And that may be so, but even in prearranged partner work most karate clubs focus on 1) long range techniques that are synonymous with competition style free sparring and 2) long range techniques whose purpose is neither self-defence or sport but rather self-development. So even when sparring itself doesn't occupy a 'central place' the techniques of long range free sparring often do occupy that place.

3/

In terms of ratio of sport to classical techniques I'd say its at least 99% sport and/or self-development in most clubs, including those clubs that don't do competition. IE. the techniques practiced are those of modern (post-1920's) sport based karate rather than classical (pre-1920's) self-defence oriented karate. The movements are very similar but their purpose changed in the transition from classical to modern karate. If this seems an odd thing to say, consider the basic blocks of karate - rising, downward, inward, outward, knife-hand. Have you ever used them in their basic form in either a real self-defence situation or a competition environment? I'm guessing not because, as most karateka discover, they don't really work in their basic format. One has to wonder why we learn them when they blatantly don't work.



4/

It teaches you:
1. not to attack the joints, genitals, eyes, neck or legs.
2. not to kick below the waist but actually condones performing high athletically demanding kics
3. to target out of range, ie. pulling your blows too short (but 'pulling your blows' doesn't do it justice. You won't score if your arm's bent. You have to pretty much straighten it as your fist meets the target in order to score)
4. not to grab
5. not to bite, spit, slap, hook or uppercut
6. to withdraw as soon as you successfully land a blow

and so on

5/

But what's almost worse your adversary isn't doing any of those things either. So when you face an adversary who wades in, grabs you and knocks you off balance while continuing to bash you with his oher fist, you're not ready for it. Too much practice at free sparring and your programming yourself 1) to expect certain unrealistic behaviour from your attaker and 2) to react in an appropriate way yourself.

6/

Now I know there are people who will say "actually we incorporate these things into our sparring" and that's great. And I acknowledge there are good things about sparring, in particular learning to cope with an unchoreagraphed assault. But so often sparring becomes much more than just one exercise among many, rather than one means (amongst many) to an end it becomes the end itself. And then people make the mistake of thinking that this is how it works in the harsh reality outside the dojo.

Climbing down off my soapbox,

Mike

1/

I was referring to your mention of the difference between Traditional and Classical Karate on another thread. Just trying to tune in to you.

2/

We've lost each other here. Not an issue, so never mind.

3/

In brief, I'm of the opinion that it is up to the practitioner to be able to adapt any or all techniques in a manner appropriate to the circumstances they find themselves in. Quality Instruction should improve this ability?

4/

I disagree. I can understand where you get this idea from, and I'm sure it is true for some people. The ethic is to be in control of the technique and the area it lands on. The manner of the technique (read up for earlier examples) could be varied from situation to situation, as could the impact or effect. Yes there are things omitted on the mat for safety reasons, but there are other ways of training those things.

5/

If again, you have not prepared for this in another way. I keep having to repeat this, but supposing Royce Gracie happened to do points as well? Supposing Ken Shamrock happened to do points as well? Not that they would of course, but I'm just saying don't be so dismissive of the tournament people, as believe it or not, some of them also train grappling and Thai and boxing as well.

6/

I understand that this is indeed true for some people.

Get back on that soapbox Mike, we're not done yet :D

Regards

Andy

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by cain_charlie
If u spar in competitions, or if u just spar, u will know where u stand, u can't ignore sparring or competing in tourneys, even if it is not close to the real thing.....after all something is better than nothing.....

|Cain|

I agree its better than nothing. But sometimes its not much better. And it can instill a sense of false confidence, which is definitely not a good thing.

I've got nothing against competition sparring, but I think it needs to be understood that its not self-defence - its a different thing. I see many adverts for martial art clubs that purport to teach self-defence but in reality they're teaching sport and nothing else. If the new students who come along understand that then that's fine.

On the flip side when I have new people come along and want to train with me I ask them why they want to train. If they want to compete then I simply tell them that's not what we do and try to point them in the right direction.

Mike

[Cain]

Umm......Mike I knew I made a mistake when I mentioned the word 'competetion' my next post clears that up I was just talking about sparring and not competetions.

And yes I agree with you that one can get confident, but then are'nt we martial artists supposed to know the truth about fighting? ;)

Sure sparring may not be THAT close to the real thing but then again I stick to my original words - Something is still better than nothing.

|Cain|

[morphus]

I wonder......... is sparring not like competition?

As you're trying to catch the other person out/off guard/score points, the only difference being, sparring in class (rather than tournament) you can stop and analyse your mistakes and your strategies.

Again this depends on your method of sparring, full contact all out/full contact with rules/semi contact/point scoring etc.................hmmmmm big spectrum.

I think too much emphasis on sparring/sporting/competition including class sparring could be a distraction from defendinng ones self at all costs - which on the street is what it could come down to!

As for "martial artists knowing the truth about fighting" as cain said Ha ..Ha ha LOL ...no i don't think that at all. My way of thinking, training in MA' just gives you a slightly better chance of survival than if you had no training at all!

[Cain]

Originally posted by morphus
As for "martial artists knowing the truth about fighting" as cain said Ha ..Ha ha LOL ...no i don't think that at all. My way of thinking, training in MA' just gives you a slightly better chance of survival than if you had no training at all!

Gee!!!! Maybe we should swap our signs, that was meant to be a joke......

Anyways if not sparring then how will u practice? By whacking ur partner in the groin? By using eye gouges? By beating the crap outta each other? If no then how do you train? Yes I agree it's not THAT close to the real thing, but it's the closest u can get to the real thing.

And there sure is a lot more than points in sparring.

|Cain|

[morphus]

Fair enough ...Joke!

