# What about practicing martial arts with near-sightedness? I heard about retinal detachment.



## Pier033

Is it possibile to practice martial arts with near-sightedness? Do I risk retinal detachment? 

Thank you for reading, have a good day.


----------



## Tez3

You don't risk retinal detachment anymore than anyone else. Contact lenses are your friend, daily disposable ones are great. I am shortsighted as well as having astigmatism and have worn lenses for years.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Pier033 said:


> Is it possibile to practice martial arts with near-sightedness? Do I risk retinal detachment?
> 
> Thank you for reading, have a good day.


Near-sightedness is not a problem. I’m near-sighted and so are many of my students and training partners.

I’ve been training martial arts for 37 years and I don’t think I’ve met anyone who suffered retinal detachment as a result of their martial arts practice. I suppose it’s theoretically possible as the result of a training accident that caused an injury to the eye, but that’s not really a common occurrence.


----------



## Yokozuna514

How near sighted are you ?  If you can not effectively see a person standing an arms length away from you, you may want to consider sticking to a grappling art as opposed to a striking art.  If you can wear contacts, that may help but remember that the contacts may move slightly when you move your head quickly so you may lose focus on your opponent initially until you get used to it.   I agree with The other posters about the risk not being any greater for retinal detachment all things considered equally.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Pier033 said:


> Is it possibile to practice martial arts with near-sightedness? Do I risk retinal detachment?
> 
> Thank you for reading, have a good day.



I only have one eye, and it's quite near sighted. Isn't a problem. Retinal detachment is way way way down on the list of possible injuries from MA practice.


----------



## _Simon_

My instructor had retinal detachment from a full contact tournament injury... a freak thing I think, but it can happen. Ended his tournament days, but probably such a rare occurrence.

Wouldn't worry about it happening, go train and have fun


----------



## Leviathan

I had already considered the question as I am nearsighted as well. 

If you're going for a martial arts with little or no contact to the head (karate shotokan, tai chi) it shouldn't be an issue. 

If you go for contact, especially full contact (boxing, Muay Thai), that seems possible at least in theory. In practice though I have never heard of a boxer or Thai boxer (or soccer player) suffering something like that, even when competing at a fairly high level so I wouldn't worry too much about that. Or have you experienced some problem of that kind already? You suffer any serious condition with your eyes? Are you highly nearsighted? 

Lenses are not always suitable. They were fine when I practiced karate shotokan but when I switched to Muay Thai I lost one lens during the first training (quite a few punches in the head) so I trained without any visual correction from then on. That worked fine. 

If you had had eye surgery like LASIK I would be very cautious because that weakens the cornea but that's another topic.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

I'm far-sighted, but enough that everything is blurry without correction, at any distance. I train as much as I can with my glasses, and just take them off for any free-sparring, resistive drills, etc. For basic drills, I can leave them on, take falls, etc. without issue. I've tried to get contacts, but I have trouble getting them in and out. My eyes only barely open enough for them, and in about an hour of attempts  at the optometrist's office, I managed to get both in and one out (doc had to remove the other for me, because I had to get out of there), so I never got around to getting any.

I had a student who wore contacts, and never had an issue, except when I stole one from his eye (did it twice - apparently, I poke people in the eyes more than I thought). I had a training partner who simply opted for sports goggles, which I should probably do at some point.


----------



## JR 137

Leviathan said:


> I had already considered the question as I am nearsighted as well.
> 
> If you're going for a martial arts with little or no contact to the head (karate shotokan, tai chi) it shouldn't be an issue.
> 
> If you go for contact, especially full contact (boxing, Muay Thai), that seems possible at least in theory. In practice though I have never heard of a boxer or Thai boxer (or soccer player) suffering something like that, even when competing at a fairly high level so I wouldn't worry too much about that. Or have you experienced some problem of that kind already? You suffer any serious condition with your eyes? Are you highly nearsighted?
> 
> Lenses are not always suitable. They were fine when I practiced karate shotokan but when I switched to Muay Thai I lost one lens during the first training (quite a few punches in the head) so I trained without any visual correction from then on. That worked fine.
> 
> If you had had eye surgery like LASIK I would be very cautious because that weakens the cornea but that's another topic.


Theodore Roosevelt suffered a detached retina from boxing. Now you’ve heard of a specific case. 

It’s certainly not an everyday thing in boxing, but it happens enough to say so. I wouldn’t worry about it if there’s no previous retinal issues. 

