# Point Fighting: Is it truly Karate?



## Probs92

I have a few training partners that make it around the karate point fighting tourney circuit and I have gone to cheer them on. At the last tourney, I was faced with this dilemma: by the way the combatants move and the way the tourney was scored, I began to wonder whether or not it is truly karate-do. 

I practiced free style sparring in my dojo every Saturday for many years, with the understanding that this was mimicking combat in the street, and to a degree it was. The free-style practiced at these point fighting tourneys could potentially get someone hurt in real life if they used these techniques in a self defense situation. To me, their movements were a glorified game of tag.

I guess my takeaway was that I couldn't tell if this was truly karate-do, but if not, what constitutes karate-do?

What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## donald1

i could be wrong (i go to a traditional karate school so i dont know much about tournements) when you say point sparring like tap? my first thought no but i could be wrong


----------



## K-man

Point sparring is the way most karate competitions are conducted. Obviously the contestants are fighting according to the rules. That is no different to MMA where, although the rules are less stringent, you fight within those rules.

Karate is karate regardless of the competition style. Only a small part of it is on display in a competition.


----------



## Danny T

Probs92 said:


> I have a few training partners that make it around the karate point fighting tourney circuit and I have gone to cheer them on. At the last tourney, I was faced with this dilemma: by the way the combatants move and the way the tourney was scored, I began to wonder whether or not it is truly karate-do.
> 
> I practiced free style sparring in my dojo every Saturday for many years, with the understanding that this was mimicking combat in the street, and to a degree it was. The free-style practiced at these point fighting tourneys could potentially get someone hurt in real life if they used these techniques in a self defense situation. To me, their movements were a glorified game of tag.
> 
> I guess my takeaway was that I couldn't tell if this was truly karate-do, but if not, what constitutes karate-do?
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?


In the U.S. touch and stop, point fighting is very much karate. That said it is only a part of karate. Kata competition is also karate, even worse in my opinion is the free style weapons competitions. It is all a part of karate today. 
Point fighting has nothing to do with self defense and I agree could potentially get someone hurt in a situation one would have to fight for real in a physical altercation. Case in point, a Shori- Ryu 4th degree bb joined our school about 4 years ago. Gentleman was approx. 35 years old, very quick, crisp punches and kicks. Very strong point fighter, had won numerous competitions in kata a well. Great person and excellent karate competition skills but his punches and kicks had absolutely no power upon contact. He had spent almost 15 years punching and kicking very quickly put pulling them they were just fast taps. After a few training session he even stated how disappointed and embarrassed he was for he had told students he had taught how well they would be able to fight in a real situation and here he couldn't hit as hard as many of our young teenagers. It took around 3 months for him to actually contact with knock out power. Today he is a very powerful puncher and kicker but he no longer participates in point fighting.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Danny T said:


> In the U.S. touch and stop, point fighting is very much karate. That said it is only a part of karate. Kata competition is also karate, even worse in my opinion is the free style weapons competitions. It is all a part of karate today.
> Point fighting has nothing to do with self defense and I agree could potentially get someone hurt in a situation one would have to fight for real in a physical altercation. Case in point, a Shori- Ryu 4th degree bb joined our school about 4 years ago. Gentleman was approx. 35 years old, very quick, crisp punches and kicks. Very strong point fighter, had won numerous competitions in kata a well. Great person and excellent karate competition skills but his punches and kicks had absolutely no power upon contact. He had spent almost 15 years punching and kicking very quickly put pulling them they were just fast taps. After a few training session he even stated how disappointed and embarrassed he was for he had told students he had taught how well they would be able to fight in a real situation and here he couldn't hit as hard as many of our young teenagers. It took around 3 months for him to actually contact with knock out power. Today he is a very powerful puncher and kicker but he no longer participates in point fighting.



Technique and physical attributes determine the generation of power, not formats. There is no logic to what you are saying, supposing the gentleman in question did not pull back on his techniques, out of habit.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> Technique and physical attributes determine the generation of power, not formats. There is no logic to what you are saying, supposing the gentleman in question did not pull back on his techniques, out of habit.




No, you are what you practice, they learn to touch and stop, that was their technique, what they were taught, so he would have had no power in his punches. The point fighter who has spent all his time doing that does have to learn how to punch properly to be able to punch hard.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Combined with some realistic training, point fighting helps you be first, and that can be very important considering fights only last a few seconds.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> No, you are what you practice, they learn to touch and stop, that was their technique, what they were taught, so he would have had no power in his punches. The point fighter who has spent all his time doing that does have to learn how to punch properly to be able to punch hard.



Well that one is easy. The premise is false in lots of light contact arts, such my own. We go full force with techniques, just not against each other. I kicked just hard the moment I got there as I do today. It's all in me, not the martial art.


----------



## Chris Parker

Well… you don't need to train in one, then, it seems…


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> Well that one is easy. The premise is false in lots of light contact arts, such my own. We go full force with techniques, just not against each other. I kicked just hard the moment I got there as I do today. It's all in me, not the martial art.




Well, bully for you. However, in many places they simply don't go 'full on' they train for what they want to do...point sparring. If they also train full force then there's less likely to be a problem but mostly though those that are successful in point sparring train for just that.
I wonder to be frank that you bother training a martial art if it's all in you not the art, it would seem there's nothing that martial arts can teach you.


----------



## Laplace_demon

In the kicks I already master by myself, there is very little difference power wise. I can still improve in lots of kicks I dont do as well. My sidekick for instance can be greatly improved. And you seem to miss that I train because its fun...


----------



## Chris Parker

Then I'll put it this way… if a student came into one of my classes with that attitude, I'd likely show them just how far off the reality they are, demonstrate to them in no uncertain terms that they're far from what they could be, if they take the lessons of the art to heart… then invite them to leave. Permanently.

There's no point trying to teach someone who thinks they already know it.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> In the kicks I already master by myself, there is very little difference power wise. I can still improve in lots of kicks I dont do as well. My sidekick for instance can be greatly improved. And you seem to miss that I train because its fun...




I can imagine it's enormous fun being so superior.
However this thread isn't about you, it's about point sparring and karate, you, I believe train TKD so not so relevant to you perhaps in light of your disdain of WTF.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Tez3 said:


> I can imagine it's enormous fun being so superior.
> However this thread isn't about you, it's about point sparring and karate, you, I believe train TKD so not so relevant to you perhaps in light of your disdain of WTF.



The same argument is raised against my art as in Karate and It's not valid. Our contact level in sparring is pretty much the same. If you know the mechanics of the technique, then your genetics will decide the force, not your background. Perhaps WKF schools train sport techniques, in which case it still holds true as long the proponent doesn't pull back when needed, but instead follows through.


----------



## Tez3

Laplace_demon said:


> The same argument is raised against my art as in Karate and It's not valid. Our contact level in sparring is pretty much the same. If you know the mechanics of the technique, then your genetics will decide the force, not your background. Perhaps WKF schools train sport techniques, in which case it still holds true as long the proponent doesn't pull back when needed, but instead follows through.




So, if you don't have the genetics for martial arts don't bother training basically.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Chris Parker said:


> Then I'll put it this way… if a student came into one of my classes with that attitude, I'd likely show them just how far off the reality they are, demonstrate to them in no uncertain terms that they're far from what they could be, if they take the lessons of the art to heart… then invite them to leave. Permanently.
> 
> There's no point trying to teach someone who thinks they already know it.



Your attitude as a teacher should be encouragement of whatever streights the student holds and this includes the psychological! I detest any putting down of lower grades.

The ones I do fairly well and put my hole body behind, I generate more force than the rest. This is genetics being the tallest of lot, combined with executing the kick properly and fast. I have no illusions genetics account for much of it.


----------



## Hanzou

Sometimes sport makes an art better, sometimes it makes it worse.

Karate point fighting is the latter imo.


----------



## Zero

Clicker-fighting or sport karate is just that, it's just a sport and only the sport aspect of certain styles of karate.  Obviously if you have sport/point fighters that are also training or competing in contact or other aspects then they can be very good all rounded fighters. 

But I am inclined to agree with Tez in that you are what you eat, you are what you train, you become what you do.  Hey, I used to compete in sport karate and prior to that years of TKD and had a lot of fun (and while carrying injuries have re-entered sport karate).  But I have also fought for years in full contact, kyokoshin, kickboxing, a few Muay Thai tournaments and some mma and from having sparred against numerous sport fighters, when you up the intensity and contact, I can tell you most who have only trained for point tournaments do not hold up well at all.  They continue to commit to torso punches (on a point mentality) while I am, microseconds behind that, connecting my fist to their face.  They also do not handle combos or sustained attacks too well as are used to disengaging after point contact.  Put your average sport fighter in the ring with your average/same level muay thai guy and it is likely to be a carnage-festival of epic proportion.

Look, that's all a generalisation but is my observation.  Sport karate is great and great fun for what it is but I do not think it in itself equips you well for a contact fight or an SD situation.  But then not everyone is interested in that.

In answer to the Op, sport-karate "is and is not karate" - it is a facette of some karate and is the only aspect that many who study in karate are exposed to.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Hanzou said:


> Sometimes sport makes an art better, sometimes it makes it worse.
> 
> Karate point fighting is the latter imo.



I agree, though it's been around so long I almost find it intrinsic to Karate. Back in the days of Shotokan, the founder was against any sparring, which is surely even worse.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Zero said:


> Clicker-fighting or sport karate is just that, it's just a sport and only the sport aspect of certain styles of karate.  Obviously if you have sport/point fighters that are also training or competing in contact or other aspects then they can be very good all rounded fighters.
> 
> But I am inclined to agree with Tez in that you are what you eat, you are what you train, you become what you do.  Hey, I used to compete in sport karate and prior to that years of TKD and had a lot of fun (and while carrying injuries have re-entered sport karate).  But I have also fought for years in full contact, kyokoshin, kickboxing, a few Muay Thai tournaments and some mma and from having sparred against numerous sport fighters, when you up the intensity and contact, I can tell you most who have only trained for point tournaments do not hold up well at all.  They continue to commit to torso punches (on a point mentality) while I am, microseconds behind that, connecting my fist to their face.  They also do not handle combos or sustained attacks too well as are used to disengaging after point contact.  Put your average sport fighter in the ring with your average/same level muay thai guy and it is likely to be a carnage-festival of epic proportion.
> 
> Look, that's all a generalisation but is my observation.  Sport karate is great and great fun for what it is but I do not think it in itself equips you well for a contact fight or an SD situation.  But then not everyone is interested in that.
> 
> In answer to the Op, sport-karate "is and is not karate" - it is a facette of some karate and is the only aspect that many who study in karate are exposed to.



To be fair, not all practitioners are ever interested in entering a real ring. The street is different when the first one to land a strike is in a heavy advantage anyway, given he's free to do whatever he wants to.  bit of a lottery....


----------



## Chris Parker

Laplace_demon said:


> Your attitude as a teacher should be encouragement of whatever streights the student holds and this includes the psychological! I detest any putting down of lower grades.
> 
> The ones I do fairly well and put my hole body behind, I generate more force than the rest. This is genetics being the tallest of lot, combined with executing the kick properly and fast. I have no illusions genetics account for much of it.



You come to me to learn what I have to teach. You think you already know how to do it, to the point that the martial art I'm teaching you doesn't add anything, you're not a student. You're someone who wants to feel superior and powerful, and isn't listening to any lesson.

My role as a teacher is to impart my art. That ain't gonna happen if the person I'm trying to impart it to isn't being a student.


----------



## Zero

Laplace_demon said:


> To be fair, not all practitioners are ever interested in entering a real ring. The street is different when the first one to land a strike is in a heavy advantage anyway, given he's free to do whatever he wants to.  bit of a lottery....


Yes, as I said, not everyone is even interested in ring or full contact fighting and why should they?

And your best SD training is in many respects going to come from those educating you about the very important pre-cursors to the actual physical altercation, ie situational awareness, positioning, de-escalation, avoidance, etc, etc.  You don't get that from sport karate or full contact kumite in itself.  While able to handle themselves, there a quite a few full contact fighters, sometimes high placing ones, that have got into very bad violent situations or altercations (some ending in their unfortunate and avoidable death) because their full contact sport training had not equipped them with the awareness or mind set for an SD, "real world" situation.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Zero said:


> Yes, as I said, not everyone is even interested in ring or full contact fighting and why should they?
> 
> And your best SD training is in many respects going to come from those educating you about the very important pre-cursors to the actual physical altercation, ie situational awareness, positioning, de-escalation, avoidance, etc, etc.  You don't get that from sport karate or full contact kumite in itself.  While able to handle themselves, there a quite a few full contact fighters, sometimes high placing ones, that have got into very bad violent situations or altercations (some ending in their unfortunate and avoidable death) because their full contact sport training had not equipped them with the awareness or mind set for an SD, "real world" situation.



With all due respect, do you really think situation awareness, positioning and other factors can't be accomplished through common sense? You can't train in advance for how your going to react if your life is at stake, and every situation is unique.


----------



## Zero

Laplace_demon said:


> With all due respect, do you really think situation awareness, positioning and other factors can't be accomplished through common sense? You can't train in advance for how your going to react if your life is at stake, and every situation is unique.



I absolutely agree (!!) with you so don't worry about any issues of respect or otherwise on that one. Most of the SD concepts I have been told by the LEOs at my club or by a senior practitioner that also runs his own successful SD courses and school I was patently aware of already and put into practice from a teenager or younger (my grandfather who was in the military and saw combat also told me things when I was young and again most of these were common sense, like room clearing, assessing exit ways and dead-ends when entering any unknown building). 
But you know what, and I do not know why - a lot of this does not seem to be common sense to a lot of people now days (or perhaps it is that now days a lot of people just do not have common sense or survival instincts). A lot of people and even MA people need to be repeatedly told this stuff for it to make an impression and then they still do not put it into practice - why is that?

I see a lot of people and often girls late at night in the city or on the dark streets heading home with their sight obscured by hoods, ear-plugs in with loud music, totally unaware of their surroundings or those around them.  I see people, again, quite often females, talking loudly into their expensive phones walking along the streets alone at night oblivious to the impression they make or the attention they may be drawing. I see innocent people in clubs unaware of the trouble brewing around them and then they are completely surprised when a fight kicks off or they are caught up in such (not so much nowadays as my heavy bar and club session days are fading into the murky past sob sob).  People unlock their car doors from a distance and get in without checking the back seat etc first.  The list goes on and on.

And these habits are carried on by some of the very folks, and some quite senior, at my current karate club, so go figure.

I would say that I do not agree at all with your statement that "you can't train in advance for how you're going to react...".  Taken, every situation can be unique but that does not mean the advance training you do and drill does not equip you appropriately with a tool-box and, more importantly, mind set to address those unique situations.  A comment like that seems to indicate you do not have much experience in this field but I may be wrong about that?


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Sometimes sport makes an art better, sometimes it makes it worse.
> 
> Karate point fighting is the latter imo.



it is what it is though. 

 Not every competition is designed to creating the best possible fighter. Otherwise we would all be doing mma.
(yeah i went there)


----------



## Dinkydoo

Laplace_demon said:


> If you know the mechanics of the technique, then your genetics will decide the force, not your background.



My head height roundhouses are more powerful than 6 months ago. I guess my genetics have improved???




Laplace_demon said:


> Perhaps WKF schools train sport techniques, in which case it still holds true as long the proponent doesn't pull back when needed, but instead follows through.



Pulling a roundhouse and powering through are two different techniques with differing mechanics. In order to do both well you must train both; expecting to be able to do something just because you know logically how to do it ("doesn't pull back when needed") doesn't work in practice.


----------



## Laplace_demon

Dinkydoo said:


> My head height roundhouses are more powerful than 6 months ago. I guess my genetics have improved???



