Kumite and traditional karate question

[Kuma]

This might also be beneficial for nooob. Here are some videos of the different types of kumite so you can see where the progression begins and you can determine how far you would want to go. Some arts don't include all of these either.

Sanbon kumite - three-step sparring. You defend against three prearranged attacks then quickly counterattack. It's all controlled.

Ippon kumite - one-step sparring. Now you just defend against one attack and quickly counterattack. Again, all controlled.

Kiso kumite - prearranged sparring. The attacker will attack with a series of prearranged strikes and you will defend against them. This is where it tends to get more indepth as they vary strikes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPRLaxZX4Bg

Jiyu kumite - free sparring. This is where many schools vary.

Some will just free spar without contact....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGayLIJPf4c&feature=PlayList&p=91D61DC972627F75&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=46

Some will spar with protection for points....

Some will spar with headgear....

Jissen kumite - full contact karate. This kind of training is only available through certain styles which is what initially draws those wanting to train in it there in the first place.

There is those like Kyokushin or Enshin who spar with absolutely no protection whatsoever....

And there is styles like Daido Juku which does have protection but makes up for it with headbutts, judo throws, and groundfighting.

[sperki]

Bushido Man, I think that self-defense is a by-product of most martial arts. And it's a good reason for many people to sign up. I'm just not convinced it has to be the reason. As for "practical," well I might argue that on an art by art case I do think that the confidence that ma's tend to instill in people is as much of a deterrent as anything else.

[bushido_man96]

Bushido Man, I think that self-defense is a by-product of most martial arts. And it's a good reason for many people to sign up. I'm just not convinced it has to be the reason. As for "practical," well I might argue that on an art by art case I do think that the confidence that ma's tend to instill in people is as much of a deterrent as anything else.

I don't think that self-defense is a by-product of all MA training. I think it should be, but not all teachers think the same. I think that it is something that should be considered, though, by all who teach. Just food for thought.

[isshinryu5toforever]

I tend to agree with Bushido_man. Too many martial artists tend to forget that there are two sides to Japanese martial arts. The do and the jutsu. We practice the jutsu, but only to get to the do, and forget the jutsu upon reaching the do. Confusing, but basically, we practice the techniques to get a deeper understanding of things. Yet, once we've reached this deeper understanding, we forget that what we practice has a practical application. That application is supposed to be deadly. To learn martial arts is to learn how to kill. That's the entire basis. The do simply helps someone reconcile themselves with the fact that they are now a killer.

[joesteph]

I tend to agree with Bushido_man. Too many martial artists tend to forget that there are two sides to Japanese martial arts. The do and the jutsu. We practice the jutsu, but only to get to the do, and forget the jutsu upon reaching the do.

I like the way this is put. I wonder if those most "married" to a martial art find it satisfying their aesthetic (and spritual?) needs, to the point in which they no longer see it as "martial," but they do see it as "art." Would a "higher" plane be seeing it as both, or is there a fork in the road that has "martial art" to the left, and "art" alone to the right, with the better choice being what is best for the individual?

[A]pplication is supposed to be deadly. To learn martial arts is to learn how to kill. That's the entire basis. The do simply helps someone reconcile themselves with the fact that they are now a killer.

I'm not sure about this, feeling it's at the very end of the continuum. Most MA applications that are studied can check, hurt, or maim, rather than kill, and, IMHO, still fall within the "-do." (Like the caution, "Avoid rather than check, check rather than hurt . . .") I won't say killing isn't there, it most certainly is, but I see it as the extreme.

[bushido_man96]

Extreme, yes. But, to an extent, it is just another part of what there is to consider in the studying the Martial Arts.

[sperki]

Based on the last few posts, would you folks consider Tai Chi a martial art? I've only taken one class, and that was by following a video my employer provided, but it had only the loosest possible connections to self-defense, and pretty much no (at least at that introductory level) connection to killing. In fact I would argue the opposite extreme. It seemed like Tai Chi was based on / in Buddism and was focused on getting connected to the universe and preserving all life.

[joesteph]

Tai Chi is definitely a martial art, it's just that it's most often taught, at least in the US, for non-MA reasons.

There are Tai Chi moves that break bones. I can find in a form I learned for my art, Soo Bahk Do, Chil Sung Ee Ro Hyung, certain Tai Chi-based moves that, as one interpretation goes, breaks the opponent's two-handed grip, has you grab his arms to set him up, and then comes the kick. Another is to break his grip, and then seize his head while ramming your thumbs into his eyes. Still another is to break his grip, seize his arms, then cross them in such a way as to bend one elbow the wrong way--crunch! (The funny thing is that it's not what's taught in the Soo Bahk Do form; it's taught as a lapel grab and choke. It's because I studied Tai Chi that I recognized the applications.) The two-man form that I did with a friend in the past had lots of nasties and counters in it.

It'll depend on your instructor, and even attending seminars.

[isshinryu5toforever]

I tend to agree with Bushido_man. Too many martial artists tend to forget that there are two sides to Japanese martial arts. The do and the jutsu. We practice the jutsu, but only to get to the do, and forget the jutsu upon reaching the do.

I like the way this is put. I wonder if those most "married" to a martial art find it satisfying their aesthetic (and spritual?) needs, to the point in which they no longer see it as "martial," but they do see it as "art." Would a "higher" plane be seeing it as both, or is there a fork in the road that has "martial art" to the left, and "art" alone to the right, with the better choice being what is best for the individual?

First, thank you. Second, I think the two sides are part of a whole. They result in balance, which is always the purpose of East Asian martial arts. Their society and religions are largely based on balance of the body, mind, and spirit. This is what the do and jutsu allow. If you have too much do, you don't understand what the techniques are made to do. If you have too much jutsu, then you're just learning how to punch and kick. As one very intelligent sensei told me, they've taught monkeys to do that. It should be noted that I don't view the do as learning to be a better person. I view it as you learning who you are as a person, and as a result becoming a better person by improving on your faults.

[A]pplication is supposed to be deadly. To learn martial arts is to learn how to kill. That's the entire basis. The do simply helps someone reconcile themselves with the fact that they are now a killer.

I'm not sure about this, feeling it's at the very end of the continuum. Most MA applications that are studied can check, hurt, or maim, rather than kill, and, IMHO, still fall within the "-do." (Like the caution, "Avoid rather than check, check rather than hurt . . .") I won't say killing isn't there, it most certainly is, but I see it as the extreme.

Killing is obviously the most extreme response, but it is the purpose for which most East Asian martial arts were first developed. We don't live in those times anymore, but we do learn the ways. That is the purpose of the jutsu. The disabling of an opponent can be just as bad, and often times more painful than killing them. The do should allow you to recognize the required response, but you also must accept that the death of another human being may be the required response. This is another purpose of the do. It is to control your reactions. If someone attacks you, and you can subdue him with a lock or hold, that is wonderful. Yet, you must also recognize when your self-preservation means killing the other person. In essence, you are a killer, but you can choose not to kill. I should have expounded on that further in my last post.

[sensei8]

I'm very stubborn and set in my old ways. Having said that, anybody training in the martial arts is ALSO training in "self-defense" whether one will admit it or not. One can reason it away until they themselves believe it, but, a by-product of the martial arts is that one will be learning some type of self-defense whether one wants to or not. One might not want to learn how to fight, but they'd rather learn the martial arts in order to learn how to live a healthy life mentally and physically through discipline, control and virtuousness. But if someone grabs them from behind, they'll be ready for that, too, and they'll be so glad that they learned some self-defense at the same time.