Ok in the ju jitsu i practice we do not spar, we use set senarios and try as many different angles/grabs/defences/attacks etc as poss'. In CKD we do not spar in the usual way either although it is a form of sparring.

In neither art do we compete, we never point score.....everything has to practical and usable at close range and with distance, as most fights go to the ground we also practice this!

I have done sparring too and found it to be a little useful, but i would not say it was the closest we would get to the real(street fighting)combat. I would say that the close in work and groundwork was nearer to the real thing, you could call that sparring but not in the same sence of point scoring type sparring or trying to out punch or kick each other.

A QUESTION - When sparring semi-contact or similar(maybe heavy sparring) punching/kicking have you ever been all over the other guy....them not being so good perhaps, then from no-where they've caught you in the groin and you've gone down or had to stop(whatever). That is just sparring and it doesn't matter how good you are at sparring theres always a lucky punch or kick. A punch or kick can be very damaging...now if you are on the inside (close in) fighting, it's much harder to land any significant blow, UNLESS you know how to play in that arena.

I'm still not saying you shouldn't practice sparring or compete ( which i feel CAN amount to the same thing) it is important you know that arena too, but AGAIN sparring/competing too much can breed too much relience on fighting/defending that way.

[Cain]

Sparring/competing too much???? :confused: There's no such thing as too much in sparring, I accept that u can include other drills, but sparring is the closest u can get to the real thing. [And I mean alive sparring]

|Cain|

[Andy Murray]

Thump....thump.....thump.....

Sound of my forehead hitting wall!

[Andrew Green]

Andy,

ask a dumb question ;)

But here's my answer: all of the above, or none of the above

You can be good at point fighting and still be a "glass jawed Ballerinas."

You can also be a very strong fighter, and do point fighting as well.

Baseball players:
A) Couldn't stay upright on there skates if there life depended on it
B) Good at falling
C) Got a mean slap shot
D) Top level Hockey players

The two things are related in some ways (Sports, wacking something small and hard with a stick) but completely different in many others.

But playing baseball to get good at hockey is a poor use of training time.

[Andy Murray]

Yeah, like everyone here trains all the time right?

Can I just point out the first post of the thread to you folks!

Everyone seems to be taking the last question a little too literally, when I'm actually on about something a little different.

Nor am I talking about bloody sparring either.

Might as well talk to myself :(

[Andy Murray]

In fact.......that flippin does it........yer all gettin a bloomin article on this very subject!

Gnash! gnash! grind! gnash!

[TkdWarrior]

<Thump....thump.....thump.....

Sound of my forehead hitting wall!>

sounds like just not ur day andy...:D
-TkdWarrior-

[Andrew Green]

uh oh...

I see another rant coming...

You're trying to say that tournaments offer some benefits which translate well into fighting outside those restrictions that aren't gained through normal sparring right?

Now there are some things there, facing an unknown opponent, adrenal rush, etc.

But I think that the nature of the rules puts it so far away from what it would be like otherwise it has become a seperate sport.

Does baseball competition prepare you for hockey competition, in some ways yes. It teaches you how to hit things hard with a stick, how to deal with the pressure of competition, etc. But it is a different sport. Why compete in baseball if you want to train in hockey?

Competition can be good, but I don't like point fighting, the rules tend to build bad habits and teach incorrect strategy. Imagine a olympic style TKDist using TKD strategy and tactics in a MMA competition, they'd get killed. The conditioning would be of benefit, but they'd be on there back as soon as they through the first high kick.

So is TKD competition beneficial to MMA, in some ways yes, in others its counter productive as it teaches you to do things which you really shouldn't do.

[Cain]

Oh!!!! I am all blown up!!! :eek: could'nt agree more with Andrew.

Besides Andy, why r u thumping ur head? Did I say something wrong........? :( If I am please lemme know.......

|Cain|

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Andrew Green

So is TKD competition beneficial to MMA, in some ways yes, in others its counter productive as it teaches you to do things which you really shouldn't do.


This is the crux of what I am getting at. Assume for a moment that I'm not a complete idiot if you will. I agree completely, training TKD does not prepare you for MMA, yet training TKD has benefits, as does anything in some way shape or form.

I'm saying absorb what is useful, discard what is clearly old knickers.

Why is that the same people who jumped on Jimmy for being close-minded about sparring, are now so fixed in their opinion, when they largely seem to be talking about something which is outside theire field of experience???

*Bah*

P.S. Nope TKDwarrior, not getting at you mate.

[TkdWarrior]

hmm andy u gave me different prespective to think about cuz u included the good old TKD trick ;) :D

I agree completely, training TKD does not prepare you for MMA, yet training TKD has benefits, as does anything in some way shape or form.
i agree with u here...if u only train TKD u'll never fight a grappler... u hav to go above the style...

P.S. Nope TKDwarrior, not getting at you mate.
u mean did it offended me?? nah...i hav grown up u see ;) :D...i don't mind ppl bashing TKD cuz i know the reasons(observed myself too) i know it's sad but true...still there'll be ppl like me who'll not let this art die disgracefully...

-TkdWarrior-

[morphus]

This is my point - you don't need one way of training, be it competition/sparrring/mitts/shields or other you need them all to be able to play all arenas/all areas/all levels But if you don't train, in a particular one of those above, doesn't make you inaffective necessarily, you're just not as experienced as someone else might be in that particular skill.

To get back to the original post -"what do you get from competing" - one you get an experience of adrenalin, to a certain extent, you get learn how to handle an unco-operative opponant, it'll give you sharper reflexes than something/moves that are rehersed(although i think rehersal gives an automatic responce and can be just as effective.)

tournament tactics- "do they translate" - not without some adjustment, that depends on what type of tournament you train for and what sort of situation you face in the street.