Near sighted, far sighted, et al won’t realistically put anyone at further risk of retinal detachment. I guess you could be at increased risk of a detachment if you can’t see right and are constantly getting hit in the head because of it, but that’s a bit of a stretch. The issue with that stuff is the lens of the eye, not the retina. The retina is like a sheet of paper on the inside back surface of the eye. The lens is pretty much in the pupil.

Getting hit in the head can definitely detach your retina. Highly unlikely, but it can happen.


----------



## jobo

Yokozuna514 said:


> How near sighted are you ?  If you can not effectively see a person standing an arms length away from you, you may want to consider sticking to a grappling art as opposed to a striking art.  If you can wear contacts, that may help but remember that the contacts may move slightly when you move your head quickly so you may lose focus on your opponent initially until you get used to it.   I agree with The other posters about the risk not being any greater for retinal detachment all things considered equally.


if you practise with iut correction, then you signal processing will improve to compensate,  if you practise in glasses and remove/ loose  them in a fight you will really struggle to process the information as you depth perception will be all wrong and things will move to one side or the other or up or down or all of these


----------



## Leviathan

JR 137 said:


> Near sighted, far sighted, et al won’t realistically put anyone at further risk of retinal detachment.



Unfortunately nearsightedness is a risk factor for retinal detachment (but not the only one):

Retinal detachment - Wikipedia


----------



## Xue Sheng

Pier033 said:


> Is it possibile to practice martial arts with near-sightedness? Do I risk retinal detachment?
> 
> Thank you for reading, have a good day.



Practiced Martial arts with near-sightedness for over 30 years with no issue. Then I had cataract surgery and got lenses implants. Then I got hit right in the eye and ended up with a detached retina. If I had still been near sighted I do not think it would have happened. I always bought glasses with safety lenses and was hit many times over the years with no issue, because the glasses took the hit and my eye didn't. But without the glasses I got hit, right in my open eye and a few days later the retina became an issue. I was never told prior to the detachment to stop training martial arts and it was not until the second detachment in the same eye that I was told training and getting hit in the head may not be something I should be doing on a regular basis by the guy who did my retina surgery.

But also take into account that I am not a doctor or an eye specialist so take what I say with a grain of salt. If you are truly concerned you need to talk to your eye doctor


----------



## jobo

Leviathan said:


> Unfortunately nearsightedness is a risk factor for retinal detachment (but not the only one):
> 
> Retinal detachment - Wikipedia


it doesn't really say that, it does say that severe myopia is a risk factor, that in excess of - 6 , but it's not at all clearly that myopia less than this is a problem or even why severe myopia is an issue, as the actual causes of my opiate are not clearly understood and vary substanialy from one individual to another. certain if partial detachment hment of the retina  is what's causing your short sightedness, then it's an issue, if it's that you have a genetic problem with lense thickness it's hard to see how that a risk . I think a visit to an expert is required if your concerned or do something were you dont get puched r in the face a lot, which is a wise move for all sort of reasons besides not detaching you retina


----------



## Yokozuna514

jobo said:


> if you practise with iut correction, then you signal processing will improve to compensate,  if you practise in glasses and remove/ loose  them in a fight you will really struggle to process the information as you depth perception will be all wrong and things will move to one side or the other or up or down or all of these


It sounds to me as if you are saying that it is better to practice without correction than with glasses.   Although, I would tend to agree with this statement I would add that is is better to have eye surgery like Lasik or to wear contacts (least favourite option) than to practice without correction at all if you are in a striking art.   I am sure that you would agree that the ability to block successfully is contingent on being able to see the strike.  If eyesight is poor at arms length distance not having some form of correction is going to make blocking more challenging than it has to be.  If eyesight still allows you to see motion (but not clear vision) this can also be used against you in the form of fakes.  

As a last resort you may be able to get by in a SD scenario but to spar over a long period of time without some form of vision correction is going to make practicing suck.