Physical attributes determine the force between performers, all else equal. You can of course realise your potential to different degrees.


----------



## Tez3

I see this has turned to a SD thread now rather than one about point sparring in karate.


----------



## ballen0351

Laplace_demon said:


> do you really think situation awareness, positioning and other factors can't be accomplished through common sense?.


No it cant many smart people go thrugh life and don't know the reality of violence.  They don't practice situation awareness etc. Ive spoken to countless  victims that have all said some version of "Im too smart to have let this happen to me"  Most people go about their lives in their happy bubbles and have no idea what kind of violence occurs 2 block over.


----------



## Zero

Tez3 said:


> I see this has turned to a SD thread now rather than one about point sparring in karate.


No.  This is and always has been a thread solely about the genetic superiority of certain members compared to others.  A nice Aryan undertone somewhat permeating through all...  I put a smiley here for what it is worth   (wait, that's no smiley!)


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> it is what it is though.
> 
> Not every competition is designed to creating the best possible fighter. Otherwise we would all be doing mma.
> (yeah i went there)


No, you mean "otherwise we would all be doing mma (with a core focus on bjj (the only true proven sport, combative, military, SD style known to man and all other sentient beings in the universe))"


----------



## Danny T

Laplace_demon said:


> Technique and physical attributes determine the generation of power, not formats. There is no logic to what you are saying, supposing the gentleman in question did not pull back on his techniques, out of habit.


I agree in your theory of power generation. However, the format he trained specifically was point fighting. Though he trained kata and its delivery appeared powerful punching and kicking the air and pulling punches is what he did. After the many years of training specifically to pull it is what he did. And I have seen this in many practitioners. Practice makes habit not proper technique or application. Proper practice makes it proper. You stated, “supposing the gentleman in question did not pull back on his techniques, out of habit” The reality is he pulled his punches without even realizing it. He had trained it so much it was his technique and he was excellent at it.

The reality about power generation for fighting is it doesn't matter how much you are capably of generating if you do not transfer it into the target.


----------



## Danny T

Laplace_demon said:


> The same argument is raised against my art as in Karate and It's not valid. Our contact level in sparring is pretty much the same. If you know the mechanics of the technique, then your genetics will decide the force, not your background. Perhaps WKF schools train sport techniques, in which case it still holds true as long the proponent doesn't pull back when needed, but instead follows through.


Again the reality is those who train only and specifically for point fighting karate do what the training has given them. Force is a derivative of momentum and is subject to the interaction between two objects. The capacity to create force doesn't do a thing if it doesn't continue with the momentum.


----------



## Zero

Do you think there is any truth in those statements we see a lot these days by credible experts and some of the better fighters in the world that martial artists that don't train in bjj only do so out of a mix of fear and denial?

...hehe! Double anti-troll smileys all around!


----------



## Deleted member 32980

One word. 
No
You can use karate in the game.


----------



## drop bear

Well it would also mean the karate kid was not actually doing karate.

as that was a points competition.

and i freaking loved cobra kai.


----------



## Cirdan

I think the glorified game of tag still very much is an expression of karate and practicioners show very high levels of skill at what they do.

Still it is not my cup of tea, imo it is kinda like using a broadsword to butter your sandwich. To each his own of course


----------



## Zero

Laplace_demon said:


> With all due respect, do you really think situation awareness, positioning and other factors can't be accomplished through common sense? You can't train in advance for how your going to react if your life is at stake, and every situation is unique.


Sorry Laplace-demon, is there anyway you can change your online name/nickname?  For whatever reason I have a mental block and keep reading your name as "Lap Dance".  It must be some subliminal issue I have and the problem is solely (I think) my own but if you can help would be much obliged?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Laplace_demon said:


> Technique and physical attributes determine the generation of power, not formats. There is no logic to what you are saying, supposing the gentleman in question did not pull back on his techniques, out of habit.



I see three main mechanisms whereby practitioners who primarily/exclusively train for no-contact/light-contact sparring can rob themselves of power.

1) Range: there can be a strong tendency to throw strikes from a range where they barely touch the skin rather than penetrating through to do actual damage.
2) Pulling strikes out of habit.
3) Body mechanics: the alignment/timing/power generation/etc necessary for sneaking in a quick "tag" at long range are not the same as the technique needed to generate solid impact.

Light contact sparring can be a useful training tool in its place, but there is a huge difference between doing it with someone who has experience in full-contact and someone who only has experience playing "tag."


----------



## Zero

drop bear said:


> Well it would also mean the karate kid was not actually doing karate.
> 
> as that was a points competition.
> 
> and i freaking loved cobra kai.


Cobra Kai Never Die - and the karate kid was never just points, uh-uh, that was for keeps.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Laplace_demon said:


> With all due respect, do you really think situation awareness, positioning and other factors can't be accomplished through common sense?


You could, if common sense was actually that common, which it isn't.


----------



## tshadowchaser

Today's point sparring competitions only allow so many techniques ( mainly a punch or kick) and only to specified areas of the body with controlled force. I'll simply ask when the last time you saw a palm heel strike, a spear hand, a kidney punch, a throw or take down, a kick from the ground in a tournament? Heck when was the last time you saw someone able to grab and hold their opponent in a tournament?
No today's tournaments are far from being "karate"  they are however a representative example of a few of the techniques in karate


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> it is what it is though.
> 
> Not every competition is designed to creating the best possible fighter. Otherwise we would all be doing mma.
> (yeah i went there)



I think Kyokushin does a pretty good job with their competitions;






Now that's Karate!


----------



## K-man

Danny T said:


> Again the reality is those who train only and specifically for point fighting karate do what the training has given them. Force is a derivative of momentum and is subject to the interaction between two objects. The capacity to create force doesn't do a thing if it doesn't continue with the momentum.


I was originally taught by a guy in the Australian karate team. Although he was adept at pulling punches he could also deliver them. We used to only pull punches to the head, not the torso. My arguement against point fighting in relation to real world fighting is not that punches are pulled but that there are many other issues that point sparring ignores. Continuous fighting, grappling and throws, multiple attackers, high kicks, uneven terrain, give and take etc.

Again that is not to invalidate point sparring as such if you are training to compete, but you have to define your objectives for training.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I think Kyokushin does a pretty good job with their competitions;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's Karate!


Yes, but only a very small part of karate.


----------



## Danny T

K-man said:


> I was originally taught by a guy in the Australian karate team. Although he was adept at pulling punches he could also deliver them. We used to only pull punches to the head, not the torso. My arguement against point fighting in relation to real world fighting is not that punches are pulled but that there are many other issues that point sparring ignores. Continuous fighting, grappling and throws, multiple attackers, high kicks, uneven terrain, give and take etc.
> 
> Again that is not to invalidate point sparring as such if you are training to compete, but you have to define your objectives for training.


Absolutely on the many other issues being ignored. My referencing the pulling of punches by several I know of first hand was the lack of making contact with power due to having all their training for point fighting and touch only contact. There are others who train full power to the body (differing rule sets) and are very good at striking with power. In my area there is very few karate competitions that allow power strikes (tap only) and we have attempted to get continuous matches. Unfortunately after only few competitions with continuous matches there has not been enough participants as yet make it worth while for the hosts to maintain have them. Strange is that MMA is very strong here with multiple promotions almost every weekend within a 3 hr drive but the karate competitions are still held to tap point fighting.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I think Kyokushin does a pretty good job with their competitions;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's Karate!


yes they do.

 kudo. Which is brutal as all get out. Is kind of a point competition though.


----------



## K-man

Danny T said:


> Absolutely on the many other issues being ignored. My referencing the pulling of punches by several I know of first hand was the lack of making contact with power due to having all their training for point fighting and touch only contact. There are others who train full power to the body (differing rule sets) and are very good at striking with power. In my area there is very few karate competitions that allow power strikes (tap only) and we have attempted to get continuous matches. Unfortunately after only few competitions with continuous matches there has not been enough participants as yet make it worth while for the hosts to maintain have them. Strange is that MMA is very strong here with multiple promotions almost every weekend within a 3 hr drive but the karate competitions are still held to tap point fighting.


MMA is much better organised and obviously pulls in more money. Karate tournaments until you get to the higher levels are more just to have some fun. I've never been in a tournament with weight divisions or age divisions. But then I never had any desire to compete. It was just something we did from time to time. I went in one tournament where my opponent stepped in with a kiai and a punch that was about 18" from my face. He was awarded a point which I queried only to be told I hadn't blocked the strike. I didn't have block it, I could hardly reach it. Then I stepped in and punched him lightly to the ribs. He got another point because I made contact and I was threatened with disqualification if I did it again. Needless to say, that was my last tournament in that competition. It's not part of my karate.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> yes they do.
> 
> kudo. Which is brutal as all get out. Is kind of a point competition though.








and they pull their ground punches


----------



## Tez3

MMA is marketed as a spectator sport in the same as boxing is, karate competitions tend to be only for those who actually practise karate whether they are competing or not.


----------



## Probs92

I guess the takeaway from my thoughts is this: Karate, or martial art as a whole, originates from the idea that you will have to defend yourself; martial art is for defending yourself, so as soon as you remove the serious ramifications of training (boil it down to fist tag) you remove the martial aspect.


----------



## Buka

Point Fighting: Is it truly Karate?

Bunting: Is it truly baseball? Yes, but there's more to the game than that.


----------



## kodora81

We do some point sparring at my Dojo, but it only makes up a small part of what we do. I'm also not a huge fan, and would much rather stick with free sparring, where my partner and I can actually trade some blows back and forth.

Is it *truly* Karate? That seems to be an ongoing question with this particular Martial Art.....'What is the essence of Karate?'


----------



## Cirdan

kodora81 said:


> Is it *truly* Karate? That seems to be an ongoing question with this particular Martial Art.....'What is the essence of Karate?'



I don`t know much about Ed Parker, but I think he hit the nail on the head here:

_"When pure knuckles meet pure flesh, that's pure Karate, no matter who executes it or whatever style is involved."


_


----------



## Tez3

Buka said:


> Point Fighting: Is it truly Karate?
> 
> Bunting: Is it truly baseball? Yes, but there's more to the game than that.



Now that is truly confusing lol, over here bunting are little triangular flags on a string that is put out as a decoration in times of celebration!


----------



## K-man

Tez3 said:


> Now that is truly confusing lol, over here bunting are little triangular flags on a string that is put out as a decoration in times of celebration!


Tez, Tez ... If you keep up with this behaviour I must insist you spend some time in the 'naughty corner'. Baiting our cousins isn't nice, especially when baseball is an official religion in the US.


----------



## Cirdan

I thought bunting was a backage deal like a bundle


----------



## sfs982000

I think all aspects of martial arts training have their benefits (point sparring, kata, etc....)  Personally I've never been a big fan of point sparring, but again that's not to say there isn't any benefit to it.  My personal experience is that point sparring was a good cardio workout, helped with footwork and closing the gap. Depending on who my opponents were we would go harder on the contact which is important in my opinion.


----------



## Dirty Dog

I think point sparring can be a good training aid, but there are certainly limitations to that value.
The big problem I've always had with the format is the lack of flow. People who train extensively (or exclusively) in this manner do not learn to move from one technique to another.
The other problem I have with it is the built in assumption that ANY one strike will end a conflict. That's a valid goal, but it's not realistic. When sparring, I will often allow a weak strike to hit (which in this format breaks the action) knowing that doing so will create an opportunity for me to do something more effective. So the "one strike" format decreases the value of strategy.


----------



## HankSchrader

Probs92 said:


> I have a few training partners that make it around the karate point fighting tourney circuit and I have gone to cheer them on. At the last tourney, I was faced with this dilemma: by the way the combatants move and the way the tourney was scored, I began to wonder whether or not it is truly karate-do.
> 
> I practiced free style sparring in my dojo every Saturday for many years, with the understanding that this was mimicking combat in the street, and to a degree it was. The free-style practiced at these point fighting tourneys could potentially get someone hurt in real life if they used these techniques in a self defense situation. To me, their movements were a glorified game of tag.
> 
> I guess my takeaway was that I couldn't tell if this was truly karate-do, but if not, what constitutes karate-do?
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?


Karate seems to have a bit of an identity crisis as if noone knows what real Karate is.

Judo has a similar thing ongoing with Kodokan and IJF rules. I know your thoughts on glorified game of tag. Go to a kickboxing gym and see what translates over. Sorry to hear about your crisis of faith


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Probs92 said:


> What are your thoughts on this?


I thought Karate is "one punch to kill".

The point sparring is good to train "timing, opportunity, angle, speed". It's not good to train "power". One day I pulled my punch but my opponent didn't, that was the last day I did my point sparring. I refused to put myself into that situation for the rest of my life.


----------



## Buka

It's real simple. You either train fighting or you don't. It's one of the reasons why I've always loved Karate. We fight.


----------



## Zero

Buka said:


> It's real simple. You either train fighting or you don't. It's one of the reasons why I've always loved Karate. We fight.


But only for points!


----------



## Buka

Zero said:


> But only for points!



Sometimes. We also box....which is sometimes competitively judged by points...if you're still standing. We also grapple....which is sometimes determined by points when you compete. We also kickbox, yadda, yadda.

Get the point?  (see what I did there?)


----------



## Zero

Buka said:


> Sometimes. We also box....which is sometimes competitively judged by points...if you're still standing. We also grapple....which is sometimes determined by points when you compete. We also kickbox, yadda, yadda.
> 
> Get the point?  (see what I did there?)


Point taken (or should I say, point given?)


----------



## Buka

Touche, Zero-san.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Buka said:


> It's real simple. You either train fighting or you don't.


If you want to learn how to fight, fight. Either you knock/take me down, or I knock/take you down. There is no such thing as I "touch" you 101 times, but you only "touch" me 100 times so I win.


----------



## Zero

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you want to learn how to fight, fight. Either you knock/take me down, or I knock/take you down. There is no such thing as I "touch" you 101 times, but you only "touch" me 100 times so I win.


Please, don't touch me!


----------



## ShotoNoob

Probs92 said:


> I have a few training partners that make it around the karate point fighting tourney circuit and I have gone to cheer them on. At the last tourney, I was faced with this dilemma: by the way the combatants move and the way the tourney was scored, I began to wonder whether or not it is truly karate-do.


|
No question that the sport kumite conventions that have developed are in stark contrast to certain form found in traditional kumite.  My view is that once karate competitors rely on althletic skills to succeed at the competition goals & rule set, you have moved from karate-do to sport-karate.





> I practiced free style sparring in my dojo every Saturday for many years, with the understanding that this was mimicking combat in the street, and to a degree it was. The free-style practiced at these point fighting tourneys could potentially get someone hurt in real life if they used these techniques in a self defense situation. To me, their movements were a glorified game of tag.


|
Ed Parker, father of American Kenpo, in principle defines jiyu-kumite the way you do.  Traditional karate is not a sport, let alone "tag."  Most styles of traditional karate limit contact... the point is to demonstrate control over your power, which control gives you the power to defeat the opponent.





> I guess my takeaway was that I couldn't tell if this was truly karate-do, but if not, what constitutes karate-do?
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?


Right ON!


----------



## K-man

ShotoNoob said:


> No question that the sport kumite conventions that have developed are in stark contrast to certain form found in traditional kumite.  My view is that once karate competitors rely on althletic skills to succeed at the competition goals & rule set, you have moved from karate-do to sport-karate.


I would question 'traditional' kumite. Kumite was only made part of training once karate was introduced to Japan and competitions were organised. Part of the requirement of introducing karate into the universities was that there had to be competitions just as in judo. It was guys like Gogen Yamaguchi and Mas Oyama  who started jiyu kumite. 