I have the highest respect for any athelete who get to the top of their field including MA's; however it still doesn't mean that someone who isn't at the top of a competitive field doesn't deserve respect and curtainly doesn't mean they(MA's) can't defend themselves effectively.

What do you get from Kata compared to the mat - I can't speak for other arts, but patterns i have done are there only to practice stringing combinations together and for cardio vascular and are used as a precursor to working on other pieces of equipment including sparring etc. On the mat close range you get to know responses, the opponants and you own, what will work for you and what won't etc etc etc

[TkdWarrior]

wat they mean when they say
sparring is good ..they mean i do lots of sparring :D
lol...
competition is useless...they mean i never won :D
lolol...
ok ok kidding here...

from my understanding sparring is basically for those ppl who are into serious MA things, for self defense u need little sparring just for understanding distance, timing etc etc...when u do self defense u r not expecting bruce lee against urself, so the tactics normally got changed as opposed to sparring...

My brother doesn't like MA but i hav gave him enuff so that he can defend himself n the training was like 30 minutes of live training about distance, power, timing etc...for 6 months...i hav made his mind/psychic so tough that he can take some punches n give some good punches... n every now n then i just check him if he forgot anything or not...or just live sparring(sorta) where he can utilize all his techniques like he would react in against any real oppnt...
so if u r trying to learn Martial arts then sparring is a tool too...just like stance training or forms or pad words or conditionings...
doh this thread got misguided thnx to u morpheus :mad:
ok i'll try to put this thread on line...
well tournaments teaches some bad habbits like kicking above waist, mostly 1-2-3 movements, some bad switches ...but the good thing is that u can get live oppnt, n u can utilise ur new learnt technique without getting killed(that can be said about sparring) but does this make u street champion? i guess not...
there's Everest to climb...
but i hav seen ppl of all kinds...anyways if one is happy with winning championship i hav no probs with that...
PS: morpheus i was kiddin up there ;)
-TkdWarrior-

[Cain]

Oh!!! :eek: nice post, anyways I really hate to hijack threads.....sorry about that Andy, I apogolise if I was wrong in any way or if ya suffered because of ur head thumping :D Good for conditioning u know.....even shaolin monks do that :D :D :D :D

And yes Tkdwarrior I am trying to be Bruce Lee myself......maybe better than him......dunno if I can do that :D but wat I luved most about him was his passion for the arts.

|Cain|

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by Andy Murray

This is the crux of what I am getting at. Assume for a moment that I'm not a complete idiot if you will. I agree completely, training TKD does not prepare you for MMA, yet training TKD has benefits, as does anything in some way shape or form.


If I must :D


I'm saying absorb what is useful, discard what is clearly old knickers.


Right, but there comes a point when the effort is not worth the benefits. When the negatives outweigh the positives.

Point fighting HAS benefits, I can't deny that. So does many other things that I see no reason to do.


Why is that the same people who jumped on Jimmy for being close-minded about sparring, are now so fixed in their opinion, when they largely seem to be talking about something which is outside theire field of experience???


I would like to differentiate between point fighting and sparring.

I've done the point sparring, gotten the trophies and looking back I think my efforts would have best been directed in other ways.

Point fighting as it stands I see little value in towards my current training goals, but sparring is very important towards those goals.

So after competing and judging in many point fighting competitions I can say that that sort of training is far less productive towards my goals then other sorts of training and may even be counter productive because of thetactics used.

Is point fighting better then nothing? probably, is it a good training tool? I don't think so.

[Cain]

Are'nt point fighting and sparring the same thing? except that u fight for points and see opponents u hv never seen before.....big burly and lotsa hair on their forearms.....u see.....oh ok u see my point? For me the two are the same except that u fight for points....

[Geez!!!! Now everyone will come down heavily on me I bet :D ]

*Cain hides underground and waits until ppl forgive him*

:D :D :D

Just my views....also I m half - asleep rite now....

|Cain|

[Andrew Green]

No, sparring can mean many things. If you where to watch a boxer, a thai fighter, a wrestler, a MMA fighter and a point fighter spar you would see very different tactics used.

Andrew

[Cain]

But when we are point sparring are'nt we 'sparring'?

.....umm........wait a min........in ur view is the contact same in sparring and point fighting? In my view it is......or at least that's wat I am familiar with......

|Cain|

[Andy Murray]

There are many different types of 'point' fighting. It's the reason I posted a fairly extensive explanation of the system I was referring to on this very thread if you read back.

To Cain-Charlie and TKDWarrior, I understand that you guys refer to Tournament competition as sparring, in fact I have competed by invitation in TKD ITF style tournaments, both in point stop, and continuous sparring. The sparring I believe AG is referring to is akin to what the Non-TKD population practice, or is indeed a derivative of it.

AG, I'll come back to your points shortly, as I only have a mo!

[Cain]

Oh ok waiting for u.....by that time call me Cain Oh man I wish I could remove charlie......

|Cain|

[Andy Murray]

To Andrew Green;


Originally posted by Andrew Green


1/

Right, but there comes a point when the effort is not worth the benefits. When the negatives outweigh the positives.

2/

Point fighting HAS benefits, I can't deny that. So does many other things that I see no reason to do.



3/

I would like to differentiate between point fighting and sparring.

4/

I've done the point sparring, gotten the trophies and looking back I think my efforts would have best been directed in other ways.

5/

Point fighting as it stands I see little value in towards my current training goals, but sparring is very important towards those goals.