----------



## jobo

Yokozuna514 said:


> It sounds to me as if you are saying that it is better to practice without correction than with glasses.   Although, I would tend to agree with this statement I would add that is is better to have eye surgery like Lasik or to wear contacts (least favourite option) than to practice without correction at all if you are in a striking art.   I am sure that you would agree that the ability to block successfully is contingent on being able to see the strike.  If eyesight is poor at arms length distance not having some form of correction is going to make blocking more challenging than it has to be.  If eyesight still allows you to see motion (but not clear vision) this can also be used against you in the form of fakes.
> 
> As a last resort you may be able to get by in a SD scenario but to spar over a long period of time without some form of vision correction is going to make practicing suck.


well not all conditions are operable and non essential surgery isn't a wise chose anyway. contact dont suit all people, I can't wear them until they invent vari focal contacts. , , or I have to wear reading glasses, which rather defeats the object.

but essentially what I'm saying is if you wear glasses out and about and lots of people do, then if you take you glasses of for a fight or lose them I  the Malay,  then your stuffed as far as judging speed, distance and exact trajectory.   youl do far better if you've trained with out them, what you see may be a bit blurry, but at least it's where your brain tells you it is. a blurry punch is no harder to avoid than a focust one, provided that you  sight does pre lude you from see three foot at all. or you have tunnel vision, it may even improve your vision as you concentrating on focusing the eye, theres a whole school of though that a lot of myopia,  is caused by people in cities never trying to focus on anything more than 10 foot away,  or nowadays more than 10 inches away. certainly once you start wearing glasses  you going to get worse and worse as you work the eye less and less


----------



## Yokozuna514

jobo said:


> well not all conditions are operable and non essential surgery isn't a wise chose anyway. contact dont suit all people, I can't wear them until they invent vari focal contacts. , , or I have to wear reading glasses, which rather defeats the object.
> 
> but essentially what I'm saying is if you wear glasses out and about and lots of people do, then if you take you glasses of for a fight or lose them I  the Malay,  then your stuffed as far as judging speed, distance and exact trajectory.   youl do far better if you've trained with out them, what you see may be a bit blurry, but at least it's where your brain tells you it is. a blurry punch is no harder to avoid than a focust one, provided that you  sight does pre lude you from see three foot at all. or you have tunnel vision, it may even improve your vision as you concentrating on focusing the eye


Agreed, not all conditions are operable.  I am not sure I agree with non-essential eye surgery not being a wise choice.   I won't go into all the different non-essential eye surgeries that when done can improve your standard of living but certainly Lasik corrective eye surgery improves long distance vision and I am sure the people that have had it done feel as if it was a wise choice.  

Also not sure I agree with the follow up paragraph, ".....far better if you've trained without them....at least it's where your brain tells you it is.".   It is not fun nor productive to train when you cannot see properly.  Especially when your peripheral vision is blurry, it is not easy to react properly to strikes coming from the outside the clear field of vision.   If you are in a SD situation and had no choice, then you will react to what you see.  Will the you be more successful because you train under these conditions, I don't think so.   The tendency to train within your scope of your vision is probably stronger than the ability to train outside of your scope.  If that was not true why wouldn't everyone train with reduced scope of vision if there is little or no effect on performance.   The field of vision is important and the the greater the field the better the ability to react, plain and simple. 

I am also not certain about what you mean '..... improve your vision as you concentrating on focusing the eye'.   Perhaps, in a SD situation this is a good way to cope without the use of glasses or contacts but I think it is the least effective way to deal with nearsightedness when it comes to using a striking art.  I would always suggest to find the best way and most feasible way to correct your vision as it will enhance your experience and your performance in most cases.


----------



## jobo

Yokozuna514 said:


> Agreed, not all conditions are operable.  I am not sure I agree with non-essential eye surgery not being a wise choice.   I won't go into all the different non-essential eye surgeries that when done can improve your standard of living but certainly Lasik corrective eye surgery improves long distance vision and I am sure the people that have had it done feel as if it was a wise choice.
> 
> Also not sure I agree with the follow up paragraph, ".....far better if you've trained without them....at least it's where your brain tells you it is.".   It is not fun nor productive to train when you cannot see properly.  Especially when your peripheral vision is blurry, it is not easy to react properly to strikes coming from the outside the clear field of vision.   If you are in a SD situation and had no choice, then you will react to what you see.  Will the you be more successful because you train under these conditions, I don't think so.   The tendency to train within your scope of your vision is probably stronger than the ability to train outside of your scope.  If that was not true why wouldn't everyone train with reduced scope of vision if there is little or no effect on performance.   The field of vision is important and the the greater the field the better the ability to react, plain and simple.
> 
> I am also not certain about what you mean '..... improve your vision as you concentrating on focusing the eye'.   Perhaps, in a SD situation this is a good way to cope without the use of glasses or contacts but I think it is the least effective way to deal with nearsightedness when it comes to using a striking art.  I would always suggest to find the best way and most feasible way to correct your vision as it will enhance your experience and your performance in most cases.


