Don't understand why faith is placed in noncontact arts

[delta1]

The problem both sides have here is the extreme positions you've taken. White Warlock came closest to the truth, in my ever (never?) so humble opinion.

 

All the best training in the world will do for you is to increase your odds of surviving or comeing out on top of a real situation. That is all you can train for is to better your chances (assuming thenarrow focus of combat/self defense). There are simply no guarantees.

 

BUT, the harder and more realistically you train, the better condition you are in, the more your knowlege and awarenes, the sharper your skills, the better your attitude and spirit, and the more you've trained for 'reality', the better your chances.

 

The original post assumes that all schools are neatly divided into no contact and contact, when in reality many do both. It also assumes that hard sport will prepare you completely for a seriouse street altercation, and that there is no bennifit to practicing without hard contact. All these assumptions are incorrect, as are the assumptions that you are completely prepared if you don't train with contact. The truth is a matter of degrees. Nothing will fully prepare you, but you can increase your chances dramatically with training. The harder you train, and the harder the contact you train with, the better your chances.

[DLopez]

I have to agree with delta1 and WW in their more balanced attitude on this.

 

I guess when I read "non-contact", I translated it into light contact, as I don't know what a completely "non-contact" martial art is...

 

Still, I've yet to see it clearly proven that the reason someone loses a fight is because they didn't train full contact, and not because they really just weren't as good at their martial art as they thought - regardless of whether they train full contact or light - or because the other person was just a better fighter, regardless if they were a martial artist or not.

 

With so many variables contributing to the outcome of a fight, how can you pin a loss on one thing like full contact vs. light/no contact training?

[TangSooGuy]

A lot of great points being made here...

 

just to point it out, there is also a ton of discussion on this in this thread:

 

http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=13404

 

..for the record, i agree with White Warlock, delta1, and DLopez...

[DLopez]

That combined with not knowing how to handle taking a hit is the downfall of most. Taking a hard hit produces similar effect. light contact cannot teach you to cope with such things.

 

Sevenstar, this is an interesting point.

 

Are you suggesting that the only way to become acclimated to pain is to get punched or kicked full speed?

 

I don't believe it is.

[chylaxin]

see what I was giving was my opinion to most non contact which train for fitness reasons instead of preparation for defending one. Many factors play into the situation which Sevenstar noted. My point wasn't an argument but opinion and I noticed only one person got angry. Thanks to those who just swy I wanted more opinions. Now going on

[Dijita]

I have to agree with Delta1.

 

Though I don't think there is reason to belittle any of the more non-contact styles. I think every style has a lot to offer, and everyone has their personal reasons for participating in that style, and not only that but I think a lot of people don't know a lot about other styles to begin with and base their opinions on assumptions.

 

I think the biggest and most important thing is that you should never ever underestimate your opponent. Whether it's in a tournement or some drunk guy on the street trying to beat you up.

 

Truth is, I participate in Kyokushin, and I enjoy the hard contact that we train in, and enjoy the contact tournements a lot more than the point sparring I've done in the past. Now I personally do not take martial arts for the reason to better defend myself... however I do believe that their is a substantial advantage to the practitioner who trains in realistic contact.

 

One of the biggest reasons I love doing contact tournements, is that you get to apply what you have learned to see where you measure up and how well you've improved.

 

It's been said before, and I fully agree, that in a real life fight... everything changes... and I think everyone would be in for quiet a suprise. Training in any martial arts will not guarantee the win in a fight but it does increase your odds.

[White Warlock]

Are you suggesting that the only way to become acclimated to pain is to get punched or kicked full speed?

I know you were addressing SevenStar, but feel like chiming in.

 

He didn't mention pain, he mentioned taking a hit. When adrenalin is in your body, pain isn't as big a factor as most people think. I'll pull up the gun analogy...

 

When purchasing a gun for home defense, and the ammo to go along with it, there are a few things that need to be considered (by all means delta1, jump in):

 

1. accuracy

 

2. recoil (less is better)

 

3. penetration (not too much, not too little)

 

4. damage factor (mushroom, fragmentation, etc)

 

5. stopping power

 

Interestingly enough, i've heard it argued over and over by professionals that stopping power is the #1 most important thing to consider. Stopping power is the ability of a shot to stop a person in his tracks, literally. It's essentially the baseball bat that people feel when they've been shot. Without that effect, people may not realize they've been shot, may not care, or may simply continue forward unimpeded.

 

I've also heard argue that the #2 factor is recoil. The less the better. Recoil is the jumpback of your barrel when firing. The less, the quicker you are able to re-aim and refire and the less disruption your shots may receive.