6/

So after competing and judging in many point fighting competitions I can say that that sort of training is far less productive towards my goals then other sorts of training and may even be counter productive because of thetactics used.

7/

Is point fighting better then nothing? probably, is it a good training tool? I don't think so. [/B]

In reply;

1/

Absolutely.

2/

Bear in mind I'm talking past-tense here Andrew. I stopped competing in 1996. I have the benefits, and I've moved on.

3/

As would I.

4/

You speak here retrospectively. You wouldn't be saying this if you had never had the experience. Do you now spend your time to maximum efficiency?

5/

I feel the same.

6/

That depends on what your goals are, and only you know that. My own reference, as stated several times already is to the past, yet no one has asked me what I feel I actually gained from my experience, merely picked holes with the topic (as usual).

7/

I have never said for one second, that everyone should do point sparring, or sugested it was a good training tool. In fact I wouldn't even have this depth of feeling on the subject, had it not been for my own personal experiences derived from it.

*On a side note, the only instance I know of, where a Martial Artist actually killed someone was in the UK. It wasn't on the mat, but 'on the street'. The shot was a single roundhouse kick to the head. He was lucky to escape manslaughter charges, and I believe a verdict of accidental death was given. The MArtist was a well known points fighter in the 80's, early 90's. I suppose it must have been an accident, after all, all his years of point fighting must have taught him to pull the technique or miss right???

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by Andy Murray
To Andrew Green;

Bear in mind I'm talking past-tense here Andrew. I stopped competing in 1996. I have the benefits, and I've moved on.


So the question for you is do you encourage your students to participate in this sort of training? Do you direct there training towards it?


You speak here retrospectively. You wouldn't be saying this if you had never had the experience. Do you now spend your time to maximum efficiency?


No, off course not. There is always a better way, when I find it I'll switch.


That depends on what your goals are, and only you know that. My own reference, as stated several times already is to the past, yet no one has asked me what I feel I actually gained from my experience, merely picked holes with the topic (as usual).


I agree, goals are important to how you train. For some winning trophies is the goal, for them point fighting should be the goal. I know I've gained some things from point fighting, but I don't think it was enough to continue on that path, or to have my students pursue it.

I'm pretty sure I know what you are trying to say, and I agree. But at the same time I don't think point fighting is beneficial enough to justify doing it for the goal of "real" fighting.

Perhaps it's just the way the initial question was asked that all this came about. You asked about point fighting translating to street fighting. But I think you wanted to know what aid it has given to people, not whether it is worth it on the whole.


*On a side note, the only instance I know of, where a Martial Artist actually killed someone was in the UK. It wasn't on the mat, but 'on the street'. The shot was a single roundhouse kick to the head. He was lucky to escape manslaughter charges, and I believe a verdict of accidental death was given. The MArtist was a well known points fighter in the 80's, early 90's. I suppose it must have been an accident, after all, all his years of point fighting must have taught him to pull the technique or miss right???

I've heard of a few competition deaths, and they;ve been things that would be very hard to repeat.

"pull the technique or miss": I don't think that is the problem with point fighting. Full contact fighters don't spar full contact all the time, but have no problem doing so when necessary. For me its the strategy and techniques that get used.
Andrew

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Andrew Green


1/

So the question for you is do you encourage your students to participate in this sort of training? Do you direct there training towards it?

[B]

2/

No, off course not. There is always a better way, when I find it I'll switch.

[B]

3/

I agree, goals are important to how you train. For some winning trophies is the goal, for them point fighting should be the goal. I know I've gained some things from point fighting, but I don't think it was enough to continue on that path, or to have my students pursue it.

4/

I'm pretty sure I know what you are trying to say, and I agree. But at the same time I don't think point fighting is beneficial enough to justify doing it for the goal of "real" fighting.

5/

Perhaps it's just the way the initial question was asked that all this came about. You asked about point fighting translating to street fighting. But I think you wanted to know what aid it has given to people, not whether it is worth it on the whole.

[B]

6/

I've heard of a few competition deaths, and they;ve been things that would be very hard to repeat.

7/

"pull the technique or miss": I don't think that is the problem with point fighting. Full contact fighters don't spar full contact all the time, but have no problem doing so when necessary. For me its the strategy and techniques that get used.
Andrew

1/

Hi AG, actually, I retired from teaching this year to pursue my own studies. ( A long story)

2/

Me too.

3/

Nor do I

4/

I have never once suggested that.

5/

Sorry, but no. This thread was posted in the "Sporting Martial Arts" Forum, and was intended to be of interest to members who are involved in this ( see reply by 'Cyclone' ). As usual, people with different codes, have been a little to self absorbed to allow others freedom to open discussion.

6/

Never nice to hear of, bt sadly the Amateur ranks of any sport incurr tragedy.

7/

Ah, something positive on control then?

Andy

[TkdWarrior]

if u hav watched "karate Kid" where daniel san was fighting is tournament that tourney was point fighting... where fight stops when u score a point...
but in India these kind of sparring doesn't exists(mostly do continous sparring)where u hav chance to attack/counter/etcetc...
BTW whenever i refered sparring i refered it as competition sparring/full contact/ or semi contact so that other ppl can understand...all r form of continous sparring
-TkdWarrior-

[Andy Murray]

I understand Tkd.

[TkdWarrior]

<On a side note, the only instance I know of, where a Martial Artist actually killed someone was in the UK. It wasn't on the mat, but 'on the street'. >
one same incident which comes in my mind is about one of my teacher's teacher who got 6 months house arrest when he knocked one guy in one kick. the guy was thrice the big to that teacher...n after hitting he went in to coma...not sure the timings of this incident...
he was 2 times world champion in around 1978 in TKD
-TkdWarrior-

[Cain]

Ah Tkdwarrior in ur last post u said the magic words exactly, I just was'nt sure how to put the words :D

|Cain|

[morphus]

Hmmmm...... listening..............this is all very interesting...learning a lot. The street...the competitions, what do they have in common, a lot and yet not a lot.