ShotoNoob said:


> Ed Parker, father of American Kenpo, in principle defines jiyu-kumite the way you do.  Traditional karate is not a sport, let alone "tag."  Most styles of traditional karate limit contact... the point is to demonstrate control over your power, which control gives you the power to defeat the opponent.
> Right ON!


I you'll disagree with the limited contact bit. Traditional karate is basically grappling with the strikes as part of it.  Certainly in training those strikes are delivered with no power but they can contact. What you are describing is the way karate has developed in Japan, not what you find in Okinawa, which of course brings us back to the old chestnut of defining 'traditional'.


----------



## oftheherd1

Laplace_demon said:


> Well that one is easy. The premise is false in lots of light contact arts, such my own. We go full force with techniques, just not against each other. I kicked just hard the moment I got there as I do today. It's all in me, not the martial art.



When I studied TKD many years ago, we had a point that we aimed at.  For sparing is was just shy of hitting our opponent with our strike or kick.  At that point, full force was delivered.  In a real situation, we were taught the point of maximum impact should be inside the opponent.  In today's world of MA, that may not make much sense, or seem too difficult, but it was how we trained.


----------



## ShotoNoob

oftheherd1 said:


> When I studied TKD many years ago, we had a point that we aimed at.  For sparing is was just shy of hitting our opponent with our strike or kick.  At that point, full force was delivered.  In a real situation, we were taught the point of maximum impact should be inside the opponent.  In today's world of MA, that may not make much sense, or seem too difficult, but it was how we trained.


You know, I think TKD is way underrated among the traditional martial arts.  There's also a perception out there in MMA that TKD is speed-kick low-strength, point fighting.  Glad to see a TKD traditionalist post.
|
The only part I would change about your statement, IMHO, is that one should be prepared to go full force.  One need not strike full force in kumite, but rather have complete control over the degree of force enacted.  I myself, generally am @ 1/4 full force (or less), maybe up to 1/2 full force in free sparring.  Reason is both safety & energy conservation.
|
Otherwise same approach to mine....


----------



## ShotoNoob

K-man said:


> I would question 'traditional' kumite. Kumite was only made part of training once karate was introduced to Japan and competitions were organised. Part of the requirement of introducing karate into the universities was that there had to be competitions just as in judo. It was guys like Gogen Yamaguchi and Mas Oyama  who started jiyu kumite.


|
I'm using traditional kumite as developed by the Okinawan Masters around Gichin Funakoshi's time.  Maybe you are interpreting my kumite as jiyu-kumite (free sparring).  My definition of kumite starts with ippon kumite and includes the other forms of kumite practice spelled out in the Shotokan karate syllabus.  Personally, I concentrate mainly on ippon kumite. 
|
On who started jiyu kumite, I thought it was within early evolution of Shotokan and then became popularized on mainland Japan.  I'm pretty sure you are correct about your last sentence re some big contributors.



K-man said:


> I you'll disagree with the limited contact bit. Traditional karate is basically grappling with the strikes as part of it.  Certainly in training those strikes are delivered with no power but they can contact. What you are describing is the way karate has developed in Japan, not what you find in Okinawa, which of course brings us back to the old chestnut of defining 'traditional'.


|
Well, I consider the Okinawan styles traditional.  I was generalizing about the limitation on contact to my style and what I have observed in my locale.  As knowledgeable on Okinawan karate, you can concretely add there; where I can only make broad references to my academic study--which certainly may not bear up to what actual practitioners can relate...


----------



## ShotoNoob

tshadowchaser said:


> ...No today's tournaments are far from being "karate"  they are however a representative example of a few of the techniques in karate


|
Not going into a long discourse (which is uncharacteristic of me), I agree completely here.  Moreover, this is one my big criticism's of how Shotokan competition kumite is practiced.  Heavy reliance on the reverse punch, for example.
|
We see this quite plain in Machida's MMA fighting style.  He's good at it to the degree that most of his competition is vulnerable and either succumb or are put off on the defensive by it.  Machida's better opponent's have also capitalized on his over-reliance on the speed-shot reverse punch.  Great example, Shogun's 1st round TKO of Machida at UFC 113.  Textbook example of the failure of conventional sport karate form, IMO.


----------



## BryceSPQR

The more time that passes, the further the majority of point sparring tournaments turn into tag. I asked someone why they were practicing hitting a BOB with a loose fist, and they said that they were practicing sparring. They then argued that it was safer and that you couldn't see your fingers anyway. These same people bounce. Like... a lot. To me, the last "pure" karate-do sparring was done in the 60s and 70s by the JKA. Sparring competitor's are very athletic, and very quick, but there is zero intent behind a strike. 

The whole idea is that you are demonstrating a deadly technique on a live resisting opponent, but restraining yourself in such a manner that no one is hurt. Most karate schools today have lost this spirit I think. Who knows right?

www.northernshotokan.com


----------



## BryceSPQR

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> I'm using traditional kumite as developed by the Okinawan Masters around Gichin Funakoshi's time.  Maybe you are interpreting my kumite as jiyu-kumite (free sparring).  My definition of kumite starts with ippon kumite and includes the other forms of kumite practice spelled out in the Shotokan karate syllabus.  Personally, I concentrate mainly on ippon kumite.
> |
> On who started jiyu kumite, I thought it was within early evolution of Shotokan and then became popularized on mainland Japan.  I'm pretty sure you are correct about your last sentence re some big contributors.
> 
> 
> |
> Well, I consider the Okinawan styles traditional.  I was generalizing about the limitation on contact to my style and what I have observed in my locale.  As knowledgeable on Okinawan karate, you can concretely add there; where I can only make broad references to my academic study--which certainly may not bear up to what actual practitioners can relate...



Masatoshi Nakayama I believe is the person who popularized point sparring in Shotokan. I know he was responsible for the first tournament at least.

www.northernshotokan.com


----------



## ShotoNoob

BryceSPQR said:


> The more time that passes, the further the majority of point sparring tournaments turn into tag. I asked someone why they were practicing hitting a BOB with a loose fist, and they said that they were practicing sparring. They then argued that it was safer and that you couldn't see your fingers anyway. These same people bounce. Like... a lot. To me, the last "pure" karate-do sparring was done in the 60s and 70s by the JKA. Sparring competitor's are very athletic, and very quick, but there is zero intent behind a strike.
> 
> The whole idea is that you are demonstrating a deadly technique on a live resisting opponent, but restraining yourself in such a manner that no one is hurt. Most karate schools today have lost this spirit I think. Who knows right?
> 
> www.northernshotokan.com


\
Hespect



BryceSPQR said:


> Masatoshi Nakayama I believe is the person who popularized point sparring in Shotokan. I know he was responsible for the first tournament at least.
> 
> www.northernshotokan.com


\
Hespect


----------



## DaveB

Probs92 said:


> I have a few training partners that make it around the karate point fighting tourney circuit and I have gone to cheer them on. At the last tourney, I was faced with this dilemma: by the way the combatants move and the way the tourney was scored, I began to wonder whether or not it is truly karate-do.
> 
> I practiced free style sparring in my dojo every Saturday for many years, with the understanding that this was mimicking combat in the street, and to a degree it was. The free-style practiced at these point fighting tourneys could potentially get someone hurt in real life if they used these techniques in a self defense situation. To me, their movements were a glorified game of tag.
> 
> I guess my takeaway was that I couldn't tell if this was truly karate-do, but if not, what constitutes karate-do?
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?




A sport is a sport a martial art is a martial art. 

A sport is defined by it's rules, so an elbow strike is not boxing because it is not allowed in boxing. The boxers defence against a groin kick is to complain to the referee.

Conversely,  a martial art is a collection of principles and techniques that one can employ to survive a violent altercation. There are no confines to "violent altercation" other than violence.

So when a karateka does point fighting he/she is engaging in a sport whose rules force some karate shapes to the movements. He/she is not doing karate except where the fighter may use elements of the art to achieve the objective of the game. 

Of its self, point fighting is a game designed around the entry phase of combat, this being based on the Japanese fencing ideal of defeating an opponent with one clean strike. Getting good at point fighting is a good way to improve skill in entry, providing it is done with the rest of what happens in mind.

Any game will by necessity be only an approximation of what a martial art is meant to be when realised. MMA obviously is a closer representation of real unarmed combat,.but even this is still a game defined by it's rules.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> A sport is a sport a martial art is a martial art.
> 
> A sport is defined by it's rules, so an elbow strike is not boxing because it is not allowed in boxing. The boxers defence against a groin kick is to complain to the referee.
> 
> Conversely,  a martial art is a collection of principles and techniques that one can employ to survive a violent altercation. There are no confines to "violent altercation" other than violence.
> 
> So when a karateka does point fighting he/she is engaging in a sport whose rules force some karate shapes to the movements. He/she is not doing karate except where the fighter may use elements of the art to achieve the objective of the game.
> 
> Of its self, point fighting is a game designed around the entry phase of combat, this being based on the Japanese fencing ideal of defeating an opponent with one clean strike. Getting good at point fighting is a good way to improve skill in entry, providing it is done with the rest of what happens in mind.
> 
> Any game will by necessity be only an approximation of what a martial art is meant to be when realised. MMA obviously is a closer representation of real unarmed combat,.but even this is still a game defined by it's rules.



They are both artificial human constructs with systems and rules.

Like any sport and any art.


----------



## Buka

And then there are different eras, which have no semblance at all. None, zip, nada.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> They are both artificial human constructs with systems and rules.
> 
> Like any sport and any art.



Obviously. Are you trying to say that because point fighting and karate are both human constructs that they are the same?

Everything not a human construct is a product of nature (or aliens). But the actions taken in a sport are the product of rules that are created by people for various reasons such as entertainment value, safety, cultural deference etc.

Sport is a human construct aimed at alleviating boredom.

Violence is a part of our nature and the subjective and cultural understanding of violence is the only limiting factor to the content of a martial art. As a result anything that can be deemed violence is a legitimate concern for a martial art to contend with. The same is not true for a sport.

Martial arts are the human construct created for dealing with violence encountered in the world.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Obviously. Are you trying to say that because point fighting and karate are both human constructs that they are the same?
> 
> Everything not a human construct is a product of nature (or aliens). But the actions taken in a sport are the product of rules that are created by people for various reasons such as entertainment value, safety, cultural deference etc.
> 
> Sport is a human construct aimed at alleviating boredom.
> 
> Violence is a part of our nature and the subjective and cultural understanding of violence is the only limiting factor to the content of a martial art. As a result anything that can be deemed violence is a legitimate concern for a martial art to contend with. The same is not true for a sport.
> 
> Martial arts are the human construct created for dealing with violence encountered in the world.



I am trying to say that martial arts has rules that are created by people for various reasons such as entertainment value, safety, cultural deference etc.

OK even if you do martial arts to kill people. You don't kill people. So therefore both human constructs as in they are not actual violence but an artists interpretation of violence.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Karate is inside you.  Everything I do is karate.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> I am trying to say that martial arts has rules that are created by people for various reasons such as entertainment value, safety, cultural deference etc.
> 
> OK even if you do martial arts to kill people. You don't kill people. So therefore both human constructs as in they are not actual violence but an artists interpretation of violence.



That we differentiate one activity.from another by rules is such a vague statement as to be meaningless.

Boxing is not Badminton despite their both beginning with "b" and are often done in loose clothing. 

Your second paragraph confuses training with execution. A common problem that has spawned every X vs MMA debate ever.
You perform something when you use it for its purpose. Everything else is training and what isn't training is identified by the purpose of the action. 

An example would be my using a karate chop action to pull a bow across a cello. I'm not doing karate I'm playing an instrument. If I smack someone with my guitar I'm not playing the instrument, I am fighting.

And if I drift around a training hall doing kata I'm not defending myself from attack (doing karate)I'm training. 

The failure to understand this is a big problem in karate land. The UFC and subsequent MMA junky nonsense was the best thing to happen to karate (and probably lots of other TMA) for the reminder it gave that there is a point to training beyond making your gi snap.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> That we differentiate one activity.from another by rules is such a vague statement as to be meaningless.
> 
> Boxing is not Badminton despite their both beginning with "b" and are often done in loose clothing.
> 
> Your second paragraph confuses training with execution. A common problem that has spawned every X vs MMA debate ever.
> You perform something when you use it for its purpose. Everything else is training and what isn't training is identified by the purpose of the action.
> 
> An example would be my using a karate chop action to pull a bow across a cello. I'm not doing karate I'm playing an instrument. If I smack someone with my guitar I'm not playing the instrument, I am fighting.
> 
> And if I drift around a training hall doing kata I'm not defending myself from attack (doing karate)I'm training.
> 
> The failure to understand this is a big problem in karate land. The UFC and subsequent MMA junky nonsense was the best thing to happen to karate (and probably lots of other TMA) for the reminder it gave that there is a point to training beyond making your gi snap.



OK. So if you train karate for self defence but never get mugged. Are you doing an art or a sport?


----------



## DaveB

If you practice throwing discuss but never enter a.tournament does that make you an artist?

The answer to both is that you are training. The act of developing a skill is an act in and of itself.

This is why karate vs mma arguments are meaningless. We all know it's how you train that matters, but those who fight that battle insist on conflating the MA and the training to be able to do the MA. They are different things.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> If you practice throwing discuss but never enter a.tournament does that make you an artist?
> 
> The answer to both is that you are training. The act of developing a skill is an act in and of itself.
> 
> This is why karate vs mma arguments are meaningless. We all know it's how you train that matters, but those who fight that battle insist on conflating the MA and the training to be able to do the MA. They are different things.



Both styles compete. Both styles martial art. Both sides self defence.

Why are they not comparable?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Both styles compete. Both styles martial art. Both sides self defence.
> 
> Why are they not comparable?


Both what? I'm not sure to what you are referring. 

If you are calling point sparring a style in the way that shotokan or wing chun are styles then I think you are mistaken. Point sparring is a sport like boxing or tennis. It is just a set of rules for a game.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Both what? I'm not sure to what you are referring.
> 
> If you are calling point sparring a style in the way that shotokan or wing chun are styles then I think you are mistaken. Point sparring is a sport like boxing or tennis. It is just a set of rules for a game.



And self defence is a hobby.  There is no fundimental difference where you think there is one. 

I dont turn up to self defence class and kill everybody in the car park. There are rules against that kind of thing.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> And self defence is a hobby.  There is no fundimental difference where you think there is one.
> 
> I dont turn up to self defence class and kill everybody in the car park. There are rules against that kind of thing.



So. What????

Self defense is an act of self preservation. Training self defense is a hobby. Knitting is also a hobby, as is Stamp collecting and bird watching. I hear that stamp collecting is pretty low on fatalities too.

The question was is point fighting really karate. Not are they both things done by humans in their spare time. Ask the stamp collector how many jumpers his hobby produced and he will look at you like you are mad. That would be because though both hobbies, stamp collection is not knitting. Yet being specific activities they both have rules! How can they possibly be different???

Maybe, just possibly it has something to do with their objectives? Remember that guitar I hit you with? I really wasn't playing the blues even though both activities make use of a guitar. 

Similarly, the objective of point fighting is to tap your opponent with one of a number of prescribed methods, and to do so more times than the opponent does to you. That is it, it's a game. There's no what if your opponent draws a knife? No, best way to defend your loved one. Not even how do you defend a kick to the groin. Because the objective in point fighting is not to deal with violence. 

And restating the same idea without acknowledging or countering the arguments presented doesn't actually move the discussion forwards.


