Standard Kumite - a waste of time!!!!!

[Dobbersky]

All,

I personally think that the type of sparring, kumite and competitions that follow Standard WKF, WKA etc rules are a waste of time. The "types" of Competitions I have seen advertised in which I would be disqualified in within the opening seconds. Also the fact that no thigh kicks are allowed either. This is also the reason why Other Martial Artists consider Karate as a "Soft" art.

In Boxing Bouts, it is continuous striking. Imagine a Boxing bout where once one fight has hit the other the bout is stopped they are re-centralised for the bout to begin again. You’d think this was stupid and unrealistic. So why do we "allow" it in Karate.

The One Strike = One Point Rule is useless, I've never seen this happen in a bar brawl or on a street where to "fighters" have hit once then the "fight" stopped and they restart again

Non-Contact - again this is useless especially if its 1 strike = 1 point rules, usually it’s the bouncy bouncy tippy tappy guard on your hips type of Kumite. How many times have you heard of someone breaking their wrist/foot the first time they've hit someone in a real fight. To me Non-Contact is the same as performing Kata. Board breaking - well I've never got into a fight with a piece of wood.

Semi-Contact - This is getting there as long as its not bouncy bouncy tippy tappy guard on your hips type of Kumite. I tend to use this type of Kumite for my Kids. Its more street realistic and gives Karateka an Idea of what a street confrontation would be like. Again I would compare this to Kata Bunkai classes

Full Contact or "knockdown" - This type of tournament competition is closer to "real life" personal combat, although it still in a tournament setting with rules. There is definitely no bouncy bouncy tippy tappy guard on your hips type of fighter in this type of kumite. Also Full contact is allowed all over the body (except the joints, groin and face, in Kyokushin and Ashihara and Enshin etc, as these are such an easy targets to hit and as it is full contact concussion or fractures may occur). This style of kumite, often, they don't award any points for controlled techniques delivered to the opponent. In fact, they usually don't award points for full-force techniques delivered to the opponent either. Instead, points are only awarded for knocking, sweeping, or throwing your opponent to the floor. Kyokushinkai and its "offshoot" karate organizations are the styles usually known to promote knockdown tournament rules.

I look forward to your responses

OSU

[sensei8]

WOW! Hhhmmmm! OK! [bTW, these are good comments!]

In Boxing Bouts, it is continuous striking. Imagine a Boxing bout where once one fight has hit the other the bout is stopped they are re-centralised for the bout to begin again. You’d think this was stupid and unrealistic. So why do we "allow" it in Karate.

Because it's a training TOOL! Imho, valuable training tools/methodologies.

Allow me to address each of the following:

The One Strike = One Point Rule is useless, I've never seen this happen in a bar brawl or on a street where to "fighters" have hit once then the "fight" stopped and they restart again

It's not useless. It's a training methodology. It's akin to Ikken hissatsu...To Kill With One Blow. To hit to end. You've not seen this in a bar fight because neither of the combatants understand Ikken hissatsu nor can neither of the combatants hit with that much completeness.

Non-Contact - again this is useless especially if its 1 strike = 1 point rules, usually it’s the bouncy bouncy tippy tappy guard on your hips type of Kumite. How many times have you heard of someone breaking their wrist/foot the first time they've hit someone in a real fight. To me Non-Contact is the same as performing Kata. Board breaking - well I've never got into a fight with a piece of wood.

Neither have I gotten into a fight with a piece of wood and as Bruce said to O'Hara..."Boards don't hit back!" AGAIN...it a training methodology that many hate but many more train in it because it's just a tool. Refine the steel to make it harder prevents it from becoming/remaining brittle.

Semi-Contact - This is getting there as long as its not bouncy bouncy tippy tappy guard on your hips type of Kumite. I tend to use this type of Kumite for my Kids. Its more street realistic and gives Karateka an Idea of what a street confrontation would be like. Again I would compare this to Kata Bunkai classes

Another training tool/methodology and it has its merits as well as its value.

Full Contact or "knockdown" - This type of tournament competition is closer to "real life" personal combat, although it still in a tournament setting with rules. There is definitely no bouncy bouncy tippy tappy guard on your hips type of fighter in this type of kumite. Also Full contact is allowed all over the body (except the joints, groin and face, in Kyokushin and Ashihara and Enshin etc, as these are such an easy targets to hit and as it is full contact concussion or fractures may occur). This style of kumite, often, they don't award any points for controlled techniques delivered to the opponent. In fact, they usually don't award points for full-force techniques delivered to the opponent either. Instead, points are only awarded for knocking, sweeping, or throwing your opponent to the floor. Kyokushinkai and its "offshoot" karate organizations are the styles usually known to promote knockdown tournament rules.

Another training tool/methodology in preparing one for the street. This is how my style, Shindokan, is. Full contact at all times, including in training. BUT, as a baby must learn how to crawl and everthing in between before one starts to run, so must a Karateka/Martial Artist.