[Mike Flanagan]

Hi Andy

Sorry to take so long to get back to you.

Originally posted by Andy Murray

1/
I was referring to your mention of the difference between Traditional and Classical Karate on another thread. Just trying to tune in to you.
2/
We've lost each other here. Not an issue, so never mind.


Rant mode engaged...

I don't think I was being very articulate. I'll try again. In my opinion the techniques of classical karate are often quite different from traditional or sport karate. Classical karate techniques are generally close to mid-range. These are well suited to real combat. The techniques of traditional and sport karate are much closer to each other and are generally mid to long-range. So most karate sparring is in the mid to long (usually very long) range. These techniques are not so well suited to real combat.


3/
In brief, I'm of the opinion that it is up to the practitioner to be able to adapt any or all techniques in a manner appropriate to the circumstances they find themselves in. Quality Instruction should improve this ability?

4/
I disagree. I can understand where you get this idea from, and I'm sure it is true for some people. The ethic is to be in control of the technique and the area it lands on. The manner of the technique (read up for earlier examples) could be varied from situation to situation, as could the impact or effect. Yes there are things omitted on the mat for safety reasons, but there are other ways of training those things.


Maybe quality instruction should improve this ability, but I go by the maxim "how you train is how you react". So if you spend the majority of your time training in relatively safe dynamic sporting techniques that is how you will react in reality. If you train with both scenarios in mind then yes, at least you have a chance of pulling the appropriate technique out of the bag. But for me personally, I prefer to spend 100% of my training time on the sort of techniques I would use in self-defence. As for my students, they will never get over-excited and throw a head height kick because they don't learn to do it in the first place.

So many people say 'in sport I'll do this, but in self-defence I'd do this instead'. But from what I've seen if they spend the vast majority of their time practising the sport option, then they fail to pull out the self-defence option when they really need. I've done this myself, I was just lucky that I got away without serious injury.


5/
If again, you have not prepared for this in another way. I keep having to repeat this, but supposing Royce Gracie happened to do points as well? Supposing Ken Shamrock happened to do points as well? Not that they would of course, but I'm just saying don't be so dismissive of the tournament people, as believe it or not, some of them also train grappling and Thai and boxing as well.


I think I can agree with that. But this is my whole point really. If karate style sparring is used as one exercise amongst many then I think it has value. And I'm sure that there are quite a few people who use it in that way. But when a large part of your training is geared towards success in this activity, to the detriment of other training drills, then I think it becomes a foolhardy activity, possibly even worsening your self-defence abilities. From what I've seen in the karate world, the majority of clubs have this approach.

I think that every drill has strengths and weaknesses. The idea is to pick up the good points from any one drill without acquiring the bad habits it can induce if practiced too much. The strengths of one drill may help overcome the weaknesses of another. For example, hitting someone with body armour on can help to counteract the tendency to pull punches in sparring.

Rant overload error....meltdown imminent...

My own real bugbears about sparring include the following:

1. Unrealistic distance. In karate sparring you typically pull the punch on contact. Fine, but what usually seems to be encouraged is that you stop the punch at its maximum extension, with the arm completely or very nearly straight at the point the knuckles connect with the target. So even if you wanted to transmit the force of the blow to the other person you couldn't - you're too far away. My preferred way is to not take the punch to its maximum extension, but rather to have it bent at the moment of impact, as if you were actually going to hit the target. I don't really understand why this isn't the accepted method of practice in karate, its straightforward enough. Several times in the past I've sparred with people in a competitive environment with a referree and consistently failed to score with my punches because they were not focussed at the 'correct' distance. I was either too far away or too close. So head punches that I knew would have had a significant effect failed to score! Why? As far as I could tell because they didn't look pretty.

2. Striking then backing off. In karate sparring lets say you score with your reverse punch then you back off out of range. This is completely contrary to how I think you should act in a real combat situation. Basically you hit the aggressor and you keep hitting (or whatever) them until they go down and you can either control them or escape. Once I've made physical contact I want to keep that contact until the situation is over. This, I feel, is a much safer approach - human responses to tactile stimuli is faster and more appropriate than to visual stimuli, so if I can feel you I am in a better position to control you. I can cite at least one study which demonstrates this.

3. Point 2 works the other way round. When you do karate sparring you're used to an attacker who strikes and backs off, strikes and backs off. I've rarely seen a real aggressor do this. Typically they wade in, keep punching, and end up grabbing you if you haven't already grabbed them.


I can think of other bugbears but that's enough to satiate my need to rant for the moment.:)

Mike

[Andy Murray]

:D

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan
[
1/

Maybe quality instruction should improve this ability, but I go by the maxim "how you train is how you react". So if you spend the majority of your time training in relatively safe dynamic sporting techniques that is how you will react in reality. If you train with both scenarios in mind then yes, at least you have a chance of pulling the appropriate technique out of the bag. But for me personally, I prefer to spend 100% of my training time on the sort of techniques I would use in self-defence. As for my students, they will never get over-excited and throw a head height kick because they don't learn to do it in the first place.


2/

If karate style sparring is used as one exercise amongst many then I think it has value. And I'm sure that there are quite a few people who use it in that way. But when a large part of your training is geared towards success in this activity, to the detriment of other training drills, then I think it becomes a foolhardy activity, possibly even worsening your self-defence abilities. From what I've seen in the karate world, the majority of clubs have this approach.