----------



## Buka

DaveB said:


> So. What????
> 
> Self defense is an act of self preservation. Training self defense is a hobby. Knitting is also a hobby, as is Stamp collecting and bird watching. I hear that stamp collecting is pretty low on fatalities too.
> 
> The question was is point fighting really karate. Not are they both things done by humans in their spare time. Ask the stamp collector how many jumpers his hobby produced and he will look at you like you are mad. That would be because though both hobbies, stamp collection is not knitting. Yet being specific activities they both have rules! How can they possibly be different???
> 
> Maybe, just possibly it has something to do with their objectives? Remember that guitar I hit you with? I really wasn't playing the blues even though both activities make use of a guitar.
> 
> Similarly, the objective of point fighting is to tap your opponent with one of a number of prescribed methods, and to do so more times than the opponent does to you. That is it, it's a game. There's no what if your opponent draws a knife? No, best way to defend your loved one. Not even how do you defend a kick to the groin. Because the objective in point fighting is not to deal with violence.
> 
> And restating the same idea without acknowledging or countering the arguments presented doesn't actually move the discussion forwards.



You're right. And I find it a damn shame. Point fighting years ago had a lot of violence to it. And groin contact was always legal. Then, some time ago, it all changed to a kinder, gentler more PC kind of thing. I used to compete in kickboxing and point Karate. Point fighting used to be more dangerous.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> So. What????
> 
> Self defense is an act of self preservation. Training self defense is a hobby. Knitting is also a hobby, as is Stamp collecting and bird watching. I hear that stamp collecting is pretty low on fatalities too.
> 
> The question was is point fighting really karate. Not are they both things done by humans in their spare time. Ask the stamp collector how many jumpers his hobby produced and he will look at you like you are mad. That would be because though both hobbies, stamp collection is not knitting. Yet being specific activities they both have rules! How can they possibly be different???
> 
> Maybe, just possibly it has something to do with their objectives? Remember that guitar I hit you with? I really wasn't playing the blues even though both activities make use of a guitar.
> 
> Similarly, the objective of point fighting is to tap your opponent with one of a number of prescribed methods, and to do so more times than the opponent does to you. That is it, it's a game. There's no what if your opponent draws a knife? No, best way to defend your loved one. Not even how do you defend a kick to the groin. Because the objective in point fighting is not to deal with violence.
> 
> And restating the same idea without acknowledging or countering the arguments presented doesn't actually move the discussion forwards.



OK. We will progress this idea.

If someone does point fighting with the objective towards self defence. Then it is no longer a sport.

Even if nothing else changes.


----------



## DaveB

The objective of the activity defines the activity. In the examples I gave I didn't mention the objective of the individual, but the implicit objective of the activity. 

The thread was about the sport of point fighting. If you are point sparring in the context of training to be able to defend yourself then you are (shockingly) training to learn to defend yourself. Just as you would be if in the same class you hit a heavy bag, did sit-ups and went for a jog. 

It you go to a point sparring tournament but you view all your sporting activities as training for self defense then within the context of the tournament it is a sport. Within the context of your life it is training.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> The objective of the activity defines the activity. In the examples I gave I didn't mention the objective of the individual, but the implicit objective of the activity.
> 
> The thread was about the sport of point fighting. If you are point sparring in the context of training to be able to defend yourself then you are (shockingly) training to learn to defend yourself. Just as you would be if in the same class you hit a heavy bag, did sit-ups and went for a jog.
> 
> It you go to a point sparring tournament but you view all your sporting activities as training for self defense then within the context of the tournament it is a sport. Within the context of your life it is training.




Nope. Dosent work

Let's suggest running away is a self defence method. Now the most likely person to be successful at running away is the fastest person. Whether he trains for self defence or not.


Same with sport martial arts. You may train for competition but by doing so just happen to be a skilled fighter  because you hit hard or are strong and so on.

All important factors in self defence that are not specific to self defence training.


----------



## DaveB

Again, what is your point? 

Your second paragraph loses its grammar half way so I'm really not clear on what you are trying to say, except that your determined to turn every discussion into sport vs traditional ma for self defense.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Again, what is your point?
> 
> Your second paragraph loses its grammar half way so I'm really not clear on what you are trying to say, except that your determined to turn every discussion into sport vs traditional ma for self defense.



Ok.  My point is.  It is still not what you say but what you deliver.

So just because you say self defence.  Does not mean it is the best method for self defence.

Sport is traditional. It is thousands of years old.


----------



## drop bear

In fact self defence running brings out into the open how silly these comparisons are.


----------



## DaveB

You are making even less sense.

It seems you think everyone is stuck comparing SD training to sport training. It is just you (and maybe Hanzou).



drop bear said:


> Ok.  My point is.  It is still not what you say but what you deliver.
> 
> So just because you say self defence.  Does not mean it is the best method for self defence.



First "it" is the most ambiguous thing to have as the subject of a sentence. I am barely understanding your posts because you seem averse to writing precisely what you are discussing at a given instant. 

Second, I never said anything about best methods of anything for anything. This thread is not about best methods. We were talking about what makes one activity a sport and another activity a martial art.

A delusion about your skills won't give you a wooly jumpers.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> You are making even less sense.
> 
> It seems you think everyone is stuck comparing SD training to sport training. It is just you (and maybe Hanzou).
> 
> 
> 
> First "it" is the most ambiguous thing to have as the subject of a sentence. I am barely understanding your posts because you seem averse to writing precisely what you are discussing at a given instant.
> 
> Second, I never said anything about best methods of anything for anything. This thread is not about best methods. We were talking about what makes one activity a sport and another activity a martial art.
> 
> A delusion about your skills won't give you a wooly jumpers.



You are barely understanding my posts because your capacity to understand is limited to one concept. When you get a new concept you get lost and then blame me.

I am playing chess while you are playing checkers.

Ultimately it is a martial art if it says it is. So point karate is a martial art.

Tennis is not a martial art. Because it dosent say it is.

Self defence is a combination of martial arts and things that are not martial arts. So you can gain skills in self defence by doing both.

So this.

"A sport is a sport a martial artis a martial art.
*
A sport is defined by it's rules, *so an elbow strike is not boxing because it is not allowed in boxing. The boxers defence against a groin kick is to complain to the referee.

Conversely, a martial art is a collection of principles andtechniques that one can employ to survive a violent altercation. There are no confines to "violent altercation" other than violence.

So when a karateka does point fighting he/she is engaging in a sport whose rules force some karate shapes to the movements. He/she is not doing karate except where the fighter may use elements of the art to achieve the objective of the game.

Of its self, point fighting is a game designed around the entry phase of combat, this being based on the Japanese fencing ideal of defeating an opponent with one clean strike. Getting good at point fighting is a good way to improve skill in entry, providing it is done with the rest of what happens in mind.

*Any game will by necessity be only an approximation of what a martial art is meant to be when realised. MMA obviously is acloser representation of real unarmed combat,.but even this isstill a game defined by it's rules."*

You said a sport is defined by its rules. So I said a martial art has rules even if it is not a sport.

You then backfliped. And said.

*"That we differentiate one activity.from another by rules is such a vague statement as to be meaningless."*

Yet you brought up defining an activity by it rules.

So then having just lost your point there you moved on to.

*You perform something when you use it for its purpose. Everything else is training and what isn't training is identified by the purpose of the action. *

OK. So if your purpose is self defence and you never defend yourself this idea just breaks down. Martial arts is quite often defined as specifically not to be used for its purpose. The sheathed word and all that junk.

Then we get here.
*
except that your determined to turn every discussion into sport vs traditional ma for self defense.*

That was you doing that.


----------



## DaveB

Finally, a clearly written post.

Thank you.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> You are barely understanding my posts because your capacity to understand is limited to one concept. When you get a new concept you get lost and then blame me.
> 
> I am playing chess while you are playing checkers.



That is so sweet that you think you are out thinking me with your 1 dimensional agenda and bad grammar.



> Ultimately it is a martial art if it says it is. So point karate is a martial art.



Except that it doesn't. I've never heard anyone refer to point karate as anything other than a sport. Yes some folks might be uninformed and think they are engaging in an ancient samurai fight game that is tied to the essence of the art, but being misinformed (like yourself apparently) doesn't change what is.

Try it out, start a pole and see what the forum members think.

You may be confusing people's use of language with intent. As well as asking if anyone thinks point sparring is a martial art in its own right, try asking if they think they can fight on the street exactly as they do in point competition.

Even if they think point sparring is the essence of karate they will all know that the rules that give point fighting it's existence have to go out of the window in a real violent encounter.



> You said a sport is defined by its rules. So I said a martial art has rules even if it is not a sport.
> 
> You then backfliped. And said.
> 
> *"That we differentiate one activity.from another by rules is such a vague statement as to be meaningless."*
> 
> Yet you brought up defining an activity by it rules.



Clearly you were watching my knight when you should have been watching my bishop.

I raised the defining things by rules to illustrate the point of how vague an idea you were raising. The point still stands. You can technically apply this idea of stuff having rules to anything. So by your argument karate is the same as farming because they both have rules.

When I told you that a sport is defined by its rules I was explaining the point that without the rules defining the objective(s) and all relevant details of how the objective is achieved there is nothing. The sport does not have any frame of reference in which it's activities may be brought out.

If you strip away all rules of a particular martial style you are still left with the problem of dealing with violence.

There is a context outside of the rules in which the martial art has relevance.



> So then having just lost your point there you moved on to.
> 
> *You perform something when you use it for its purpose. Everything else is training and what isn't training is identified by the purpose of the action. *



Yes, that's not losing a point, it's explaining in detail why you are wrong.

Since rules alone are too.vague, I am explaining how we can still have an activity that is different to another despite having rules, I.e. The objective of the activity.

Again a sport's objectives are defined solely by the rules.
A martial art has real world objectives beyond its own existence.



> OK. So if your purpose is self defence and you never defend yourself this idea just breaks down. Martial arts is quite often defined as specifically not to be used for its purpose. The sheathed word and all that junk.



See that is not true either. An ICBM doesn't stop being a weapon of mass destruction just because it remains in its silo. Nor does a soldier become something else in peace time even though they may be assigned non military tasks.

Note when I explained the issue of people confusing doing a martial art and training in a martial art. If you are never supposed to use your art then (a concept I think is only in movies) when you refer to it you can only be referring to the training.  Building a skill is an activity in it's own right, just.like studying in relation to academics.



> Then we get here.
> *
> except that your determined to turn every discussion into sport vs traditional ma for self defense.*
> 
> That was you doing that.



Because I started talking about what is more effective... Oh wait that was you.

I can say that X is different from Y without needing to raise one over the other. Different is okay.

You haven't even addressed some of my most basic points. If this really were chess you'd be a move from being mated because of positions I set up early game that you never countered.

For example: the fact that a sportsman has recourse to the referee/judge etc where the martial artist does not.

Or (though I didn't express it in this way) the fact that a boxer punching an attacker on the street is not engaging in sport because he is defending himself, not trying to win a competition.



drop bear said:


> Ultimately it is a martial art if it says it is. So point karate is a martial art.
> 
> Tennis is not a martial art. Because it dosent say it is.



Point fighting doesn't say it is anything. The people who do it say it is a sport. Same with tennis. Even if they did say it was a martial art, that would change it's purpose from winning the game to dealing with violence.

If a point fighter said that he was doing martial arts by winning his sparring match and that this was either the same as how he'd fight for real rules and all or that winning the match was the essence of martial art then he and I would just have to agree to disagree. But hopefully you can admit that would be a ridiculous notion.



> Self defence is a combination of martial arts and things that are not martial arts. So you can gain skills in self defence by doing both.



Again, so what? I specifically said (you even quoted it) that point sparring was useful for building certain skills. But as you point out some things are martial art and some things are not.

Check mate.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Except that it doesn't. I've never heard anyone refer to point karate as anything other than a sport. Yes some folks might be uninformed and think they are engaging in an ancient samurai fight game that is tied to the essence of the art, but being misinformed (like yourself apparently) doesn't change what is.
> 
> Try it out, start a pole and see what the forum members think.
> 
> You may be confusing people's use of language with intent. As well as asking if anyone thinks point sparring is a martial art in its own right, try asking if they think they can fight on the street exactly as they do in point competition.
> 
> Even if they think point sparring is the essence of karate they will all know that the rules that give point fighting it's existence have to go out of the window in a real violent encounter



There are more things in the world than what you have heard. 

If it is part of karate. Then it is part of karate as a martial art. As you have said they are not playing tennis they are trying to hit each other.

You never said point fighting as a martial art in its own right. It is not a separate part of karate for those that do it. Trying to suggest any section of martial arts training is a martial art in its own right. Mostly doesn't make sense.

And start your own poll.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Yes, that's not losing a point, it's explaining in detail why you are wrong.
> 
> Since rules alone are too.vague, I am explaining how we can still have an activity that is different to another despite having rules, I.e. The objective of the activity.
> 
> Again a sport's objectives are defined solely by the rules.
> A martial art has real world objectives beyond its own existence.



Yet you keep bringing up rules to make your argument then ignoring them when they don't fit. Pick one.

OK. A sport can have more than one objective. So you can have a competition where the objective is to win. That competition can be between soldiers where the objective of the competition itself is to create better warriors.

The objective can be to teach team work or discipline. Etc

If I do a competitive drill the objective is to beat my partner at a specific skill. The objective of the drill itself is to train a better fighter.

You don't have to continually state that what you are doing is for the street for it to have martial relevance.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> OK. A sport can have more than one objective. So you can have a competition where the objective is to win. That competition can be between soldiers where the objective of the competition itself is to create better warriors.
> 
> The objective can be to teach team work or discipline. Etc
> 
> If I do a competitive drill the objective is to beat my partner at a specific skill. The objective of the drill itself is to train a better fighter.
> 
> You don't have to continually state that what you are doing is for the street for it to have martial relevance.



Right and as I've stated multiple times if you are doing stuff to develop your skills you are training. 

Soldiers go through those exercises because they are training. 

In karate if we are point fighting then we are training. Schools that train exclusively to win tournaments are called sport karate schools and when they spar in class they are "training" towards their tournaments. 

Training is an activity in it's own right. 

I said check mate for a reason: you have no where to go with this.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Right and as I've stated multiple times if you are doing stuff to develop your skills you are training.
> 
> Soldiers go through those exercises because they are training.
> 
> In karate if we are point fighting then we are training. Schools that train exclusively to win tournaments are called sport karate schools and when they spar in class they are "training" towards their tournaments.
> 
> Training is an activity in it's own right.
> 
> I said check mate for a reason: you have no where to go with this.



These point fighting only schools? And where are they?


----------



## DaveB

About Us - Freestyle Combat Karate


----------



## Junbu

Point fighting is not traditional karate, nor is karate an art it is a science


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> About Us - Freestyle Combat Karate



And what about that school makes it not a martial art.


----------



## Junbu

What I ment is martial=military where does art apply to martial. It has to be a science if we are doing point fighting there are rules also things that cannot be done , 
Martial applies to battlefield there is no room for sport on a battlefield


----------



## Junbu

The original question at the top of the page was "point fighting is it really karate "


----------



## drop bear

Junbu said:


> What I ment is martial=military where does art apply to martial. It has to be a science if we are doing point fighting there are rules also things that cannot be done ,
> Martial applies to battlefield there is no room for sport on a battlefield



How many martial arts do you think were designed for the battlefield.


----------



## kuniggety

Junbu said:


> What I ment is martial=military where does art apply to martial. It has to be a science if we are doing point fighting there are rules also things that cannot be done ,
> Martial applies to battlefield there is no room for sport on a battlefield


I've argued the meaning of martial in the context of martial arts. I think you're making a mistake though by replacing art with science. There is science in art and art in science. It's two sides to one coin.


----------



## Junbu

Originally all of them! were designed for the battlefield.thats why they were created in styles and systems what we do in the dojo has to be battlefield tested and validated the warrior class would have nothing to do with art "on a battlefield" also originally done wearing armory


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> And what about that school makes it not a martial art.