All of the methodologies that you've presented are not only vital and important to the development of the Karateka/Martial Artist but their essential. I'd not take away a proven tool. Yes, it's proven because before one can swim, one must first stand in the water!

Bottom line, if someone doesn't like them, then don't train in them. Instead, find someone who would allow 'you' to beat them to death for the realism.

[Sokusen]

Good comments but far too many absolutes. As mentioned in the first reply "All" types of sparring are training tools, even prearranged sparring has its place as a training tool. There are several different benefits to each type of sparring that was mentioned though the one benefit that is seen in all is understanding your distancing.

To use Machida as an example, since it is so plainly obvious when you see him fight, is his understanding of distancing. Do you think he became the most elusive fighter in the UFC by standing toe to toe with someone and beating the hell out of each other during his training? I doubt it. His traditional training in all types of sparring and his understanding of the one shot one kill principle taught him to keep just out of range of his opponent until he see’s an opening for an attack. He understands that a tippy tap shot to the face during training could become a knockout blow with 1 more inch of penetration.

I don’t think the problem is with the training tools, it’s with the understanding of what you are training. If all you want is to be able survive a bar fight then any type of sparring is the last thing you should be working on. There are many other self defense techniques to learn that would be better suited for a bar fight.

All in all if you only train one way, be it point sparring or full contact, then your going to get pigeon-toed with your training and it’s going to give a false sense of security.

[Dobbersky]

WOW! Hhhmmmm! OK! [bTW, these are good comments!]

All of the methodologies that you've presented are not only vital and important to the development of the Karateka/Martial Artist but their essential. I'd not take away a proven tool. Yes, it's proven because before one can swim, one must first stand in the water!

Bottom line, if someone doesn't like them, then don't train in them. Instead, find someone who would allow 'you' to beat them to death for the realism.

I am truely grateful for your excellent breakdown of the techniques.

I totally agree with all you are saying even chuckling at the last point.

My main issue is that the Kumite Competitions I am describing are usually attended by 3rd Kyu and above who in my opinion should have gone through alll the learning etc that you describe in your post and be ready for the type of kumite that we both practice.

I get fed up of People saying stuff about Karate and its down to this tippy tappy bouncy bouncy stuff that someone decided was good.

Look at TKD, olympic style is nothing like Real TKD I know this for a fact

again thank you for your input it is truly appreciated

Osu

[tallgeese]

I tend to agree with the broad observations that Dobbersky made in the initial post. I can see the point that they are all training tools, however, a methodology is no good if it teaches more bad habits than good. This is often the case with no-contact sparring and/or sparring that is stopped after a single instance of contact.

I think that most of the non-contact sparring and stoppage sparring does just that, builds in more bad habits than good when we look at things through the lens of self defense. I'm not saying that they don't teach certain things, but I think that there are better ways to teach focus, technique, and speed of application and such than teaching people not to hit things.

From a realism point of view, you're better off practicing hitting a target with power than touching an individual in sparring with none. I think that good awareness of what one is doing with sparring is important. After that, I think there must be some amount of contact always. That might mean semi-contact a bulk of the time with good form. It will also mean the occasional ratcheting up of the contact level, that's the game. You can't do it always, but it needs to be included now and again so everyone remembers what it's about and for the stress inoculation factor.

I think as well that far too often we look at sparring as and end of itself. As sensei 8 said, it's a tool. I'm a big advocate of doing sparring with a designated attacker that's armored up. This is a great way to get all the benefits of sparring in an even more realistic package. It might be the most useful version of all.

I think as well that we have to be careful about using guys like Machida as examples of anything. Why? He's a professional athlete and certainly not the median example of most of us training to defend ourselves. Great fighter, yup. Totally beyond what any of us will likely be capable of, yup. Few of us are doing this full time with the genetics, drive, and training opportunities that he has. It's just not a valid comparison.

I think your point may be valid Sokusen, but I'm real leary of using the tip of the iceberg in combat athleticism to draw generalities for the rest of us to use.

Good thoughts so far.

[Shizentai]

First off, let me start by telling you that I have trained in both traditional Shotokan karate in Japan and the US, as well as the "hard-hitting" style of Ashihara karate while in Japan (so that you know where I am coming from, having experienced both teaching methods).

First in regards to why some people don't condone full-contact:

The strongest punch force ever recorded (if I have my statistics right) was from the fist of a karate-ka (~2000lbs/sq.in.) NOT a boxer. If someone wielding a force like that just smashed into a person's temple unrestrained like a boxer would (minus boxer gloves), the result would be murder. Personally, I would never want to participate in such things, unless I am in a life or death situation... in which case, so far, I have done just fine without practicing by beating up my dojo mates either in day to day training or in competition.