3/

I think that every drill has strengths and weaknesses. The idea is to pick up the good points from any one drill without acquiring the bad habits it can induce if practiced too much. The strengths of one drill may help overcome the weaknesses of another. For example, hitting someone with body armour on can help to counteract the tendency to pull punches in sparring.

Rant overload error....meltdown imminent...

4/

My own real bugbears about sparring include the following:

1. Unrealistic distance. In karate sparring you typically pull the punch on contact. Fine, but what usually seems to be encouraged is that you stop the punch at its maximum extension, with the arm completely or very nearly straight at the point the knuckles connect with the target. So even if you wanted to transmit the force of the blow to the other person you couldn't - you're too far away. My preferred way is to not take the punch to its maximum extension, but rather to have it bent at the moment of impact, as if you were actually going to hit the target. I don't really understand why this isn't the accepted method of practice in karate, its straightforward enough. Several times in the past I've sparred with people in a competitive environment with a referree and consistently failed to score with my punches because they were not focussed at the 'correct' distance. I was either too far away or too close. So head punches that I knew would have had a significant effect failed to score! Why? As far as I could tell because they didn't look pretty.

2. Striking then backing off. In karate sparring lets say you score with your reverse punch then you back off out of range. This is completely contrary to how I think you should act in a real combat situation. Basically you hit the aggressor and you keep hitting (or whatever) them until they go down and you can either control them or escape. Once I've made physical contact I want to keep that contact until the situation is over. This, I feel, is a much safer approach - human responses to tactile stimuli is faster and more appropriate than to visual stimuli, so if I can feel you I am in a better position to control you. I can cite at least one study which demonstrates this.

3. Point 2 works the other way round. When you do karate sparring you're used to an attacker who strikes and backs off, strikes and backs off. I've rarely seen a real aggressor do this. Typically they wade in, keep punching, and end up grabbing you if you haven't already grabbed them.


I can think of other bugbears but that's enough to satiate my need to rant for the moment.:)

Mike [/B]

1/

How you train is how you react? Are we all mindless automatons to be trained in this way? Of course if all you do is Sort techniques with no reference to real fighting, the this is detrimental. I have merely been suggesting there are some good things to learn from tournaments of any kind. Incidentally, the type of competition I was using as my own personal point of reference is very different to the Karate sparring you have described.

2/

I know what you are getting at, though I wasn't really thinking about Karate.

3/

Yes yes yes.....hallelujah, praise Mr Hankie the Xmas poo.
Comprehension, modification & awareness!

4/

This has little to do with what I was trying to get from the thread, but I do reckon it's time we had a good thread of discussion re the different modes of sparring.

Andrew Green earlier stated that I was comparing Ice Hockey to Baseball. I don't feel that this is the case. If you did competitive wrestling in High School, it would enhance your groundfighting. If you competed in say Thai Boxing you would have the basis of some good leg and elbow skills (understatement or what). I haven't been saying go fight points, just trying to say there are some merits.

Sadly no one has really asked me what these are

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by Andy Murray

How you train is how you react? Are we all mindless automatons to be trained in this way? Of course if all you do is Sort techniques with no reference to real fighting, the this is detrimental.


Actually when it comes to violent confrontation I think we do tend towards being mindless automata. And I do think that cutting down the number of choices we make, makes it easier for us to make those choices. In my own experience I know for a fact that if I train to kick to the body but think "in reality I'd kick the legs/groin" then actually in reality I kick to the body. Maybe not everyone reacts like this but I know for a fact that I do. So whilst I do like to have choices in terms of the severity of my responses, I shy away from having responses for different environments, ie. competition or self-defence. It just makes things to confusing for me.


I have merely been suggesting there are some good things to learn from tournaments of any kind.


I have to agree with that, I never meant to suggest otherwise. But I think there may be other exercises that can teach some of the same things better, or some the same things without picking up some of the bad habits of tournament sparring.


Incidentally, the type of competition I was using as my own personal point of reference is very different to the Karate sparring you have described.


Ah, I wondered if you'd spot the deliberate flaw in my argument. I will acknowledge that there are different forms of sparring and that some are more useful than others.


I haven't been saying go fight points, just trying to say there are some merits.


Agreed, any form of sparring will have something useful to teach.


Sadly no one has really asked me what these are

Oh go on then, I can see you're dying to tell us.....

Personally I think the single most useful aspect of sparring is simply that its a spontaneous exchange of techniques. There are other exercises that will teach spontaneity but sparring is another useful one.

Mike

[pgm316]

As Yoda said; at school we learn many subjects but we don't start trying to do English in a Maths class.

The mind can take in a lot of things, its wrong to assume we'll react without thought. I think the problem would be only learning English, then we'd probably try to do English in a Maths class! ;)

After training in a sport way, does that mean we'll fight in a sport way, I don't think so. Unless thats the way you always train, without also doing some real combat training.

[TkdWarrior]

if u thinkin about CQC then i guess u shouldn't mind checking the abusive, brutal reality based "underground forums"
www.gutterfighting.org
is just a door ajar...
rest is urs to explore...
-TkdWarrior-

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by pgm316
After training in a sport way, does that mean we'll fight in a sport way, I don't think so. Unless thats the way you always train, without also doing some real combat training.