The words "Sport Karate" in large letters in the top left of the Web page. 
The total lack of reference to self defense of any sort. 

Please note I have no issue with this school or what they do. In fact I think they would be in agreement with me that they exist to practice and play a sport. No less valuable than a football club and just with different aims than a SD karate club.

That said I could be wrong about them and they may have a combative element for use in real world violent encounters. One doesn't preclude the other.

Now in the vain of your response to me, next time do your own googling and work it out for your self. I'm at the point of repeating myself (actually passed it a while ago) so I now refer you to my previous posts.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> The words "Sport Karate" in large letters in the top left of the Web page.
> The total lack of reference to self defense of any sort.
> 
> Please note I have no issue with this school or what they do. In fact I think they would be in agreement with me that they exist to practice and play a sport. No less valuable than a football club and just with different aims than a SD karate club.
> 
> That said I could be wrong about them and they may have a combative element for use in real world violent encounters. One doesn't preclude the other.
> 
> Now in the vain of your response to me, next time do your own googling and work it out for your self. I'm at the point of repeating myself (actually passed it a while ago) so I now refer you to my previous posts.



They claim to be a SD Club.  Self defence is part of their description. So regardless of how actually effective their method is.  Their aim is self defence.

I did google. I went on the website that iska clubs register.  And they all at least claim to be karate clubs.

And vain? I mean if you go hitting the grammar card yours really shoud be flawless.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> And vain? I mean if you go hitting the grammar card yours really shoud be flawless.



A clear example of saying it doesn't make it so. You called me a grammar nazi, yet I only mentioned it because your post was unintelligible and you were trying to defend the fact by saying that you were out thinking me.

So not a grammar nazi despite being called one. 

Also that was a spelling error, not a grammatical one.


----------



## DaveB

You really never will out think me


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> A clear example of saying it doesn't make it so. You called me a grammar nazi, yet I only mentioned it because your post was unintelligible and you were trying to defend the fact by saying that you were out thinking me.
> 
> So not a grammar nazi despite being called one.
> 
> Also that was a spelling error, not a grammatical one.



So we will just ovetlook the bit about that school having a self defence focus?

In modern times karate will help you in all aspects of life by developing such qualities as Self Discipline,

Improved Co-ordination, Good Communication Skills, Personal awarenes & Self Confidence, Good Moral Standards as well as being an effective form of Self defence.


----------



## Junbu

Self defense or self protection? Some of these developed traights you mentioned could be gotten by getting the book dont sweat the small stuff. What are we I mean we all doing when attending a dojo? Hopefully we are working on protecting people ourselves our loved ones and just people . Not working to earn a trophy we can show others or collect dust in the corner


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> So we will just ovetlook the bit about that school having a self defence focus?
> 
> In modern times karate will help you in all aspects of life by developing such qualities as Self Discipline,
> 
> Improved Co-ordination, Good Communication Skills, Personal awarenes & Self Confidence, Good Moral Standards as well as being an effective form of Self defence.



Again, So What?!

What is it you think you are proving??

If you bothered to take in what I've said in this discussion you would know why I didn't comment on that.



DaveB said:


> That said I could be wrong about them and they may have a combative element for use in real world violent encounters. One doesn't preclude the other.



People can play sports and train to defend themselves. The two areas actually complement one another, but that doesn't make them the same thing. 

Plus whatever this or other clubs choose to do in training, it is still training. The martial art is what they do when the skills are used for their purpose. De Ja vu.

Lastly, and this time I mean it, it is interesting to note how Mr "evidence based" suddenly takes it on faith that a club with nothing but images of sports events on their site and only a passing mention of self defense is self defense focused. 

Well your faith won't move this mountain. You lost this game six moves ago and slipping pieces back on the board won't change that.





Re-read my posts.


----------



## Junbu

Your right


----------



## Junbu

Anyway relax Dave b you seem like the kinda guy that would do good to read that book I mentioned  earlier


----------



## Tez3

Junbu said:


> Originally all of them! were designed for the battlefield.thats why they were created in styles and systems what we do in the dojo has to be battlefield tested and validated the warrior class would have nothing to do with art "on a battlefield" also originally done wearing armory



No, not all of them. Some were meant for civilian self defence. Look it up. Not all martial arts were created for 'the warrior class', not all martial arts were 'battlefield tested' and certainly not designed to be performed in armour.


----------



## Junbu

Where would I find that info please , sorry you guys I seem to have checked into the wrong chat room honestly I have never been on one a friend e,-mail me a few of them and I logged on I didn't expect this look at my amount of posts


----------



## Tez3

Junbu said:


> Where would I find that info please , sorry you guys I seem to have checked into the wrong chat room honestly I have never been on one a friend e,-mail me a few of them and I logged on I didn't expect this look at my amount of posts



We aren't a chat room, we are a discussion board for martial artists. We do discuss things a lot, sometimes in quite an academic way. When statements are made citations are usually expected to back up assertions,
We are a friendly place though, if you want to know more about martial art I guarantee we'll have people, real experts, who can tell you what you like to know. Don't be put off by so many posters, they don't bite honestly, jump in and join in.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> People can play sports and train to defend themselves. The two areas actually complement one another, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
> 
> Plus whatever this or other clubs choose to do in training, it is still training. The martial art is what they do when the skills are used for their purpose. De Ja vu.
> 
> Lastly, and this time I mean it, it is interesting to note how Mr "evidence based" suddenly takes it on faith that a club with nothing but images of sports events on their site and only a passing mention of self defense is self defense focused.
> 
> Well your faith won't move this mountain. You lost this game six moves ago and slipping pieces back on the board won't change that.



Lol. It is not the grammar. You don't get the concepts.

People can play sports *that* train to defend themselves. Which is why they compliment each other. That makes them the same thing.

Martial arts is the training. You have confused the sport with the hobby. In the sport you don't really do that sport unless you compete. In the hobby. The training is the objective. You train for self defence in the hope you don't have to use those skills for their purpose. Nobody does gun defence in the hope someone is going to stick an actual gun in their face.

Evidence based is still applicable. Your claim was that the objective defined the activity. One objective was self defence. That defines their activity. That is the point made there.

(I think your point was trying to be they are not very good at it. But that will open a new concept)

Congratulations you win. But you are still playing checkers. Not chess.


----------



## drop bear

Junbu said:


> Originally all of them! were designed for the battlefield.thats why they were created in styles and systems what we do in the dojo has to be battlefield tested and validated the warrior class would have nothing to do with art "on a battlefield" also originally done wearing armory



So sumo. Wrestling. Boxing. Karate. Tkd. Akido. Capoera. Savate.

The chun? (Not sure)

All of these martial arts were either sports or for civilian protection or both.

Martial arts timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Junbu

Wrestling-Greco Roman was the first martial science system Aikido is a group that broke from its parent science jiu jitsu capoeira was a system turned into a dance due to martial training was made illegal in Brazil  tkd was karate that migrated from Okinawa and China into Korea boxing no. Wing chun yes martial science savate was a bunch of French sailors so you field that one soundslike you could use a vacation


----------



## Junbu

Top poster hey nice job I would hat to be all those guys ears after listening to your ____________


----------



## drop bear

Junbu said:


> Wrestling-Greco Roman was the first martial science system Aikido is a group that broke from its parent science jiu jitsu capoeira was a system turned into a dance due to martial training was made illegal in Brazil  tkd was karate that migrated from Okinawa and China into Korea boxing no. Wing chun yes martial science savate was a bunch of French sailors so you field that one soundslike you could use a vacation



OK. Which martial arts do you consider were designed for the battlefield?

And why does that make them any better anyway?


----------



## Junbu

No martial arts, just martial science , you know you got top poster why don't you spend more time at a dojo you would'nt have to pillow fight all the time


----------



## drop bear

Junbu said:


> No martial arts, just martial science , you know you got top poster why don't you spend more time at a dojo you would'nt have to pillow fight all the time



It is 8 in the morning no dojo going at the moment. 

What is the difference between martial science and martial art.


----------



## Junbu

go away


----------



## drop bear

Junbu said:


> go away



No....


----------



## Junbu

Tez is right on ,correct me if I'm wrong I think certain teqnique are kept out of the point sparing and that I would find fault with, so much over the years has been removed that I would like to see as much stay in tact and included in the systems as always was


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> People can play sports *that* train to defend themselves. Which is why they compliment each other. That makes them the same thing.



They can play sports that develop skills enabling self defense. Since skill development is training, to do so with the intention of improving self defense ability is to train for self defense.

That is not a martial art. That is training through game playing. A very effective way to learn.

The training has dual purpose, bestowed by the individual. The sport *IS* the set of rules that are in effect in competition. It can have no purpose other than it's objectives because it is completely defined by those rules.

Training has purpose only to the individual hence it is as varied as meditation at one end and zumba at the other.



> Martial arts is the training. You have confused the sport with the hobby. In the sport you don't really do that sport unless you compete. In the hobby. The training is the objective. You train for self defence in the hope you don't have to use those skills for their purpose. Nobody does gun defence in the hope someone is going to stick an actual gun in their face.



Why would a person's hopes about the future define an activity?

And so the sport is defined by the objective but the hobby isn't?
So by what law do we divide one activity into "objective" based and another into "hopes for the future" based?
Wait I know this one... It's the law of "dropbear needs to claim combat sport's dominance over TMA in every way conceivable". I forgot what the formula is though.

Seriously though, martial arts training is the hobby. The martial art is something different.

You even contradict.yourself


> The training is the objective. You train for self defence in the hope you don't have to use those skills for their purpose.



The training is the objective. But then self defense is the objective. You admit the skills have a purpose but deny that said purpose (self defense) is an activity in its own right?

Essentially sports are the only real actions a person can take, right? An interesting philosophical point of view but way too existential for a karate forum.

And what about the cello?

Am I playing the cello while I practice finger positions. It's not a sport and I only play for fun making it a hobby, therefore I must be playing when I practice isolated skills, just as you are suggesting for the martial arts.



> Evidence based is still applicable. Your claim was that the objective defined the activity. One objective was self defence. That defines their activity. That is the point made there.



I said a thing is defined by it's objective and you take that to mean a whole karate club must have a self defense focus because they wrote the words self defense in one corner of their website while displaying nothing else to suggest such?

It might well be an objective of a portion of their training (training being an activity all its own) but that was a disingenuous argument. I am genuinely disappointed. Not least because you allowed yourself to sink to such low evidential standards. (one word vs the whole rest of the multi page website).



> (I think your point was trying to be they are not very good at it. But that will open a new concept)



I have no need to make such judgements as my posting history will confirm. My one and only point in this thread is that a sport is not the same thing as a martial art. There are similarities, but they are different. I make no judgement about which is better as such an opinion would be meaningless.


----------



## Junbu

That was a well written post I am in complete agreement sport is not martial and a person can develop skills useful in a sport gym I won't call it a dojo, like I said I am in agreement with you . The original topic was is sport really karate and I think we would agree that karate included grappling wepons and percossion as well as kata and held to tradition only passing on their schools secrets after a person proved himself trustworthy


----------



## Junbu

With all the serious martialist on this site I am however surprised that I keep reading the word arts from everyone  martial and art are like oil and water arts were musashi painting my absolute favorite piece "shrike on a withered branch" but he would never put his sword school in an art category  its biomechanics science there is a topic to discuss if anyone is interested most of you guys seem serious and study things out dig deep for Ansers    What is this art ?


----------



## DaveB

Junbu said:


> With all the serious martialist on this site I am however surprised that I keep reading the word arts from everyone  martial and art are like oil and water arts were musashi painting my absolute favorite piece "shrike on a withered branch" but he would never put his sword school in an art category  its biomechanics science there is a topic to discuss if anyone is interested most of you guys seem serious and study things out dig deep for Ansers    What is this art ?



Applying a literalist view of language to an endeavour that comes from a different time and place doesn't gain us anything. 

When the term was coined, art referred to any masterable skill including science. 

Even though in modern times we view "art" as a reference to aesthetics, I still don't think a change of terminology is necessary. 

For one thing there's way to much subjectiveness involved to ever really enable the use of the term science. 

Secondly the term art for me captures the individual nature of the practice.


----------



## Buka

There's a lot of ways to point fight in your school. One of the ways we used to do was -

There is no tapping to the top of the head. There is contact to the face to all that participate. There is groin contact. If you don't know how to protect your groin you will learn. If you like to hop around with one leg in the air to flick kicks - you will probably never do that again. If you like to kick and hang your kick - you won't do that again, either.

A brush or touch to the face or body does not constitute a point and will not be called. Only one guy, the referee, calls a point. But he does not stop the action to call a point so participants should not stop if they hear him yell point, only if they hear him yell STOP. If they do stop on a point  - partner should blast them. All participants should defend themselves at all times.

All sweeps are allowed. When someone goes down their opponent will have two seconds to score on them.

If someone runs out of bounds too many times their opponent will be allowed to chase them down like the dog they are.

All contact is controlled. If someone goes too hard they will be warned. A second transgression is considered serious. A third will result in getting their *** kicked by the referee immediately.

It's still point fighting. But it's way more fun. And students seem to love it, even the kids.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Buka said:


> All sweeps are allowed. When someone goes down their opponent will have two seconds to score on them.


In one fight in Dallas (I had the video but can't find it any more). One guy picked up another guy over his head, turn his that guy's body upside down, and then smash his opponent's head as hard as he could down to the ground. He did't get point for that. But since his opponent could not continue, he won that fight.

The "hammer fist" won't get score in "point fight". Even today, I still don't know why.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> They can play sports that develop skills enabling self defense. Since skill development is training, to do so with the intention of improving self defense ability is to train for self defense.
> 
> That is not a martial art. That is training through game playing. A very effective way to learn.
> 
> The training has dual purpose, bestowed by the individual. The sport *IS* the set of rules that are in effect in competition. It can have no purpose other than it's objectives because it is completely defined by those rules.
> 
> Training has purpose only to the individual hence it is as varied as meditation at one end and zumba at the other.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a person's hopes about the future define an activity?
> 
> And so the sport is defined by the objective but the hobby isn't?
> So by what law do we divide one activity into "objective" based and another into "hopes for the future" based?
> Wait I know this one... It's the law of "dropbear needs to claim combat sport's dominance over TMA in every way conceivable". I forgot what the formula is though.
> 
> Seriously though, martial arts training is the hobby. The martial art is something different.
> 
> You even contradict.yourself
> 
> 
> The training is the objective. But then self defense is the objective. You admit the skills have a purpose but deny that said purpose (self defense) is an activity in its own right?
> 
> Essentially sports are the only real actions a person can take, right? An interesting philosophical point of view but way too existential for a karate forum.
> 
> And what about the cello?
> 
> Am I playing the cello while I practice finger positions. It's not a sport and I only play for fun making it a hobby, therefore I must be playing when I practice isolated skills, just as you are suggesting for the martial arts.
> 
> 
> 
> I said a thing is defined by it's objective and you take that to mean a whole karate club must have a self defense focus because they wrote the words self defense in one corner of their website while displaying nothing else to suggest such?
> 
> It might well be an objective of a portion of their training (training being an activity all its own) but that was a disingenuous argument. I am genuinely disappointed. Not least because you allowed yourself to sink to such low evidential standards. (one word vs the whole rest of the multi page website).
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need to make such judgements as my posting history will confirm. My one and only point in this thread is that a sport is not the same thing as a martial art. There are similarities, but they are different. I make no judgement about which is better as such an opinion would be meaningless.



OK. You terms for a martial art are just increadably vague. So far I think we have.

Rules or lack there of but not really. Because it is to vague.