 

The gun analogy fits well with how full-contact works. If you are not used to taking hits, you may get "stopped in your tracks." If you are not used to the feeling of having a hit go awry, your gameplan could get disrupted and your overall effectiveness undermined. There is a huge difference between throwing punches/kicks in perfect succession, with little to no contact or disruption, and throwing punches/kicks while being barraged, battered, and tossed about.

[GrrrArg]

Im a fence sitter on this one I think..

 

There isnt really any true no-contact styles out there. If they were totally non-contact they simply wouldn't work.

 

Simarly there cant really be any full contact styles either. If you get hit or hit someone full force in the face they should be out cold. Unless all these "full contact" people are constantly making mistakes and have poor technique, which I doubt.

 

Just me trying to be pedantic.

[delta1]

I'll pull up the gun analogy...(by all means delta1, jump in):

 

Ohhhhh, no, don't get me started...

He didn't mention pain, he mentioned taking a hit. When adrenalin is in your body, pain isn't as big a factor as most people think.

 

Very true. Our bodies have a lot of ways to deal with pain in emergencies.

 

Here's some of the problems with transfering point sparing or no contact skills to full contact:

 

Range of motion and point of reference- when you train to lightly tap or just miss, you are training a point of reference for launching attacks, typically out farther so as not to hurt your partner and so the judges can see your strikes. At full extension/full range of motion, if you don't move this point of reference in closer, you cannot strike into your target enough to do the dammage you need to do. Some people are able to make this adjustment under pressure without training for it, but most are not. The skills are there, but they are not effectively used.

 

Relative angles- when you do move in close, everything changes. That inward block that you spent hours compounded by months perfecting now just glances on past. Again, this is not an easy adjustment to make effectively under the pressure of a real assault. He may also turn you, tie you up, or move for positional advantage, all of which you need to learn to deal with.

 

Timeing- changes dramatically as one or both move in to strike efectively. One TKD instructor I used to know was fond of saying that"In close, things tend to happen fast, and you'd better be the one doing them."

 

Flinch- when you are hit with a good shot, especially to the head, there is a momentary blank period, dureing which he will most likely launch a follow up strike. This, more than pain, is what you need to learn to handle, and it has to be automatic because you will not be totally aware.

 

Strategy- in close your guard and footwork must be altered to deal with the relative proximity and angles. Also, a whole new arsenal of strikes are brought into play, while others are de-emphasized. You also have the options to check both his base and his weapons, to take his ballance and to control his space.

 

Strikes- strikes that actually land can hurt you more than him if not done properly, and the only way to train them properly is to actually land them on a moving, dodging target.

 

None of these are insurmountable problems, and some may be able to make the adjustments required automatically. But it is far better to train for them ahead of time, and even the ones who can automatically adjust would, I think, do even better with training.

 

As for full contact sport fighting, they can increase your odds in a fight dramatically. But it is one thing to mentaly prep for a fight, and step into a ring knowing your opponent wants to beat you but not disable you. It is another thing entirely to face a sudden, vicious attack by an opponent that wants to seriousely do you harm. Even the high stress reality courses can only come close. I guess the only certainty is that the harder you train, the better your chances.

 

Again, this assumes the narrow focus of combat and self defense. Many people don't want to train for this, whch is ok too. Are their chances better than if they didn't train at all? Probably. As good as The Iceman (Lidel)? Probably not. OK, definately not. But neither are yours or mine. Does that invalidate what we do?

[DLopez]

Range of motion and point of reference- when you train to lightly tap or just miss, you are training a point of reference for launching attacks, typically out farther so as not to hurt your partner and so the judges can see your strikes. At full extension/full range of motion, if you don't move this point of reference in closer, you cannot strike into your target enough to do the dammage you need to do. Some people are able to make this adjustment under pressure without training for it, but most are not. The skills are there, but they are not effectively used.

 

Delta1 and WW, excellent points to support your ideas on this issue.

 

However, I keep reading things like "some are able to adjust, but most are not." This is the part that keeps tripping me up. How is this qualitative analysis conclusion arrived at? Even if some people have witnessed this first hand, how is the conclusion arrived at that this applies to "most" people, and not just the few that were 'observed'?

 

Maybe I am in the minority, but myself and the others I spar against find that light contact training takes an extreme amount of control and thought, and there have been many times where we've had slips in control and someone ends up getting hit pretty hard. That's when we have to re-focus and concentration back to "light contact".

 

Just going from my own personal experience, the natural tendency is to not pull my punches or kicks. Either I'm "different", or the whole idea that training light contact causes bad habits is somewhat flawed. So when I read the "most" people that train light contact cannot adjust to real life, I can't help but wonder what pool of data this is coming from.

 

Some have talked about "facts" to support this, but I've yet to see any. Only theories.