You can probably tell I have a real hang up about this. Problem is my early training was totally the sport way. Second problem is that I/we didn't realise this. Our instructors told us this was martial art, self-defence or whatever you want to call it. But it wasn't. It was a mixture of martial sport and self-development. My early instructors completely hoodwinked their students in this regard. But I don't believe it was deliberate. They were hoodwinked in the same way themselves. Next problem is that most Karate and Taekwondo training that I've seen is conducted in a similar fashion. I think the same criticism can be made, but to a lesser extent, of many Ju-jitsu schools, although admittedly I have less experience in this area. I realise there are people who don't fit this mould, but in the karate world they are definitely in the minority in my experience.

First fight I was involved in after taking up karate I was about 12 years old. I stepped back into a long stance and got punched on the nose as I did so. Next one, a year or two later the lad shook my hand after an argument, turned to walk away then turned round and punched me on the nose. First fight as a young adult I punched the other fella in the face with a 'perfectly' distanced gyaku-tsuki (reverse punch). I'd have got ippon (full point) in any competition. But sadly there was no referee to score the point and the lad just stood there looking confused, not able to understand why I had touched him rather than hitting him.

These are simple mistakes and easily enough corrected. So I have to wonder why, after 2 or 3 years of training, my teachers had failed so miserably to prepare me for even the mildest of violent confrontations.

So yes, I acknowledge that you can do sport and self-defence under one roof. But I suspect that you'll do better at each by doing it to the exclusion of the other.


Sorry, I just don't seem to be able to get off this damned soapbox for more than 5 minutes.

Mike

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan


You can probably tell I have a real hang up about this. Problem is my early training was totally the sport way. Second problem is that I/we didn't realise this. Our instructors told us this was martial art, self-defence or whatever you want to call it. But it wasn't. It was a mixture of martial sport and self-development. My early instructors completely hoodwinked their students in this regard. But I don't believe it was deliberate. They were hoodwinked in the same way themselves.

These are simple mistakes and easily enough corrected. So I have to wonder why, after 2 or 3 years of training, my teachers had failed so miserably to prepare me for even the mildest of violent confrontations.

So yes, I acknowledge that you can do sport and self-defence under one roof. But I suspect that you'll do better at each by doing it to the exclusion of the other.

Mike

I'm seeing now why we perhaps have a slight difference of opinion/experience here Mike. I started training later in life than you, and was perhaps a little more questioning of what I was being taught. I am familiar with the type of Instruction you say received, and like you, I seek to better it, in my own development, and in others.

I have no desire to upset you, but I would say the example you gave, of being 12 years old and reacting like you had been trained, is not the fault so much of the system you were being taught, or the instructors, but rather your youth.

How many 12 year olds do you know who stick in at 'Reality' classes?

How many 12 year olds do you know who can really handle themselves?

I've used the maxim; 'How you train, is how you react.' myself, but I don't believe it has as much depth as you've given it here.

The truth is that there are a lot of people teaching MA who believe their own BS, yet feel qualified to fertilise the populace with it. If you are smart, you don't buy it, or if you are unlucky, someone knocks it out of you.

People seem to blame the systems so often, when it still all boils down to people at the end of the day.

We all make our own beds, it's up to us whether we lie in them, or die in them.

Regards

Andy

[Mike Flanagan]

Hi Andy

Originally posted by Andy Murray

I have no desire to upset you, but I would say the example you gave, of being 12 years old and reacting like you had been trained, is not the fault so much of the system you were being taught, or the instructors, but rather your youth.

How many 12 year olds do you know who stick in at 'Reality' classes?

How many 12 year olds do you know who can really handle themselves?


No I'm not upset, but I might start my girly ranting again.:)

I guessed you might say something like that. And fair enough, at 12 I was not able to make a critical judgement of what I was being taught. But myself and my brother were the first children allowed to train in that club. We were taught in exactly the same way as the adults. So the adults got the same BS we did. I wouldn't have been able to hack a 'reality' class, as it was the training we did was too austere for me at that age anyway. But we could have been taught to defend ourselves against the types of attacks you see outside the dojo, rather than basic lunge punch and front kick. We could have been taught correct distancing rather than playing tig.

After that I did some Taekwondo as well, and got fed some of the same rot there too. So when I was 18 or 19 I still made critical errors in self-defence that were completely unnecessary and could have easily been avoided with the appropriate training. It was only working as a bouncer that fully opened my eyes to these things.

Through empirical experimentation I did find much of value in my training up to that point, but I also found much crap too. But I found what was crap by testing it out, most students don't (and probably shouldn't) have that opportunity. After all, it does have its risks.

And I agree, it is up to the individual to make the most of their martial art. I certainly don't mean to blame others for my own shortcomings. And I don't blame them, I've just moved on from that sort of training. But its also an instructor's duty to teach the skills that students need. I'm not interested in sport and I believe that self-development will come through hard training, regardless of whether your technique is aesthetically pleasing or not. So my focus is on self-defence, that's what I teach my students and that's what I tell them I'm teaching them.

What I suppose gets my goat is when instructors teach one thing and claim its something else, ie. sport dressed up as self-defence. Now I'm sure there are many instructors who occupy the middle ground, they partake in sport and they teach practical self-defence. But I think you have to be careful in this middle ground to make sure that you clearly differentiate between sport and self-defence and that your students know which is which.

Sadly (and the main reason I'm ranting) I still continue to meet people who have trained in something that was 99% martial sport who think they've been learning self-defence. This is really dangerous for them, I feel, because they'll only find out when the sh*t actually hits the fan.

No offence intended by the way, I know I'm a bit of an extremist on this issue. And I have every respect for martial sports, its just not my thing. And I have respect for people who can succesfully manage to train in both aspects of martial arts, its not something I can do. I also accept that there are plenty of people who are into sport who do manage to keep one eye on reality. But I do think that in the world of modern striking arts such people are in the minority.

