- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,419
- Reaction score
- 329
The Karate master wins easily because he trains with weapons and the boxer does not.
Who would win in a sparing match?
- Thread starter ozm8ey
- Start date
JR 137
Grandmaster
If you're so intent on sticking to the original question posed, here goes...
No one wins a sparring match. Why? Sparring isn't competition. Sparring is practice. Once points are involved or there's a winner and loser, it's no longer sparring, it's competing.
i didn't read the whole thread but there was lot of dubious things in what i've read. 
karate master wins because he trains with weapons? 1: karate = "empty hand", 2: weapons in a sparring match? we don't talk a life or death situation.
boxers wouldn't stand a chance? they know better than many karateka how to infight, not to mention the bad guard of most karateka.
it always depends also on the practitioner and his aggressiveness. i was karateka, i sparred with boxers and all types of martial artists and could say many karatekas couldn't handle an infight so the boxer might come very close and the karateka is screwed. on the other hand boxers aren't very good at handling kicks so with stop kicks and such one might be able to hold a distance. if the karate style teaches also grappling (one karate style is not like the other) than its possible to get a choke hold or something, even without throwing but the chances are good to take serious hits by the boxer when trying. by submitting someone one could call it "winning" this round of the sparring. otherwise it will be always a draw like the good posts here said, sparring is training, not competition, so you shouldn't punch or kick hard enough to ko the "opponent" who is your training partner.
when comparing styles in my opinion the karateka surely learns many more useful techniques but trains it in a way less effective way than boxers or kickboxers train their techniques. this will lead to many "dislikes" but it's reality.
karate master wins because he trains with weapons? 1: karate = "empty hand", 2: weapons in a sparring match? we don't talk a life or death situation.
boxers wouldn't stand a chance? they know better than many karateka how to infight, not to mention the bad guard of most karateka.
it always depends also on the practitioner and his aggressiveness. i was karateka, i sparred with boxers and all types of martial artists and could say many karatekas couldn't handle an infight so the boxer might come very close and the karateka is screwed. on the other hand boxers aren't very good at handling kicks so with stop kicks and such one might be able to hold a distance. if the karate style teaches also grappling (one karate style is not like the other) than its possible to get a choke hold or something, even without throwing but the chances are good to take serious hits by the boxer when trying. by submitting someone one could call it "winning" this round of the sparring. otherwise it will be always a draw like the good posts here said, sparring is training, not competition, so you shouldn't punch or kick hard enough to ko the "opponent" who is your training partner.
when comparing styles in my opinion the karateka surely learns many more useful techniques but trains it in a way less effective way than boxers or kickboxers train their techniques. this will lead to many "dislikes" but it's reality.
Last edited:
RTKDCMB
Senior Master
If they both gain something out of it they both win.
Yep, they train together, swap techniques and then go to the pub for the craic.
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,419
- Reaction score
- 329
Perhaps you should have before responding.
The word karate may mean empty hand, but karate systems do train with weapon as well (bo, jo, tonfa or whatever).
My post, and other member's posts, point out the fallacy of the OP. It was meant to point out the fallacy of the OP. The OP didn't state the parameters of the 'sparring' match. Therefore we don't know the rules by which they would be required to abide. And since you can spar with weapons and boxing doesn't teach to defend against weapons it was as plausible a comparison as any. And again, meant to directly demonstrated the flaw(s) of the OP.
The OP question cannot be answered.