The intention of the training. But only to some undefined percentage. So if a website says self defence once it dosent count but mabye two or three times do?

Whether or not sport is the better martial art.(which you have raised. Not me)

You really haven't any fixed terms as to what is a martial art and what isn't yet you also can't accept that people have different opinions on what a martial art is.

You can't just keep being vague. Set out a standard and we will see if point fighting fits.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> And so the sport is defined by the objective but the hobby isn't?
> So by what law do we divide one activity into "objective" based and another into "hopes for the future" based?
> Wait I know this one... It's the law of "dropbear needs to claim combat sport's dominance over TMA in every way conceivable". I forgot what the formula is though.




OK. Let's do this by the law of drop bears combat sports dominance over tma.

A martial art by definition is fighting. If you don't fight in the ring or in the street. (Or combat) You are not doing a martial art. A combat sport is a martial art due to the combat part of the sport.

Now I have no issue with any person doing a hobby. The training can still be similar and even beneficial(look at taebo) but it cannot be classed as a martial art. They are designed for a different purpose to combat sports. Which is combat.

Plain and simple.

(Now if this seems a bit insulting. Then bear in mind this is exactly the same stance you are taking)


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> OK. You terms for a martial art are just increadably vague. So far I think we have.
> 
> Rules or lack there of but not really. Because it is to vague.


No. I clearly  defined martial arts in one of my first posts to you. You weren't paying attention.


DaveB said:


> A sport is a sport a martial art is a martial art.
> 
> A sport is defined by it's rules, so an elbow strike is not boxing because it is not allowed in boxing. The boxers defence against a groin kick is to complain to the referee.
> 
> Conversely,  a martial art is a collection of principles and techniques that one can employ to survive a violent altercation. There are no confines to "violent altercation" other than violence.





drop bear said:


> the intention of the training. But only to some undefined percentage. So if a website says self defence once it dosent count but mabye two or three times?



And you talk about me not understanding concepts. You are confusing defining an activity with labelling a school. I'm starting to think you are doing it on purpose.

Training is an activity. The purpose of the activity defines it. I don't train at that school so I can't say how much of the club's focus is sport or self defense. However the fact that sd is mentioned as an after thought while "Sport Karate" is emblazoned on every page in large letters is a pretty good clue.



> Whether or not sport is the better martial art.(which you have raised. Not me)


Now you are just straight up lying. As I said to your protégé FriedRice, Quote me or desist.

It doesn't even make sense that I would raise that since to do so would have acknowledged sport as martial art. Even you would have spotted that one.



> You really haven't any fixed terms as to what is a martial art and what isn't yet you also can't accept that people have different opinions on what a martial art is.
> 
> You can't just keep being vague. Set out a standard and we will see if point fighting fits.



Read to understand rather than to seek angles from which to push your agenda. Then you might be able to grasp what I'm saying.

And I accept that people have their own ideas of what a martial art is. But if I can shred their (your) idea with logic then they are wrong. This is the essence of debate and of scientific reasoning. Both things that you apparently subscribe to...

...at least until it back fires on you and forces you to reconsider the comforting but irrational beliefs you hold.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> A martial art by definition is fighting. If you don't fight in the ring or in the street. (Or combat) You are not doing a martial art.


Is a soldier who has never been in a war not a soldier or is he a soldier because he is trained as a soldier?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> A martial art by definition is fighting. If you don't fight in the ring or in the street. (Or combat) You are not doing a martial art. A combat sport is a martial art due to the combat part of the sport.



So martial arts = sport = fighting? Really? No differences at all?

Fighting is by definition fighting. Flailing with no coordination, or plan is not martial arts. Taking a brick to someone's head is not sport. Stopping for water after 3 minutes is not fighting. At some point you will look at the many logical examples and either take them in or counter them. Similar is not Same.
.


> Now I have no issue with any person doing a hobby. The training can still be similar and even beneficial (look at taebo) but it cannot be classed as a martial art. They are designed for a different purpose to combat sports. Which is combat.
> 
> Plain and simple.
> 
> (Now if this seems a bit insulting. Then bear in mind this is exactly the same stance you are taking)



Not insulting but not the correct either. For one thing my point doesn't contradict the stuff I said previously. According to you previously, an activity is a martial art if the doer says it is.  Now it's any activity that involves fighting. And for some reason you think people who train as a hobby are excluded from fighting while those who are sports people do fight.

I.don't really need to add any more.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Now you are just straight up lying. As I said to your protégé FriedRice, Quote me or desist.
> 
> It doesn't even make sense that I would raise that since to do so would have acknowledged sport as martial art. Even you would have spotted that one.



Raised it here.

*Wait I know this one... It's the law of "dropbear needs to claim combat sport's dominance over TMA in every way conceivable". *

This has been the first time sport being better or worse than tma has been raised. By you not me.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Read to understand rather than to seek angles from which to push your agenda. Then you might be able to grasp what I'm saying.
> 
> And I accept that people have their own ideas of what a martial art is. But if I can shred their (your) idea with logic then they are wrong. This is the essence of debate and of scientific reasoning. Both things that you apparently subscribe to...
> 
> ...at least until it back fires on you and forces you to reconsider the comforting but irrational beliefs you hold.



What logic? Your goal posts keep changing.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> No. I clearly defined martial arts in one of my first posts to you. You weren't paying attention.



I have already refuted your clearly defined points. It is your shifting points that are the issue.

*A sport is defined by it's rules, so an elbow strike is not boxing because it is not allowed in boxing. The boxers defence against a groin kick is to complain to the referee.*

All martial arts have rules. And are defined by them.


*Conversely, a martial art is a collection of principles and techniques that one can employ to survive a violent altercation. There are no confines to "violent altercation" other than violence.*

Combat sports do this as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These points were simple. But they were also wrong. Then you moved into rules that were vague. That I am saying sport is better than tma. That the heading of a karate school means more than its description. That rules are not a definition of a sport or martial art. Then silly incorrect accusations of me lying.

All just rubbish none are vaguely logic. And none part of your original point.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Is a soldier who has never been in a war not a soldier or is he a soldier because he is trained as a soldier?



It is Dave. B,s argument flipped around to be a sport bias. I don't arbitrate what is or isn't a martial art. I am not that arrogant.

(And I am pretty arrogant)


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Raised it here.
> 
> *Wait I know this one... It's the law of "dropbear needs to claim combat sport's dominance over TMA in every way conceivable". *
> 
> This has been the first time sport being better or worse than tma has been raised. By you not me.


Except that is not the same as raising a subject. That you think it is speaks volumes about your position.


drop bear said:


> It is Dave. B,s argument flipped around to be a sport bias. I don't arbitrate what is or isn't a martial art. I am not that arrogant.
> 
> (And I am pretty arrogant)


Except it's not.

My argument is that purpose defines, not experience. A soldier's purpose is soldiering. Hence he is a soldier.
His training for war is to develop skills for war, that is why it is training for war and not warfare it's self.
This is my argument.



drop bear said:


> Then you moved into rules that were vague. That I am saying sport is better than tma. That the heading of a karate school means more than its description. That rules are not a definition of a sport or martial art. Then silly incorrect accusations of me lying.
> 
> All just rubbish none are vaguely logic. And none part of your original point.



They weren't vague, they were refutations of your attempted counter points and you just didn't understand them.
You are always saying that sport is better than tma, it's just what you do.
Your lack of understanding the written word shines through when you talk of the sport karate school (sd is mentioned in general terms I.e. what *can* be gained from karate training not what they dedicate most classes to).
And what I "raised" was the issue of bias blinding you to my argument.

To reiterate, hopefully in a way that you will understand. A sport without rules is nothing since rules are the totality of the sport. They define not only the manner of play but the objective as well.

Martial arts are an addition to a fight. The objective within the fight is defined by the individual. Take away rules of power generation, stance and movement; take away tactics and techniques and you still have a fight, just no guidance on winning it. This is the same thing I've said from the start: you are doing martial arts when you use them for their purpose. Everything else is training. The purpose of a sport is not the purpose of a martial art.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> They weren't vague, they were refutations of your attempted counter points and you just didn't understand them.
> You are always saying that sport is better than tma, it's just what you do.



Ok refutation of a counter point is not pulling people up on grammar. That is just pettyness. 

If i am always saying sport is better than tma.  (and that is still not a thing.)  Find a quote.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> eiterate, hopefully in a way that you will understand. A sport without rules is nothing since rules are the totality of the sport. They define not only the manner of play but the objective as well.
> 
> Martial arts are an addition to a fight. The objective within the fight is defined by the individual. Take away rules of power generation, stance and movement; take away tactics and techniques and you still have a fight, just no guidance on winning it. This is the same thing I've said from the start: you are doing martial arts when you use them for their purpose. Everything else is training. The purpose of a sport is not the purpose of a martial ar



Seriously? 

A sport is not a martial art because it has rules.  A fight is not a martial art because it doesn't have rules.


----------



## DaveB

While not wishing to continue the debate, I watched this recently and thought it would be interesting to hear comment.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> A sport is not a martial art because it has rules.  A fight is not a martial art because it doesn't have rules.


- A "sport" is something that you can do it today and you can still do it tomorrow. 
- A "fight" is something that you can do it today and you will be in jail tomorrow.


----------



## Tez3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - A "sport" is something that you can do it today and you can still do it tomorrow.
> - _A "fight" is something that you can do it today and you will be in jail tomorrow_.



or in a coffin.


----------



## DaveB

The silence regarding the video I posted is pretty deafening.


----------



## allessior

For insurance reasons, most point fighting tournaments are full contact to the body and no contact to the head or face.  

In theory, a well trained fighter should be able to apply a full speed, full power punch or kick to a "focal point".  The focal point is in the "mind's eye" of the fighter, and it can exist anywhere in 3D space.  For example, the focal point might exist just in front of the chin, or it could be the chin itself.  The focal point could be just in front of the nose, or it could be the nose itself.

Therefore, when a martial arts point fighter throws a punch or kick to the focal point, no matter where it exists, it will be executed at full power and speed.

So "in theory", if one practices correctly with this "focal point" concept in mind, then the point fighter should be able to execute a lightning fast punch or kick to any area on or around tne face or head and be effective in street situations.

That's the theory in point fighting, but unfortunately, point fighting practitioners have lapsed into a "tag fighting" ritual, where instead of focusing on a focal point, they tag an area around the face or head, then pull tne punch back, without assuming that the opponent may have survived the punch; that is, the "tag" is made, and the fighter applying the tag pulls back and relaxes his body, instead of first applying a full force punch or kick to the focal point and then being immediately prepared for a counter attack, or, ready to apply a combination, a flurry of punches and kicks.

The judges have also unfortunately been lulled into this method, where once the "tag" is applied, they stop the sparring and award the "tag" point.

It is really quite embarrasing, as now you have a generation or two of American karate point fighters who would not be able to beat a high school wrestler or football player in a real fight.  That is, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and higher Dan levels unable to actually fight.

For this reason, I am encouraging the complete elimination of point fighting because it encourages a sophisticated game of tag as it is practiced.  As I said, the theory of full speed and power to a focal point has been lost, replaced by "tag shots", pulled punches, and unreadiness to defend or apply combinations.  Hence, a false sense of security is instilled in a successful point fighter, who will one day get his head knocked off by any Joe, trained or not.

As Bruce Lee said, a true martial art involves true combat readiness, and point fighting as practiced is as far from combat as a martial art can be.  It is embarassing, disgraceful, and mal-practice.


----------



## JR 137

allessior said:


> For insurance reasons, most point fighting tournaments are full contact to the body and no contact to the head or face.
> 
> In theory, a well trained fighter should be able to apply a full speed, full power punch or kick to a "focal point".  The focal point is in the "mind's eye" of the fighter, and it can exist anywhere in 3D space.  For example, the focal point might exist just in front of the chin, or it could be the chin itself.  The focal point could be just in front of the nose, or it could be the nose itself.
> 
> Therefore, when a martial arts point fighter throws a punch or kick to the focal point, no matter where it exists, it will be executed at full power and speed.
> 
> So "in theory", if one practices correctly with this "focal point" concept in mind, then the point fighter should be able to execute a lightning fast punch or kick to any area on or around tne face or head and be effective in street situations.
> 
> That's the theory in point fighting, but unfortunately, point fighting practitioners have lapsed into a "tag fighting" ritual, where instead of focusing on a focal point, they tag an area around the face or head, then pull tne punch back, without assuming that the opponent may have survived the punch; that is, the "tag" is made, and the fighter applying the tag pulls back and relaxes his body, instead of first applying a full force punch or kick to the focal point and then being immediately prepared for a counter attack, or, ready to apply a combination, a flurry of punches and kicks.
> 
> The judges have also unfortunately been lulled into this method, where once the "tag" is applied, they stop the sparring and award the "tag" point.
> 
> It is really quite embarrasing, as now you have a generation or two of American karate point fighters who would not be able to beat a high school wrestler or football player in a real fight.  That is, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and higher Dan levels unable to actually fight.
> 
> For this reason, I am encouraging the complete elimination of point fighting because it encourages a sophisticated game of tag as it is practiced.  As I said, the theory of full speed and power to a focal point has been lost, replaced by "tag shots", pulled punches, and unreadiness to defend or apply combinations.  Hence, a false sense of security is instilled in a successful point fighter, who will one day get his head knocked off by any Joe, trained or not.
> 
> As Bruce Lee said, a true martial art involves true combat readiness, and point fighting as practiced is as far from combat as a martial art can be.  It is embarassing, disgraceful, and mal-practice.



Just because you find it "embarrassing, disgraceful, and mal-practice" doesn't mean the next person has no right to practice and enjoy it.  I think it sucks, but everyone has a right to enjoy all things I think suck.  Just look at "Bieber Fever."

And I've never seen a point fighting tournament that was full contact to the body and no contact to the head/face (not to be confused with knockdown/Kyokushin rules). I've seen plenty of excessive contact penalties in point fighting.


----------



## Juany118

Tez3 said:


> No, you are what you practice, they learn to touch and stop, that was their technique, what they were taught, so he would have had no power in his punches. The point fighter who has spent all his time doing that does have to learn how to punch properly to be able to punch hard.


Beat me to it.  There is a saying "train like you fight." The reverse of that, "you will fight as you train" is the result.  So when it comes times to take the forms and turn them into a skill, if you do so with point fighting in mind, when you enter a fight you will likely hit in a similar manner.  So if the point fighting is "light" you will hit light.  One of the reasons for the forms/kata is to build muscle memory.  Why would one not realize that the power of your strike is equally influenced by muscle memory.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Buka

Welcome to MartialTalk, allessior. Hope you enjoy it.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> The silence regarding the video I posted is pretty deafening.



Like martial arts. Not all sports are created equal.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> All martial arts have rules. And are defined by them.


"All"?   Keyshi Fighting Method, Krav Maga, Aikido, Balintawak, Aiki Ju-Jutsu, Ninjutsu?


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> "All"?   Keyshi Fighting Method, Krav Maga, Aikido, Balintawak, Aiki Ju-Jutsu, Ninjutsu?



Yes. 

All of them have rules.


----------



## JR 137

Juany118 said:


> Beat me to it.  There is a saying "train like you fight." The reverse of that, "you will fight as you train" is the result.  So when it comes times to take the forms and turn them into a skill, if you do so with point fighting in mind, when you enter a fight you will likely hit in a similar manner.  So if the point fighting is "light" you will hit light.  One of the reasons for the forms/kata is to build muscle memory.  Why would one not realize that the power of your strike is equally influenced by muscle memory.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



When I trained full contact, I believed in this fully.  It makes total sense on paper.  You're not going to throw punches and kicks full power if you don't constantly throw them that way or near full power in practice.

