TJS Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 ok, I was being extreme..what I mean is if someone has never been hit or is not used to a good level of contact they are going to have a whole lot of trouble if someone clocks them in the nose..alot of training is going to go out the window..trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niel0092 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 No, I agree. You do need to find out what getting hit is like. Just making a point. "Jita Kyoei" Mutual Benefit and Welfare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaju_influenced Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I agree completly wit ninjanurse but if ur wanting to know whats more efficient of a fighter i would say full contact because of the barrier that point fighting gives because of its restrictions in the ring and there is also a degree of training the student should receive i.e body conditioning, sensitivity training,contact sparring..ect. "Sweat more in the dojo,bleed less in the street"Kajukenbo fighters axiom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAMA_chick Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 sparring is sparring. i love it all! actually i like continious b/c you don't have to stop until the match is over. but point sparring teaches you to block where as continious doesn't. it depends on the person. Tae Kwon Do15-years oldpurple--belt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tofu Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 I consider both cases, point sparring and full contact, to be specified sports governed by rules. As a sport, I don’t particularly enjoy point sparring very much, but I try not to have any illusions that full contact sparring is closer to true combat. I also think true combat (excluding the use of weapons) looks to be something of a combination of these two sports (I imagine it to be a full contact game of tag for a groin shot or eye gauge). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJS Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 I consider both cases, point sparring and full contact, to be specified sports governed by rules. As a sport, I don’t particularly enjoy point sparring very much, but I try not to have any illusions that full contact sparring is closer to true combat. I also think true combat (excluding the use of weapons) looks to be something of a combination of these two sports (I imagine it to be a full contact game of tag for a groin shot or eye gauge). despite what some may think, normal people dont go stright for eye gouging...they throw punches..usually wild ones. Full contact sprarring mma style is pretty close to real combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tofu Posted April 4, 2003 Share Posted April 4, 2003 despite what some may think, normal people dont go stright for eye gouging...they throw punches..usually wild ones. Full contact sprarring mma style is pretty close to real combat. I agree it’s pretty close. A mma fighter would probably have some skills that would help them do very well in real combat. I still say though to be more to be like real combat, the rules of mma would have to be more point sparring like. Even just the addition of groin shots would completely change the way grappling is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts