The Two Karate's: Self-Defense & Sport

[Gyakuto114 123]

Lifestyles of the rich and famous…

Two nations, divided by a common language

 

[Same Trick59 10]

I’m not sure what ‘leach’ mean in this context?

Yeah, I’m not sure too, forgive me, I’m Swedish (don’t know if I understand that either), what’s even the topic I try commenting on ??

 

[Gyakuto114 123]

Yeah, I’m not sure too, forgive me, I’m Swedish (don’t know if I understand that either), what’s even the topic I try commenting on ??

I’m not sure what we were discussing…… Unexpectedly nice weather here in Devon. How is it in Sweden/China?

 

[Same Trick59 10]

I’m not sure what we were discussing…… Unexpectedly nice weather here in Devon. How is it in Sweden/China?

Ah now something I know about, at least here where I stay…..wait ! You try to have me reveal my exact location, you’re one of those out for my belts aren’t you

 

[HighKick]

As we know, karate evolved as effective common self-defense (mostly in the 1800's) but along the way some of this effectiveness eroded. Why? Post WWII karate's emphasis turned to sport, essentially changing it into a different art not as well designed for the street. Some of these inter-related changes found in popular tournament sparring (often reflected in daily practice) are:

Techniques
Removal of the most dangerous techniques such as joint locks, breaks, shots to the groin, eyes, and throat and less use of takedowns.

Tactics
Emphasis on landing a single kick or punch (for the point) rather than multiple strikes to take the opponent out and emphasis on longer range attacks, all which combine to encourage more complex feints and setups.

Strategy
Rules to make it safer, encouraging flashier and riskier techniques over a set time, often much longer than an actual combat encounter, allowing time to "figure out" the opponent's style. Perhaps most importantly, in sport karate one fights against an opponent with similar training, something that would be rare on the street. Karate was not developed to fight other karate practitioners. This is a fairly recent application.

All the above contribute to the karate most are familiar with to be less effective in closeup, down and dirty combat against an unfamiliar, less predictable opponent employing techniques not found in sport karate (I'm not even getting into the mindset). Taking all the above into consideration they make sport karate a much different animal as was originally intended. This is not to say modern karate training is of little use for self-defense, a good chunk of it is, but as I have listed, an equally big chunk of original self-defense karate is missing, rendering it less effective on the street. I enjoy both versions of karate, realizing they are, indeed, different.

Your comments/thoughts are not confined to Karate alone. This is a common move across most all styles. There certainly a gross movement in the MA's to make it more 'inclusive' and to provide a curriculum better focused on longevity. With this, most all of the old school hard training is gone. Not erased, But moved to more specific classes or schools. From a business perspective I know this is very, very instructor/owner or school specific.
We have always been a hybrid TKD school, something I did not even know or understand for a long time. I simply thought most all TKD schools had a similar curriculum. I was not until I really go into WT style competition that I learned there were very, very different school methodologies. After several years of owning/operating our school(s) and doing a LOT of travel for my 'real' job where I visited and trained with over 200 schools across north, south, central America, Mexico, and Canada, I have seen every kind of method and curriculum out there. I will not make judgement, but some are simply better than others. In a nutshell, there is no standard model. And that is a VERY good thing. In a gross sense, there are methods & requirements that must be maintained and taught the same way. Naturally, But how you get there can and should be done differently. After all we are not lemmings.

I don't use or say this in a verbal sense but we teach our curriculum in 'blocks'. We have our 'standard' classes and we have sparring specific classes. Within the standard classes are various teachings and methods such as self-defense specific training. From my work exposure (former LEO), and the many schools/styles and my expanded training, our SD is comprehensive and can and is a class of it's own quite often.
I Love forms/patterns/hyungs/Poomsae, whatever your style calls them. This can be considered another block. And this list goes on and on. Of course, none of the blocks can be consumed quickly.
It goes without saying, any good program will change over time.

 

[ap Oweyn18 7]

It is unrealistic in a fight, but not for practice. 1 step sparring is for beginners to learn distance, timing/reaction and how basic techniques work. One then progresses to 3-step where multiple types of attacks/angles are used and then to free sparring. It's a progression, each building skill, layer by layer. While compound attacks are the goal, one should never ignore the opportunity for a "one-hit wonder." If your timing is good, they do come by occasionally.