I came to a realization a few years after I left; pro boxers don't spar full power.  At least the ones who have any longevity in their career anyway.  Yet they don't seem to have any issues hitting full power when the time is right.  Quite sure MMA fighters with any sort of career don't spar full power either.  They don't seem to have issues turning that on when need either.

I know, I'm no where near a pro boxer nor MMAer, so one could tell me "become as good as them and we'll talk."

IMO, throw shots at a safe/sustainable power level in sparring.  Use bags, dummies, etc. to train full or near full power.  Yes, hitting bags is part of "how you train/practice," but people don't always think of it that way.

Never sparring full power without supplementing it a bag is a recipe for disaster.  Constantly sparring full power is also a recipe for disaster IMO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> When I trained full contact, I believed in this fully.  It makes total sense on paper.  You're not going to throw punches and kicks full power if you don't constantly throw them that way or near full power in practice.
> 
> I came to a realization a few years after I left; pro boxers don't spar full power.  At least the ones who have any longevity in their career anyway.  Yet they don't seem to have any issues hitting full power when the time is right.  Quite sure MMA fighters with any sort of career don't spar full power either.  They don't seem to have issues turning that on when need either.
> 
> I know, I'm no where near a pro boxer nor MMAer, so one could tell me "become as good as them and we'll talk."
> 
> IMO, throw shots at a safe/sustainable power level in sparring.  Use bags, dummies, etc. to train full or near full power.  Yes, hitting bags is part of "how you train/practice," but people don't always think of it that way.
> 
> Never sparring full power without supplementing it a bag is a recipe for disaster.  Constantly sparring full power is also a recipe for disaster IMO.


Agreed. I think that sparring at full power is a good way to develop skills for fighting, and also a good way to get hurt. I don't do it (moderate power, sure). My brain is how I make my living, how I lead my life, and what I train to protect. I wouldn't be protecting it if I went all-out in sparring. I don't think my body would even hold up to full contact sparring any more. I think you need some power in some of your sparring, so you don't develop the habit of always pulling the strikes. For power, give me bags, BOB, and pads to beat up. 

I'm sure MMA pros and Boxing pros go at it hard at times (other than paid fights). I know that the sparring I've watched has always been softer than their fights. And when they hit the heavy bag, they make it cry.


----------



## Buka

gpseymour said:


> And when they hit the heavy bag, they make it cry.



Yeah, baby!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> Yeah, baby!


You're way too excited about that, bro.


----------



## robal

The short answer to the question: "Point Fighting: Is it Trully Karate"   Is "no."   Karate was not designed for sport. In most of the world it may have become that, but that is something completely different.  If you think of the idea that "kata is karate" then you will understand that karate kumite would be the application of kata techniques. Point fighting completely separates kata and kumite. True karate doesn't work in a sport environment. The techniques weren't designed for that. Not to mention all the time spent on...in most cases only talking about...developing "karate power." How?  If you practice to not hit then that is what you ingrain into your muscle memory.  I can't teach you too push by having you practice pulling for 2 hours per day. In Okinawa karate was self defense, period. Some spiritual/self improvement bits were added but it was about self preservation at its root.  Japan got hold of it and saw a way to create a whole new sport.  Karate was dead after that.  Today even the most traditional Okinawan dojo (most, not all) are soft.  If you've ever read Choki Motobu you would see how much he disagreed with the "new" karate Japan was pushing.    It's a complicated issue though and us as practitioners are no help.  When karate is winning then the proud karateka start bragging about karate's fighting prowess. When it is losing suddenly "karate isn't about fighting."


----------



## Paul_D

Team Alpha Beast said:


> 3)  This idea of "real" karate isn't a sport or  Sorry, but sport has always been a part of Karate.  It was created for sport and the sport aspect of it helped it thrive.


It may have developed into a sport, but it certainly wasn't created as one.  It was created as a means of civilian self protection.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Team Alpha Beast said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> "Karate" was created in Japan in the 1920s as a sport.


That's not the story from Okinawa.


----------



## Paul_D

Team Alpha Beast said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> "Karate" was created in Japan in the 1920s as a sport.


So karate didn't exist before the 1920's?


----------



## Tez3

allessior said:


> most point fighting tournaments are full contact to the body


I've never seen one that was like this.



JR 137 said:


> And I've never seen a point fighting tournament that was full contact to the body and no contact to the head/face (not to be confused with knockdown/Kyokushin rules). I've seen plenty of excessive contact penalties in point fighting.



Exactly.



Team Alpha Beast said:


> Also, free sparring at your dojo is great......but how much variety are you experiencing? Are you becoming a better fighter.....or are you getting better at fighting the other students in your dojo?



We have a high turnover of students and a great many visitor. Oh and before you ask, we have a high turnover because we are a military club with just a couple of civvies.



Team Alpha Beast said:


> You do realize that many of the great strikers in MMA started out point fighting



Who?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Team Alpha Beast said:


> From my understanding the name "karate" wasn't used in Okinawa until after 1920 after it was brought to Japan


In his memoirs, Funakoshi writes that the phonetic word "karate" was in use on Okinawa. It was more common simply to refer to it as "te", but the full term was used. And the kanji (for "kara") used were both the one for "Chinese" and the one for "empty", though the one for "Chinese" seemed more common.


----------



## JP3

Buka.... that made me laugh...

   Who remembers the pic (probably more than one) of Master Hee Il Cho nailing the canvas hanging heavy bag with the jump-spinning side kick and the filling just exploding out the other side... NICE! Talk about a dude to want to emulate... That bag was probably a 60-80 lb bag and he was just destroying it.... Awesome!

On point-fighting. It is specialized tag,and no more.  If you practice all the time, and your goal is simply to get good at point-fighting, no worries, go for it. Just don't be deluded, as such delusions are dangerous, both to you and to people who you might think you can protect.  

If you think it is actually karate, and valid as a self defense skillset, or fighting method, I would nvite you to look up the next Kyokushin and try out said skillset there, in that venue.  I can absolutely promise you that you will find it... educational.

As with other things in life, training full-power has it's place.  Everything in moderation.  Put on the big pads, complete head protection, perhaps even some rib protection, hand and footgear, and get after it.  Just be prepared to feel sore as heck the next day, if you were doing it right with someone close to your own skill level.

But, don't train that way every day, either. You can lose a month or more if you crack a single rib, and that happens Easy.  The loss in training time from injuries costs much more than simply cycling it up and down.


----------



## Tez3

Team Alpha Beast said:


> The organization we compete in allows heavy contact to the body



Ah you see that's your organisation, not 'everyone'. I've never seen a full contact points competition even without head contact.



Team Alpha Beast said:


> But not every dojo have this luxury.



Hardly a luxury we had two students who were killed in Afghanistan. However I know many dojos that have people who come in and they go out.



No fighter puts points fighting on his fight record. Liddell has a kick boxing record certainly but as many of his wins were by KO they weren't point fighting, he did karate when he was 12 but is actually known for kempo. he has also done boxing, again not point sparring. Looking at Machido's biography it doesn't seem that he would have done point fighting very much if at all, he was boxing at 16, it would be unlikely to find someone doing no touch point fighting and boxing as well as Muay Thai and Sumo all of which are contact. It's recorded he fought his brother in a karate competition and left him with a scar so again unlikely to be contactless points.


----------



## robal

In Chuck Lidell's book he says he is from Koei-kan karate. 

As for Machida.    He is from Shotokan and yes, he competed in point competition. But that is meaningless. Everyone starts somewhere. It's the equivalent of going from Tee ball to pro baseball.


----------



## drop bear

Each different rule set emphasises a different set of strategies.

The more strategies you master the more well rounded you will be.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> It may have developed into a sport, but it certainly wasn't created as one.  It was created as a means of civilian self protection.



A sports element is a pretty important development though. Otherwise you can't interact with other people in any sort of evolutionary manner. 

You don't test for long enough and chi balls start to sound reasonable.


----------



## Tez3

Points competition is no touch basically. A point is scored after an approximate 'hit' usually accompanied by a very loud kiai to alert the judges you almost hit them. the 'fight' stopped, points awarded then they start again. Any blood drawn then the blooded person wins, the other disqualified.
Robal, the person in those videos is certainly a Machido but it's Lyoto's brother Shinzo winning. Nor is it 'point karate'. 10th Funakoshi Gichin Cup World Karate-do Championships Tournament—match results here!


----------



## JR 137

drop bear said:


> A sports element is a pretty important development though. Otherwise you can't interact with other people in any sort of evolutionary manner.
> 
> You don't test for long enough and chi balls start to sound reasonable.



You say that like the chi balls don't work.  Where have you been?  Ever heard of George Dillman?  He proved them.  Time and time again.  He even did it to a line of people in Starbucks.  What more do you want?  Didn't you see the half-moons in his fingernails?


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> You say that like the chi balls don't work.  Where have you been?  Ever heard of George Dillman?  He proved them.  Time and time again.  He even did it to a line of people in Starbucks.  What more do you want?  Didn't you see the half-moons in his fingernails?



They only work in the ring. So therefore do not work in the street.


----------



## robal

Tez3 said:


> Robal, the person in those videos is certainly a Machido but it's Lyoto's brother Shinzo winning. Nor is it 'point karate'. 10th Funakoshi Gichin Cup World Karate-do Championships Tournament—match results here!



The world championship referred to in your post says "2006 Sydney Australia."    The Tournament in the video  I posted says Brazil, 2005. 

And that is definitely point competition.  Judges with flags, the judges attire etc are all standard in Japanese point comp. Point kumite ranges from anything from no contact to light (touch) contact. At times it may get a bit harder depending on the specific tournament. Ever look back at the old Japanese tournaments and the contact there? Including face. 

Take a look at this....and this is tame for the time.


----------



## Tez3

I see you edited your post.


----------



## robal

Tez3 said:


> I see you edited your post.


Edited?   No, I only responded to yours pouting out your mistake.


----------



## Tez3

robal said:


> Edited?   No, I only responded to yours pouting out your mistake.



I don't pout.


----------



## robal

Tez3 said:


> I don't pout.


lol....got me. And I double checked my spelling. So much for that.
  I meant "pointing out."  your mistake. Not pouting.


----------



## Tez3

robal said:


> lol....got me. And I double checked my spelling. So much for that.
> I meant "pointing out."  your mistake. Not pouting.



You still edited your post though.


----------



## robal

Tez3 said:


> You still edited your post though.



Edited? How?   On which post? What was edited?    I'm missing your point. What is it you're getting at? That "possibly" I may have fixed a misspelled word...lmao.   Nothing is edited. Doesn't matter anyway. My point remains the same. But you haven't addressed your mistakes.  That's fine.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Were some posts deleted from the thread? I see a few responses quoting TEAM ALPHA BEAST, but the original posts seem to have vanished.


----------



## Headhunter

Tony Dismukes said:


> Were some posts deleted from the thread? I see a few responses quoting TEAM ALPHA BEAST, but the original posts seem to have vanished.


Was thinking the same thing has he worked out how to delete posts or something lol


----------



## Headhunter

Tony Dismukes said:


> Were some posts deleted from the thread? I see a few responses quoting TEAM ALPHA BEAST, but the original posts seem to have vanished.


Just had a quick search of the site. The guys completely vanished from the site...even his post I replied on and my replies to it aren't there...strange


----------



## Tez3

Been banned by the looks of it.


----------



## Uchinanchu

Here in Okinawa they refer to it as sport karate. There is also Dento Karate (traditional karate). Most if not all dojo today even here practice both. There is a differentiation between the two for what should be obvious reasons to most practitioners today. Unfortunately though, more and more dojo focus on the sport aspect and neglect the traditional training more and more. Just my personal observations on the matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## InternetMartialArts.com

Probs92 said:


> I have a few training partners that make it around the karate point fighting tourney circuit and I have gone to cheer them on. At the last tourney, I was faced with this dilemma: by the way the combatants move and the way the tourney was scored, I began to wonder whether or not it is truly karate-do.
> 
> I practiced free style sparring in my dojo every Saturday for many years, with the understanding that this was mimicking combat in the street, and to a degree it was. The free-style practiced at these point fighting tourneys could potentially get someone hurt in real life if they used these techniques in a self defense situation. To me, their movements were a glorified game of tag.
> 
> I guess my takeaway was that I couldn't tell if this was truly karate-do, but if not, what constitutes karate-do?
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?



Point fighting allows martial artists to demonstrate the accuracy of techniques learned while also practicing the ability to defend against executed techniques. Point sparring alone doesn't make Karate but integrating other elements along with point sparring like Katas make up Karate as it involves correct form and technique.


----------



## Buka

JP3 said:


> Buka.... that made me laugh...
> 
> Who remembers the pic (probably more than one) of Master Hee Il Cho nailing the canvas hanging heavy bag with the jump-spinning side kick and the filling just exploding out the other side... NICE! Talk about a dude to want to emulate... That bag was probably a 60-80 lb bag and he was just destroying it.... Awesome!
> 
> On point-fighting. It is specialized tag,and no more.  If you practice all the time, and your goal is simply to get good at point-fighting, no worries, go for it. Just don't be deluded, as such delusions are dangerous, both to you and to people who you might think you can protect.
> 
> If you think it is actually karate, and valid as a self defense skillset, or fighting method, I would nvite you to look up the next Kyokushin and try out said skillset there, in that venue.  I can absolutely promise you that you will find it... educational.
> 
> As with other things in life, training full-power has it's place.  Everything in moderation.  Put on the big pads, complete head protection, perhaps even some rib protection, hand and footgear, and get after it.  Just be prepared to feel sore as heck the next day, if you were doing it right with someone close to your own skill level.
> 
> But, don't train that way every day, either. You can lose a month or more if you crack a single rib, and that happens Easy.  The loss in training time from injuries costs much more than simply cycling it up and down.



Haven't been on this thread for a while. And should probably just shut the F up.

I do not like Hee Il Cho. Fought in some tourneys with him back in the day. Don't particularly care for his students back then, either. Not one little bit. Yeah, I know, shouldn't talk bad about anybody.

I do not care in this case. Not even a little bit.

That was a great pic, though.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Buka said:


> Fought in some tourneys with him back in the day.


Is that _fought* in* some of the same tourneys as him_ or _fought *against* him in some tourneys_?


----------



## Buka

Tony Dismukes said:


> Is that _fought* in* some of the same tourneys as him_ or _fought *against* him in some tourneys_?



*In*. He didn't make it to the finals. Lucky for him.


----------



## JP3

Buka said:


> I do not like Hee Il Cho. Fought in some tourneys with him back in the day. Don't particularly care for his students back then, either. Not one little bit. Yeah, I know, shouldn't talk bad about anybody.
> 
> ...
> 
> That was a great pic, though.



Man, I wasn't commenting on the guy's character, just the pic. Not trying to bring you back to a bad place.  Keep in mind, that guy just exuded Korean-ness.... as in the guy from the Remo Williams/Destroyer series of books and movie.  Just a bit... self-absorbed, one might say.

But that pic was on helluva pic!


----------



## TSDTexan

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I thought Karate is "one punch to kill".
> 
> The point sparring is good to train "timing, opportunity, angle, speed". It's not good to train "power". One day I pulled my punch but my opponent didn't, that was the last day I did my point sparring. I refused to put myself into that situation for the rest of my life.




One punch to kill... is a Japanese addition to the Okinawan Karatedo


----------



## TSDTexan

gpseymour said:


> That's not the story from Okinawa.


Chuckled over that.


----------



## allessior

Machida was (and is) a point fighter and he was an MMA champion.  There are others in MMA who participated in point fighting tournaments and who are very successful in MMA, although the styles that have the most success in MMA are wrestling and jiujitsu.