 well it's all situation where someone is trying to punch you in the face, but most certainly sd were any sane person will remove their glasses before some one removes them for them  , it may suck until your brain corrects its self, but that the point,  it will correct its self, it's clearly depends on how bad your eye sight is  picking up objects traveling at speed for 50 yards away is a problem, picking up a blurry punch from three foot away should not be, l get your self a dart broard  , take you glasses of, and in a short time it will make little difference to your accuracy   or throw a ball against a wall and catch, you be surprised how quickly you learn to compensate

the eye is like any other muscle, if you dont work it, by forcing it to focus  it will deteriorate,  consequently, there a good chance to improve it if you do, with in certain bounds obviously


----------



## Yokozuna514

jobo said:


> well it's all situation where someone is trying to punch you in the face, but most certainly sd were any sane person will remove their glasses before some one removes them for them  , it may suck until your brain corrects its self, but that the point,  it will correct its self, it's clearly depends on how bad your eye sight is  picking up objects traveling at speed for 50 yards away is a problem, picking up a blurry punch from three foot away should not be, l get your self a dart broard  , take you glasses of, and in a short time it will make little difference to your accuracy   or throw a ball against a wall and catch, you be surprised how quickly you learn to compensate
> 
> the eye is like any other muscle, if you dont work it, by forcing it to focus  it will deteriorate,  consequently, there a good chance to improve it if you do, with in certain bounds obviously


I think I can agree with you when you say your brain will compensate for eyesight in a SD situation.  Amazing things can happen when the fight or flight response is triggered.   However, I am not sue the suggestion of practicing on a dart board without your glasses will translate the same way (or reasonable way) as getting corrective eye surgery that will assist in enhancing your 'field of vision' as opposed to the the specific focus of your vision.   Perhaps if the training only consisted of straight shots that were starting from a point of vision that you saw clearly but most training scenarios involve having to see strikes coming from all angles so the bigger and clearer the 'field of vision' the better.  I am really not certain that the brain can compensate for that.  That is pretty much all I am saying.   

I do get that you can concentrate on focusing your eyes so that the image is sharper but I am not sure this is better than having the surgery or wearing corrective lenses.


----------



## Leviathan

jobo said:


> it doesn't really say that, it does say that severe myopia is a risk factor, that in excess of - 6 , but it's not at all clearly that myopia less than this is a problem or even why severe myopia is an issue, as the actual causes of my opiate are not clearly understood and vary substanialy from one individual to another. certain if partial detachment hment of the retina  is what's causing your short sightedness, then it's an issue, if it's that you have a genetic problem with lense thickness it's hard to see how that a risk . I think a visit to an expert is required if your concerned or do something were you dont get puched r in the face a lot, which is a wise move for all sort of reasons besides not detaching you retina



I am quoting Wikipedia, risk factors:

Posterior vitreous detachment, injury to the eye, inflammation of the eye, short sighted, previous cataractsurgery[1]


So yes, it says nearsightedness is a risk factor. 

Why is it so? A nearsighted eye has an enlarged eyeball and as it seems not all parts grow in exactly the same proportions. Excessive growth of the eyeball can somehow "tear it apart". Ok that's exaggerated rhetoric to try to give you a picture. 

Nearsightedness is associated with quite a few complications (glaucoma, cataract, intraoccular pressure etc.). Retinal detachment is not the single complication that could - rarely - occur.

The risk of a retinal detachment is present in other sports, especially tennis or squash because the small ball can badly hurt your eye if it lands on it. Unlikely but possible.


----------



## jobo

Leviathan said:


> I am quoting Wikipedia, risk factors:
> 
> Posterior vitreous detachment, injury to the eye, inflammation of the eye, short sighted, previous cataractsurgery[1]
> 
> 
> So yes, it says nearsightedness is a risk factor.
> 
> Why is it so? A nearsighted eye has an enlarged eyeball and as it seems not all parts grow in exactly the same proportions. Excessive growth of the eyeball can somehow "tear it apart". Ok that's exaggerated rhetoric to try to give you a picture.
> 
> Nearsightedness is associated with quite a few complications (glaucoma, cataract, intraoccular pressure etc.). Retinal detachment is not the single complication that could - rarely - occur.
> 
> The risk of a retinal detachment is present in other sports, especially tennis or squash because the small ball can badly hurt your eye if it lands on it. Unlikely but possible.


no its says severe myopia is a risk factor if you bother to read the text, and not all short sighted ness is caused by the thing you describe, diagnosing your condition using wiki media is not a wise thing to do

I got hit in the face with a football and went blind for two weeks, completly blind


----------



## Leviathan

jobo said:


> no its says severe myopia is a risk factor if you bother to read the text, and not all short sighted ness is caused by the thing you describe, diagnosing your condition using wiki media is not a wise thing to do
> 
> I got hit in the face with a football and went blind for two weeks, completly blind



In one place they say myopia in another they say severe myopia.