What's "free sparring"?

I know what the term means, but what does it mean in your view? You're drawing a distinction between sport karate and self-defense karate. And that distinction is predicated largely on the rules in the former that are absent in the latter. But where are the compromises in your free sparring? Because they're there somewhere.

It doesn't matter how many layers of progression we have from one-step to three-step and so on. Unless your sparring format genuinely involves eye gouges and throat punches and goodness only knows what else, you're engaged in an abstraction at some point.

People have talked here before about training with intent, as though visualisation and intensity are somehow tantamount to actually doing these things to someone. But I'm always reminded of an FMA seminar I attended once where an instructor demonstrated a knife counter that would have essentially reduced their opponent to bits. He then challenged the room with "what, that's too real for you?!" To me, that really depends on how many times you've actually done that to someone. If the answer is "never," then no, that's not too real for me.

I can absolutely see objections to specific formats of competitive karate. I don't put any stock in the point sparring that was prevalent in the 80s and 90s. (Maybe still is?) But, as was shown upthread, there are formats that offer an opportunity to practice timing, distance, commitment, perseverance, power, etc. against a fully engaged, noncooperative opponent.

To be convinced that a format like that was a problem, I'd want to see a training methodology that addresses MORE of the variables. Throat punching is against the rules. Great. Where's the format that permits them without compromising somewhere else? For example, I can see a format that allowed groin kicks. But is pulling them not a compromise? Is wearing a cup not a compromise?

Intent doesn't seem like enough. It's relatively easy to intend harm knowing that you'll not be required to follow through on that intent (by actually gouging someone's eye) nor are you exposed to the risk of same (your eye being gouged).

We're all engaged in abstraction when we're training. And, while I don't really care about competitive sports of any sort, I do believe in the training methodologies. The nature of martial arts is that you'll seldom, if ever, do the thing itself. But if you can engage in enough simulations, perhaps you can triangulate something important in the middle.

 

[Gyakuto114 123]

Ah now something I know about, at least here where I stay…..wait ! You try to have me reveal my exact location, you’re one of those out for my belts aren’t you

Your end will be swift, but very painful…-probably involving vinegar and paper cuts

 

[isshinryuronin4 3]

You're drawing a distinction between sport karate and self-defense karate. And that distinction is predicated largely on the rules in the former that are absent in the latter.

Of course there's a distinction. It's not just simply the rules, but as a result of the rules the execution of the art itself changes in distance, preferred targets, type of techniques, strategy and tactics.

But where are the compromises in your free sparring? Because they're there somewhere.... We're all engaged in abstraction when we're training

That's a good thing as soon, we'd run out of partners. Soldiers train to kill, but they don't kill anyone in training. There is always a compromise/abstraction in training. It's not real until it's real. One trains as well as possible to prepare themselves for such a situation. A main way is:

It's relatively easy to intend harm knowing that you'll not be required to follow through on that intent

The "intent" during solo drills it to prepare you to follow through in actual situations when causing harm is required. It's a type of mental conditioning, visualizing an opponent before you and you striking his throat and breaking his arm. In friendly competition the intent is not to harm, but to score points.

 

[ap Oweyn18 7]

Of course there's a distinction. It's not just simply the rules, but as a result of the rules the execution of the art itself changes in distance, preferred targets, type of techniques, strategy and tactics.

I didn't question that there WAS a distinction being made. My point is that, no matter what, you're making a jump from abstract to concrete if it ever comes to it.

If you've never actually gouged someone's eyes, you'd be overcoming your training as well. Where the full-contact karate competitor might be overcoming theirs to aim at an "illegal" target. Is it really such a big leap for a fighter who's landed a big round kick to an opponent's thigh hundreds of times to aim a little lower and wreck their knee?

Mike Tyson once got rear-ended in traffic here in the DC region. He got out and kicked the other guy in the crotch. Clearly his sports training didn't have him locked into a rule set when it came down to it. Hell, he bit a man's ear off when he was actually competing in that sport format.