Mike

P.S. Being serious, I won't get upset if we disagree. I don't agree 100% with anyone.

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan
Hi Andy





It was only working as a bouncer that fully opened my eyes to these things.I found what was crap by testing it out, most students don't (and probably shouldn't) have that opportunity. After all, it does have its risks.

I agree, it is up to the individual to make the most of their martial art. But its also an instructor's duty to teach the skills that students need. So my focus is on self-defence, that's what I teach my students and that's what I tell them I'm teaching them.

What I suppose gets my goat is when instructors teach one thing and claim its something else, ie. sport dressed up as self-defence. This is really dangerous for them, I feel, because they'll only find out when the sh*t actually hits the fan.

I have every respect for martial sports, its just not my thing. I also accept that there are plenty of people who are into sport who do manage to keep one eye on reality. But I do think that in the world of modern striking arts such people are in the minority.

Mike

[/B]

Hope you don't mind Mike, but I summarised that a little to what I mostly agree with.

Something I'd point out though is that there are a lot of people out there teaching'Self-Defence' being derogatory about the Sporting Arts, who have yet to throw a punch in anger. I'd go so far as to say possibly 99% (the statistic you used referring to Sports Arts), of the 'reality' based arts are teaching a mish mash of things that never become integrated for the guy/gal wanting to learn to fight, or at least better their odds.

I don't feel the majority of youngsters compete in a state of delusion. They're simply having fun, with a little bit of risk slung in to sweeten the mix. Most, like yourself will realise the limitations of the practice, and end up training something more effective for reality, but these people may have some good things to take with them into that form of training. I know I did.

[Cain]

From wat I understand ppl take competetions and sparring as two different things, so I will try to put my words according to that -

Competing in tourneys is not simply about trophies, but I feel that some major phsychological advances are there if u go to competetions, here's wat I think

Sparring

You spar with ppl u know and are familiar with, you know who he is and possibly you are familiar with his technique, so you feel comfortable sparring with him.

Competetions

Here the feeling is totally different, you don't know what your opponent is like, you don't even know enough to know his phsycholoogical aspents, on the other hand being called in the ring causes fear which can be elinimated only by experince, you even sometimes lack confidence completely. It's an entirely different world, you get to know the different type of fighters.....some looneys some phsychopaths as my teacher used to say, the phsychological aspects in competetions, are almost similar to a real fight.........this is just wat I think.

|Cain|

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by Andy Murray


Hope you don't mind Mike, but I summarised that a little to what I mostly agree with.


Well I do have a tendency to go on a bit.


Something I'd point out though is that there are a lot of people out there teaching'Self-Defence' being derogatory about the Sporting Arts, who have yet to throw a punch in anger. I'd go so far as to say possibly 99% (the statistic you used referring to Sports Arts), of the 'reality' based arts are teaching a mish mash of things that never become integrated for the guy/gal wanting to learn to fight, or at least better their odds.


Maybe so. Anyway, I wouldn't personally dream of being derogatory of sporting arts. And actually I think some of them do teach things that are missing in a lot of self-defence training, like stiocism for example. Who can fail to respect boxers for being willing to expose themselves to repeated blows to the head. Its not for me, but its got to be respected and it sure does give them an edge in self-defence - they're no strangers to being hit.


I don't feel the majority of youngsters compete in a state of delusion. They're simply having fun, with a little bit of risk slung in to sweeten the mix. Most, like yourself will realise the limitations of the practice, and end up training something more effective for reality, but these people may have some good things to take with them into that form of training. I know I did.

Yes I'm sure they will have learnt something of value to take with into more realistic training. But I'm sceptical about how many realise the limitations of what they're doing. I've come across plenty who are completely oblivious. So we've evidently had different experiences in this respect. Which is what makes the debate interesting I suppose.

Mike

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan


Yes I'm sure they will have learnt something of value to take with into more realistic training. But I'm sceptical about how many realise the limitations of what they're doing. I've come across plenty who are completely oblivious. So we've evidently had different experiences in this respect. Which is what makes the debate interesting I suppose.

Mike [/B]

I can only really speak from my own experience Mike, as you have done.
I was fortunate enough to realise the limitations of what I was doing early on, just unwilling to throw away some things I still find to be of value today.
I have to say that that's not down to me entirely. While my Instructor would have been the first to leg it in a confrontation, he had a great eye for detail, and was able to teach his students how to learn and question for themselves.

It was a shock to me to find later, that many of the strategies we employed on the mat were contained in the 'Tao of Jeet Kune Do'. Only better in some ways!

I refer to the use of Broken Rhythm, fencing footwork, attacking by feinting or drawing to name but a few.

[Cain]

Just can't help being curious on who voted 'ultimate street warriors'........

BTW, I probably mentioned this before Andy, that's a really nice sign u hv got there :D

|Cain|

[Andy Murray]

Thanks Cain, it took ages to think up! ;)

As to who voted 'Ultimate Street Warriors', wasn't me, it was meant to be a joke option.

[STASH]

:D I voted "Ultimate Street Warriors" because at the time it was at 0 and I wanted to go against the crowd and be the first one to vote for it:D

Honestly though...I support MMA 100% and for me thats the best path to take.

[Cain]

Oh ok guess that clears it up :D

|Cain|

[STASH]

Hmmm...well theres two that voted "Ultimate Street Warriors". Who was the other one?

[Cain]

I put my money on Morphus or Ckdstudent :D

That was a joke honest :D

|Cain|

[ROBERT]

It depends on what kind of turnament. I believe that everytime you use your techniques it improves your ability to perform those techniques. Whether or not they are usefull on the street is dependant on what those techniques are.

Robert