Here is the issue, however, with how the point fighter training evolves:

First, any good traditional karate sensei teaches the  student to strike with FULL FORCE, concentrated into the fist, foot, knee, elbow,,etc.  So while trainining initially, the student will strike with full force to the body, but is told by the sensei that as far as the head is concerned, focus your punches annd kicks to a point 1-2inches from the actual surface of the head.  This is done for INSURANCE and HEALTH reasons.  It has nothing to do with the "style" being taught.

Notice that there is nothing here about "playing tag".  If one is in a street situation, one simply "moves the focal point" to somwhere 1-2 inches on the "inside" of the face, and one uses combinations of rapid strikes and kicks.

Now, what happens over time is, the student gets sloppy and starts mis-interpreting the meaning of a "focal point", and the sensei is too busy teaching the mass of students to notice, therefore, a bad habit evolves and goes uncorrected.  The student themselves start using the "focal point" outside the head concept as a "tag point", not a full contact point.  In actual fact, the sensei has taught the student to use full contact strikes and kicks against the focal point, but then student gets lazy and simply tags that point without correction from the sensei.

Further, omce the student starts participating in point fighting tournaments, the fight is stopped by the judge every time a point is scored.  This means that over time, the point fighting tournament is full of  "taggers", who tag the outside focal point, then stop.  It actually looks rediculous.

In my dojo, we would train "full contact" with "moving focal points".  If the focal point was an "outside" focal point (meaning 1-2in from the body or head), I would watch the students carefully to make sure they were not "tagging" the point and were hitting it with full speed and correct technique, I would also make sure that the student did not stop fighting after hitting the focal point.  They were forced to continue the fight, even after point scoring.

There are karate tournaments that have continuous fighting, and the points are tallied by judges over the time interval.  The rounds are usually 3x3min, which means three 3-minute continuous rounds, with a 60second break between rounds.  Points are tallied at the end and a winner is declared.  Fighters MUST use the "outside focal point" for the head.  If they knock soomeone out with a head shot, the offender loses because he could not demonstrate mastery of the "full contact to the focal point" concept.

My students participate in both types of tournaments, traditional stop&go poit fighting, and continuous fighting over 3 rounds, with full contact to the body (i.e., inside focal point) and outside focal point to the head, and sometimes we will participate in full contact tournaments with head gear, although the latter are very difficult to put on legally because of state laws.  I always have my fighters train in continuous fighting, and put great emphasis on it the first day of training after a traditional stop/go poimt toirnament (so that nad habits are not developed over time).

Tag fighting is unrealistic and embarassing and we sensei must monitor our students to make sure they ate not developing "tag" styles.


----------



## allessior

Danny T said:


> In the U.S. touch and stop, point fighting is very much karate. That said it is only a part of karate. Kata competition is also karate, even worse in my opinion is the free style weapons competitions. It is all a part of karate today.
> Point fighting has nothing to do with self defense and I agree could potentially get someone hurt in a situation one would have to fight for real in a physical altercation. Case in point, a Shori- Ryu 4th degree bb joined our school about 4 years ago. Gentleman was approx. 35 years old, very quick, crisp punches and kicks. Very strong point fighter, had won numerous competitions in kata a well. Great person and excellent karate competition skills but his punches and kicks had absolutely no power upon contact. He had spent almost 15 years punching and kicking very quickly put pulling them they were just fast taps. After a few training session he even stated how disappointed and embarrassed he was for he had told students he had taught how well they would be able to fight in a real situation and here he couldn't hit as hard as many of our young teenagers. It took around 3 months for him to actually contact with knock out power. Today he is a very powerful puncher and kicker but he no longer participates in point fighting.



I have studied Karate for many years and I am now a 4th Dan myself.  The style is shito-ryu, and I also have a 1st Dan in jiujitsu.  I have competed in many types of tornaments, including point fignting tournaments.  I teach my students to you "focal points", which could be 1-2in inside your opponents body, or 1-2in outside.  This is needed so that when competeting in point fighting tournaments, where full contacts to the head is illegal, one still uses full speed and power with punches and kicks to the focal point, thus eliminating the game of "tag".  Unfortunately, most sensei don't teach the fhe focal point concept, and thus they reinforce the "game of tag".

Recently, two persoms from a nearby "krav Maga" school decided to come over and "watch" one of my classes at my dojo, which teaches traditional karate and jiujitsu, which I claim when combined will make you a very formidable fighter.  I invited the Krav students to participate in my class, but it became apparent that they had come over to snicker and laugh, to mock the class, because one of their friends was in my class.  Krav is all the rage these days, and I have foumd that the students and teachers of Krav like to mock traditional martial arts as "just sport, just a game of tag, not useful in a real fight or for self defense."

These Krav students were making a lot of noise with their snickering, so I again asked them to participate or they would have to leave.  We were doing line sparring, so I after having them sign non-liability and insurance forms, I lined them up with two of my yellow belt students.  Suddenly, one of the Krav students was on the ground, laid flat by a yellow belt student, who was relatively new but who had already competed in many point fighting tournaments.

I had to give the Krav student smelling salts, and his friend was apparently stunned by what had just happened.  How could it be that a poimt fighter in traditional karate had knocked out a "KRAV" fighter, who apparently had many years of Krav training umder his belt?  I mean after all, traditional karate is just a "game of tag", right?

It's all about the training and focal points.  If you train properly, you are not "playing tag"; you are developing deadly fighting and self defense skills, and you are building it into your muscle memory.  That was a knockout blow, which would have stopped a street attacker or an opponent in a full contact bout.

The Krav student decided to join my dojo and he is now a white belt with a few tips.  He loves it.  His friend got scared and we never saw him again.

I had later asked the yellow belt, Bill, why he did not use the "external focal point" when sparring with the Krav student.  He respomded, "Sensei, I was using the external focal point, 1-2in outside the face, but then the Krav student started hitting me in the face and head whenever you turned your head to help other students.  I had no choice but to switch to the internal focal point."


----------



## TSDTexan

allessior said:


> I have studied Karate for many years and I am now a 4th Dan myself.  The style is shito-ryu, and I also have a 1st Dan in jiujitsu.  I have competed in many types of tornaments, including point fignting tournaments.  I teach my students to you "focal points", which could be 1-2in inside your opponents body, or 1-2in outside.  This is needed so that when competeting in point fighting tournaments, where full contacts to the head is illegal, one still uses full speed and power with punches and kicks to the focal point, thus eliminating the game of "tag".  Unfortunately, most sensei don't teach the fhe focal point concept, and thus they reinforce the "game of tag".
> 
> Recently, two persoms from a nearby "krav Maga" school decided to come over and "watch" one of my classes at my dojo, which teaches traditional karate and jiujitsu, which I claim when combined will make you a very formidable fighter.  I invited the Krav students to participate in my class, but it became apparent that they had come over to snicker and laugh, to mock the class, because one of their friends was in my class.  Krav is all the rage these days, and I have foumd that the students and teachers of Krav like to mock traditional martial arts as "just sport, just a game of tag, not useful in a real fight or for self defense."
> 
> These Krav students were making a lot of noise with their snickering, so I again asked them to participate or they would have to leave.  We were doing line sparring, so I after having them sign non-liability and insurance forms, I lined them up with two of my yellow belt students.  Suddenly, one of the Krav students was on the ground, laid flat by a yellow belt student, who was relatively new but who had already competed in many point fighting tournaments.
> 
> I had to give the Krav student smelling salts, and his friend was apparently stunned by what had just happened.  How could it be that a poimt fighter in traditional karate had knocked out a "KRAV" fighter, who apparently had many years of Krav training umder his belt?  I mean after all, traditional karate is just a "game of tag", right?
> 
> It's all about the training and focal points.  If you train properly, you are not "playing tag"; you are developing deadly fighting and self defense skills, and you are building it into your muscle memory.  That was a knockout blow, which would have stopped a street attacker or an opponent in a full contact bout.
> 
> The Krav student decided to join my dojo and he is now a white belt with a few tips.  He loves it.  His friend got scared and we never saw him again.
> 
> I had later asked the yellow belt, Bill, why he did not use the "external focal point" when sparring with the Krav student.  He respomded, "Sensei, I was using the external focal point, 1-2in outside the face, but then the Krav student started hitting me in the face and head whenever you turned your head to help other students.  I had no choice but to switch to the internal focal point."



Hoozah! I love your work. Keep it up!


----------



## Danny T

allessior said:


> I have studied Karate for many years and I am now a 4th Dan myself.  The style is shito-ryu, and I also have a 1st Dan in jiujitsu.  I have competed in many types of tornaments, including point fignting tournaments.  I teach my students to you "focal points", which could be 1-2in inside your opponents body, or 1-2in outside.  This is needed so that when competeting in point fighting tournaments, where full contacts to the head is illegal, one still uses full speed and power with punches and kicks to the focal point, thus eliminating the game of "tag".  Unfortunately, most sensei don't teach the fhe focal point concept, and thus they reinforce the "game of tag".
> 
> Recently, two persoms from a nearby "krav Maga" school decided to come over and "watch" one of my classes at my dojo, which teaches traditional karate and jiujitsu, which I claim when combined will make you a very formidable fighter.  I invited the Krav students to participate in my class, but it became apparent that they had come over to snicker and laugh, to mock the class, because one of their friends was in my class.  Krav is all the rage these days, and I have foumd that the students and teachers of Krav like to mock traditional martial arts as "just sport, just a game of tag, not useful in a real fight or for self defense."
> 
> These Krav students were making a lot of noise with their snickering, so I again asked them to participate or they would have to leave.  We were doing line sparring, so I after having them sign non-liability and insurance forms, I lined them up with two of my yellow belt students.  Suddenly, one of the Krav students was on the ground, laid flat by a yellow belt student, who was relatively new but who had already competed in many point fighting tournaments.
> 
> I had to give the Krav student smelling salts, and his friend was apparently stunned by what had just happened.  How could it be that a poimt fighter in traditional karate had knocked out a "KRAV" fighter, who apparently had many years of Krav training umder his belt?  I mean after all, traditional karate is just a "game of tag", right?
> 
> It's all about the training and focal points.  If you train properly, you are not "playing tag"; you are developing deadly fighting and self defense skills, and you are building it into your muscle memory.  That was a knockout blow, which would have stopped a street attacker or an opponent in a full contact bout.
> 
> The Krav student decided to join my dojo and he is now a white belt with a few tips.  He loves it.  His friend got scared and we never saw him again.
> 
> I had later asked the yellow belt, Bill, why he did not use the "external focal point" when sparring with the Krav student.  He respomded, "Sensei, I was using the external focal point, 1-2in outside the face, but then the Krav student started hitting me in the face and head whenever you turned your head to help other students.  I had no choice but to switch to the internal focal point."


It's not what you train but how it is trained whether it be any of the Karate systems, Krav Maga, Boxing, Kung Fu systems, Kali system...etc. 
As I stated, "point fighting in the US is very much a part of Karate but is only a part". In good training there is much more than point fighting. I know of many schools that train kata and sparring for point fight competition only. Obviously you do more. Excellent...keep it up.


----------



## TSDTexan

allessior said:


> I have studied Karate for many years and I am now a 4th Dan myself.  The style is shito-ryu, and I also have a 1st Dan in jiujitsu.  I have competed in many types of tornaments, including point fignting tournaments.  I teach my students to you "focal points", which could be 1-2in inside your opponents body, or 1-2in outside.  This is needed so that when competeting in point fighting tournaments, where full contacts to the head is illegal, one still uses full speed and power with punches and kicks to the focal point, thus eliminating the game of "tag".  Unfortunately, most sensei don't teach the fhe focal point concept, and thus they reinforce the "game of tag".
> 
> Recently, two persoms from a nearby "krav Maga" school decided to come over and "watch" one of my classes at my dojo, which teaches traditional karate and jiujitsu, which I claim when combined will make you a very formidable fighter.  I invited the Krav students to participate in my class, but it became apparent that they had come over to snicker and laugh, to mock the class, because one of their friends was in my class.  Krav is all the rage these days, and I have foumd that the students and teachers of Krav like to mock traditional martial arts as "just sport, just a game of tag, not useful in a real fight or for self defense."
> 
> These Krav students were making a lot of noise with their snickering, so I again asked them to participate or they would have to leave.  We were doing line sparring, so I after having them sign non-liability and insurance forms, I lined them up with two of my yellow belt students.  Suddenly, one of the Krav students was on the ground, laid flat by a yellow belt student, who was relatively new but who had already competed in many point fighting tournaments.
> 
> I had to give the Krav student smelling salts, and his friend was apparently stunned by what had just happened.  How could it be that a poimt fighter in traditional karate had knocked out a "KRAV" fighter, who apparently had many years of Krav training umder his belt?  I mean after all, traditional karate is just a "game of tag", right?
> 
> It's all about the training and focal points.  If you train properly, you are not "playing tag"; you are developing deadly fighting and self defense skills, and you are building it into your muscle memory.  That was a knockout blow, which would have stopped a street attacker or an opponent in a full contact bout.
> 
> The Krav student decided to join my dojo and he is now a white belt with a few tips.  He loves it.  His friend got scared and we never saw him again.
> 
> I had later asked the yellow belt, Bill, why he did not use the "external focal point" when sparring with the Krav student.  He respomded, "Sensei, I was using the external focal point, 1-2in outside the face, but then the Krav student started hitting me in the face and head whenever you turned your head to help other students.  I had no choice but to switch to the internal focal point."



War story time
I once was enjoying a beer at a hang out, when a certain point fighter came in with a 6 foot trophy. He proceeded to get smashed, and became an @$$. It was clear he was calling people out.
On my way out the door, I lost my peace when he got in my way. "You wanna piece of me"?
I shook my head, and said that I didn't have time to play with him.
He took it personally, slid into a side stance and hopped to do a backfist, reverse punch combo.
I had seen him fight before.
Without blinking, his lead foot caught an ashi barai, and I stepped over him. And left.

Word later that he KOd himself on the linoleum floor with the sweep.


----------



## TSDTexan

TSDTexan said:


> War story time
> I once was enjoying a beer at a hang out, when a certain point fighter came in with a 6 foot trophy. He proceeded to get smashed, and became an @$$. It was clear he was calling people out.
> On my way out the door, I lost my peace when he got in my way. "You wanna piece of me"?
> I shook my head, and said that I didn't have time to play with him.
> He took it personally, slid into a side stance and hopped to do a backfist, reverse punch combo.
> I had seen him fight before.
> Without blinking, his lead foot caught an ashi barai, and I stepped over him. And left.
> 
> Word later that he KOd himself on the linoleum floor with the sweep.




The point of that story was this:
A lot of what wins trophies is tactically dumb on the street.

A fast backfist, reverse punch, backfist will score tournament points but it is bad to make that (or similar stuff) basis of your toolkit.

Because of that practice, he made a drunken oops. Maybe he thought it was valid in the real world.


----------



## TSDTexan




----------



## Hanshi

Point fighting is...well, a game.  It's not real fighting by any stretch of the imagination.  It is a useful training tool in that it helps the student learn timing, distance, response(ing) and how to use techniques.  These are all useful and necessary skills to learn.  There is NO self-defense or fighting on the street; there is only explosive response to a expected attack.  Once one allows an attacker to throw the first blow, he has already acquired his momentum.  It can sometimes go downhill after that.


----------



## JR 137

TSDTexan said:


> View attachment 20671



Truer words have never been spoken regarding what's wrong with all these McDojos out there.

Competition in karate can be a great thing, so long as it's based on actual/practical karate skills rather than nonsense.  Think knockdown competition like Kyokushin rather than tag games like WKF.


----------



## Buka

The term "_point fighting_" does not mean what it once did back in the day. So, keep that in mind and forgive the old folks when reading their posts. Different points of Martial reference.


----------