[quoteThat's a good thing as soon, we'd run out of partners. Soldiers train to kill, but they don't kill anyone in training. There is always a compromise/abstraction in training. It's not real until it's real. One trains as well as possible to prepare themselves for such a situation. A main way is:[/quote]

"There is always a compromise/abstraction in training." That's what I said as well. Sport karate is a different kind of abstraction. The right format has valuable things to teach us about timing, distance, pain tolerance, and a host of other important variables. But not all combat sports are created equal, that's true.

The "intent" during solo drills it to prepare you to follow through in actual situations when causing harm is required. It's a type of mental conditioning, visualizing an opponent before you and you striking his throat and breaking his arm. In friendly competition the intent is not to harm, but to score points.

I understand the intent of intent. But I don't think it's sufficient to say you're doing the movements but thinking really hard about actually doing that to someone. In any other context, we'd question that wouldn't we? What would it mean for a new surgeon to say they'd visualised performing surgery with intent? Wouldn't we expect more than that?

Back to my original question: What is free sparring? What are you actually doing? And, as importantly, what are you NOT doing?

 

[Kung Fu Wang114 144]

- You hunt animal for food is not sport. You hunt animal for fun is sport.
- You fight to kill is not sport. You fight for fun is sport.

By using this definition, something can be called sport or not has nothing to do with what you are doing. It only has to do with why you are doing it.

I don't like this definition at all. A white cat and a black cat are all called cat and can catch mouse.

My definition of sport is as simple as "You don't let your opponent to do what he wants to do. If he does that to you, he wins. If you prevent him from doing that to you, he loses"

 

[HighKick]

What's "free sparring"?

I know what the term means, but what does it mean in your view? You're drawing a distinction between sport karate and self-defense karate. And that distinction is predicated largely on the rules in the former that are absent in the latter. But where are the compromises in your free sparring? Because they're there somewhere.

It doesn't matter how many layers of progression we have from one-step to three-step and so on. Unless your sparring format genuinely involves eye gouges and throat punches and goodness only knows what else, you're engaged in an abstraction at some point.

People have talked here before about training with intent, as though visualisation and intensity are somehow tantamount to actually doing these things to someone. But I'm always reminded of an FMA seminar I attended once where an instructor demonstrated a knife counter that would have essentially reduced their opponent to bits. He then challenged the room with "what, that's too real for you?!" To me, that really depends on how many times you've actually done that to someone. If the answer is "never," then no, that's not too real for me.

I can absolutely see objections to specific formats of competitive karate. I don't put any stock in the point sparring that was prevalent in the 80s and 90s. (Maybe still is?) But, as was shown upthread, there are formats that offer an opportunity to practice timing, distance, commitment, perseverance, power, etc. against a fully engaged, noncooperative opponent.

To be convinced that a format like that was a problem, I'd want to see a training methodology that addresses MORE of the variables. Throat punching is against the rules. Great. Where's the format that permits them without compromising somewhere else? For example, I can see a format that allowed groin kicks. But is pulling them not a compromise? Is wearing a cup not a compromise?

Intent doesn't seem like enough. It's relatively easy to intend harm knowing that you'll not be required to follow through on that intent (by actually gouging someone's eye) nor are you exposed to the risk of same (your eye being gouged).

We're all engaged in abstraction when we're training. And, while I don't really care about competitive sports of any sort, I do believe in the training methodologies. The nature of martial arts is that you'll seldom, if ever, do the thing itself. But if you can engage in enough simulations, perhaps you can triangulate something important in the middle.

Are you not crossing into the mental training component(s)? Of course, we cannot practice live throat punches (although my GM has displayed the punch countless times at full speed on live subjects with no injury). Doesn't it require full speed/power practice on soft/hard targets to truly understand the technique? Doesn't it require hard sparring to understand the consequences of 'giving & getting' smacked by your opponent? Doesn't it require a great deal of time-in-training to really 'get it'? This is a far, far cry from rules bound competition. My opinion is that there is some overlap, but not much.

 

[drop bear114 53]

The "intent" during solo drills it to prepare you to follow through in actual situations when causing harm is required. It's a type of mental conditioning, visualizing an opponent before you and you striking his throat and breaking his arm. In friendly competition the intent is not to harm, but to score points.

Wow.