The One Strike = One Point Rule is useless, I've never seen this happen in a bar brawl or on a street where to "fighters" have hit once then the "fight" stopped and they restart again

You're absolutely right. I've never seen a street fight stop and restart. That is unrealistic. However, I do have the unfortunate experience of having been attacked on two occasions (I guess because I'm a small single woman who lives in the #3 most dangerous city in the world). In both cases, my assailants, who were both large men, were subdued with one technique on my part. If you actually look at any footage of a REAL attack (not 2 drunk guys beating eachother for the fun of it, but a real situation), things are almost always decided by one crucial moment, one crucial strike, throw, etc. That, in my opinion is the value of one-point sparing training. It prepares the individual to make their very first move this crucial move.

Board breaking - well I've never got into a fight with a piece of wood.

Agreed. Hahaha.

Also Full contact is allowed all over the body (except the joints, groin and face, in Kyokushin and Ashihara and Enshin etc, as these are such an easy targets to hit and as it is full contact concussion or fractures may occur).

See, this was my one qualm with Ashihara training. Being originally trained in Shotokan, I am used to punching at my opponent's face if I see an opening. However, in the Ashihara dojo where I trained, I got reprimanded for even punching at my sparing partner's face. Personally, I feel like the no-punching-at-face rule is even less realistic than the no-face-contact rule. It is my personal opinion that even if you think the face is "an easy target" you have to train your reaction to seeing it unguarded, or when it comes down to the wire, you'll slip up. The way to do it is to practice control, which, by the way, is useful in everyday life, even when not being attacked on the street.

Let me point out something extremely obvious (so do excuse me): No method of training/competition is 100% realistic in every way at once. If it were, then we'd all get way more beaten-up by learning self-defense than if we had gone into a "real-life" fight unprepared. As it stands, different styles and teaching methods have their own benefits and costs. I like full-contact karate a lot. It's great if that's the method you prefer. Go for it! More power to you!

Just don't knock other styles' efficacy if you've never actually used them in a real life situation. Otherwise it's all just speculation on your part.

[Sokusen]

Tallgeese,

I agree using Machida isn't the best example since he is the cream of the crop and 99.9% of us will never be that good. But If I were to say "look at Bob at my dojo he has a great sense of distancing due to his point sparring." You wouldn't have a very good visual. At least some people on this forum have seen Machida fight and can get a visual of what I'm trying to say.

[tallgeese]

I see what you're saying, I've just also seen far too many people weigh in with the "because x fighter does it this may it must be right" argument on other sites. Like you said 99.9% of us won't be able to make it work.

It's the same reason you can't look at pro-caliber bodybuilders to see what weight lifting should do for you. But point taken.

I also agree with another point above, if you're training for sd reasons then you can't take target area of value off the table. The example was the head and face. Agreed, this isn't helpful. It's the same reason why you occasionally, and with proper gear, allow striking to the groin during sparring and allowed simulated strikes to things like the side of then knee from time to time.

With things like these, you do have to let slamming pads and mitts take the heavy load of training. Same with eye gouging, where my BOB dummy takes his licks. These specific situations are areas where touch contact only sparring is probably appropriate, but I still see the majority of drilling needing done with some contact.

[bushido_man96]

First of all, you have to understand that there are so many different styles of sparring because different teachers/founders advocated different things.

Second of all, these are all used in competition form, so look at it from that perspective, as well. Football and basketball aren't the same, nor do they have the same goals. Its like wanting to play basketball, but wanting to be able to tackle like you can in football. That just changes the sport into something entirely different.

Now, there are some types of sparring that are more conducive to self-defense training. There always ends up being some give and take. Even the pinnacle of sparring as it relates to street defense, MMA, still has a few rules. Its just the way it is, so different people with different ideas on how and what to teach, find the medium that they want to teach it in, and go from there.

[KarateOx]

My issue with kumite is it is not Karate, it is kickboxing. Where are all the stances, the high blocks, the uppercuts, etc. Where are the kamaes and the inside grappling? I look at arts like T'ai chi or Wing Chun. They have push hands and sticky hands. It is the way they "spar". I understand Wing Chun also does kickboxing, but they have a method to thoroughly practice and USE all the techniques they train with. In Kumite, we don't. I never understood that. There's the argument that karate is so deadly that we couldn't go all out because we'd kill each other.

LOL

Contact is a moot point, as Boxing, Judo, Muay Thai, MMA, etc., have contact. If you are afraid of getting hit in Kumite by an elbow or some other technique that is considered too "deadly" for sparring, how are you going to defend against it int he street? Now, look, I'm not saying we have to bash each other's brains in. Not at all. That is not what most of us practice for. I am saying, a system of "Karate" sparring should be developed so the practitioners can use all the techniques they learn. Or at least most of the techniques we learn. Why does there "need" to ne sparring anyway? Again, using Wing Chun and T'ai chi as examples. Their sparring is not competative. It is a chance for them to learn sensitivety, interaction, and balance. They learn how to deal with various issues that come up and to do so within the system they are practicing. I am not against Kumite. Not at all. I just wish it was improved upon. There's just too much left out.