I'll leave it up to your appreciation whether you're safe until -5,75 diopters and suddenly at risk if you push -6 (usually considered the threshold to severe myopia).

Quite freaky with that 2-week-blindness... What was it? Temporary brain damage?


----------



## jobo

Leviathan said:


> In one place they say myopia in another they say severe myopia.
> 
> I'll leave it up to your appreciation whether you're safe until -5,75 diopters and suddenly at risk if you push -6 (usually considered the threshold to severe myopia).
> 
> Quite freaky with that 2-week-blindness... What was it? Temporary brain damage?


no the back of my eye filled up with blood and the other packed up in sympathy, God the house stunk when I got my vision back, trying to pee in the pan by sound is an inexact science and cooking is like p,playing Russian roulet

there three ways to analyse that 1) that theres little risk at all, or2) there a substantial risk at any level or the most likely, that the person writing the wiki, is over simplify  a complex subject and you should seek a medical opinion,  before either scaring yourself needlessly or being recklass with your health.


----------



## PhilE

Pier033 said:


> Is it possibile to practice martial arts with near-sightedness? Do I risk retinal detachment?
> 
> Thank you for reading, have a good day.



An old thread, haven't read all of it but there's some misinformation here.

Increased susceptibility to retinal detachment due to near nearsightedness, depends on how near sighted you actually are, your age, general health etc.

I'm very near sighted myself, I wear an eye guard while training.  If you are very near sighted, you may have to rule out competitions I'm afraid.

It's been 9 years since I found out about the increased likelihood of retinal detachment that I have, and I've been training since then. 

You really need to speak with an eye specialist as everyone is different.  I was told to live my life, just be careful.  Doctor said that he's seen people with an increased chance of RD never get  it, and those with a low chance get it.  I'm at an additional risk in contact sports, so need to take additional precautions and adjust my training accordingly.  

I'm also at risk from getting beaten up, stabbed on the street so must train accordingly!


----------



## Tez3

PhilE said:


> Increased susceptibility to retinal detachment due to near nearsightedness,



In severe myopia, not general myopia. 
Near sightedness/myopia and retinal problems


----------



## PhilE

Tez3 said:


> In severe myopia, not general myopia.
> Near sightedness/myopia and retinal problems



"Increased susceptibility to retinal detachment due to near nearsightedness, depends on how near sighted you actually are, your age, general health etc."


----------



## Tez3

PhilE said:


> "Increased susceptibility to retinal detachment due to near nearsightedness, depends on how near sighted you actually are, your age, general health etc."




Look, you came on an old thread just to tell people they are wrong, the experts say it's something that will affect severely myopic people rather than just mildly myopic people, but hey if you need to be right, crack on. I will tell my ophthalmic specialist, who I asked when this post came up first, he's completely wrong, he'll be delighted I'm sure.


----------



## PhilE

I was agreeing with you, read what I wrote.


----------



## Tez3

PhilE said:


> I was agreeing with you, read what I wrote.




Your first post was about the misinformation you considered there to be.


----------



## PhilE

Tez3 said:


> Your first post was about the misinformation you considered there to be.



You win, have a nice night.


----------



## Tez3

PhilE said:


> You win, have a nice night.



it's not a game, it's a serious subject. Most of the posters on this thread aren't here any more and you've brought up the subject so that some new people will now worry where they didn't need to before.


----------



## PhilE

Tez3 said:


> it's not a game, it's a serious subject. Most of the posters on this thread aren't here any more and you've brought up the subject so that some new people will now worry where they didn't need to before.



They should always talk to a doctor if concerned, not rely on a thread for medical information.

Look, I was merely giving my experiences and opinion.  Not sure why you're bothered by what I said, have a nice evening anyway.


----------



## Tez3

PhilE said:


> They should always talk to a doctor if concerned, not rely on a thread for medical information.
> 
> Look, I was merely giving my experiences and opinion.  Not sure why you're bothered by what I said, have a nice evening anyway.




I'm not 'bothered' as you seem to think but you came on a dead thread and the first thing you said was there was some misinformation on it thus bringing the thread into play again. It would have been best, especially as you think there was something wrong to have let it lie.


----------