So keyboard warriors are probably the best equipped for real confrontations. Because they don’t dilute their intent with physical training.

 

[ap Oweyn18 7]

Are you not crossing into the mental training component(s)? Of course, we cannot practice live throat punches (although my GM has displayed the punch countless times at full speed on live subjects with no injury). Doesn't it require full speed/power practice on soft/hard targets to truly understand the technique? Doesn't it require hard sparring to understand the consequences of 'giving & getting' smacked by your opponent? Doesn't it require a great deal of time-in-training to really 'get it'? This is a far, far cry from rules bound competition. My opinion is that there is some overlap, but not much.

Everything is rules bound. Legal, societal, etc. My question is why we have this hierarchy of abstractions. I'm not saying competition martial arts are better. My own competitive background is confined to some stickfighting tournaments. I'm saying that there's something to be gained by both approaches.

Now, if you're talking about point fighting, I'd agree that's a divergence from the original intent of a martial art. Just as flashy aerial forms with bo and kama that look like you're at a rave are. But we don't look at those forms and use them to dismiss forms practice more generally.

The fact that someone is keeping score doesn't invalidate the training benefits.

One of my favourite quotes on this topic: If you can't hit my face with a boxing glove, what makes you think you can hit my eye with your finger?

 

[Gyakuto114 123]

Isn’t the skill of ‘sundome’ or stopping one’s blows ~3cm from the target trained anymore? This allows full power strikes anywhere to the opponent. With eye gouges, sundome mean stopping before the jelly comes out

 

[Kung Fu Wang114 144]

allows full power strikes anywhere to the opponent.

This is the advantage of the throwing art over the striking art. You can't knock someone down without hurting him. But you can take someone down without hurting him.

I took a Chinese soldier down in Shenyang north train station in China. 3 Chinese police officers came. Since I didn't throw my fist. Those 3 Chinese police officers just smiled and left (it was also because I'm American and the other guy was in military).

 

[Same Trick59 10]

The "intent" during solo drills it to prepare you to follow through in actual situations when causing harm is required. It's a type of mental conditioning, visualizing an opponent before you and you striking his throat and breaking his arm.

I think it should be enough to understand placement, timing and harnessing way to move non telegraphic

 

[isshinryuronin4 3]

I think it should be enough to understand placement, timing and harnessing way to move non telegraphic

It's not.

 

[isshinryuronin4 3]

Isn’t the skill of ‘sundome’ or stopping one’s blows ~3cm from the target trained anymore?

Called kime, it's a skill largely lost in many of today's dojo I think. It allows one to control depth of penetration. Shotokan probably has retained this the most.

 

[HighKick]

Everything is rules bound. Legal, societal, etc. My question is why we have this hierarchy of abstractions. I'm not saying competition martial arts are better. My own competitive background is confined to some stickfighting tournaments. I'm saying that there's something to be gained by both approaches.

Now, if you're talking about point fighting, I'd agree that's a divergence from the original intent of a martial art. Just as flashy aerial forms with bo and kama that look like you're at a rave are. But we don't look at those forms and use them to dismiss forms practice more generally.

The fact that someone is keeping score doesn't invalidate the training benefits.

One of my favourite quotes on this topic: If you can't hit my face with a boxing glove, what makes you think you can hit my eye with your finger?

I cannot agree that everything is rules bound. Legality goes out the window when laws are broken. Social & societal structures are broken minute by minute. Can you expand on "this heirarchy of abstractions"?
I do take issue with tippy-tappy points sparring. Worse than unrealistic. Keeping score can have unforeseen benefits. Assuming all is fair and (somewhat) equal, being scored on can be a good motivator and definitely sharpen the mind. Or expose a weakness.
You last statement would be against someone who is Expecting you to try to hit them. Many, many scenarios are quite the opposite if at all possible.
Conversely, if I can hit you in the face (through repeated practice) odds are at least better that I can gouge the eye.

 

[Same Trick59 10]

It's not.

I think or guess if having a specific focus of seriously hurting people while practicing kata would be a limitation to the practice and oneself , I mean the hurting ppl thing is already conveyed there with all the strikes and kicks so no need to consciously dwell deeper in such dark thought abyss