Finally understand the critique I've been getting for the last 3 years

[dvcochran]

My point was that the spacing allows you to chamber fully. Timing the speed of someone's stationary punch and then claiming there isn't enough time to fully chamber a sidekick is a moot point because it doesn't factor in that the puncher has to move into range to land the punch or that the beginning of the chamber can start outside of the punching range and with the extended reach of the leg the kick can land before the punch.

And even when engaged, with good movement you can still find the opportunities and spacing to land fully chambered sidekicks even against someone with fast punches.

Understood. I try to spar with my hands similar to a boxer where my hands are at least partially cocked. I like to think I am a fast front leg kicker but if I don't have to reach for contact my hand is going to be quicker. If you spar outside then the leg definitely has the advantage.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I agree for a stationary punch but how often do you throw a stationary punch when sparring? The one exception I can think of is when they are charging hard. In TKD sparring it is a low percentage point punch but it does work in point sparring.

No. In WT/Olympic-style sparring, punches are low percentage. This is true. But it is absolutely not true of TKD as a whole. It isn't even true in KKW schools that teach the full art. It is only true in schools that are wholly and completely focused on the sport of TKD, ignoring the rest of the art.

A few of our students want to go compete at a tourney being hosted by a KKW school in Denver this March. I made them spar under WT rules today, to prepare a bit.
Frankly, I would have had to disqualify a couple of them because they kept forgetting the rules, and punching to the head.
They all landed punches to the body that would have been capable of scoring even under WT rules. But then, we practice punches a lot more than a sport school.

 

[dvcochran]

No. In WT/Olympic-style sparring, punches are low percentage. This is true. But it is absolutely not true of TKD as a whole. It isn't even true in KKW schools that teach the full art. It is only true in schools that are wholly and completely focused on the sport of TKD, ignoring the rest of the art.

A few of our students want to go compete at a tourney being hosted by a KKW school in Denver this March. I made them spar under WT rules today, to prepare a bit.
Frankly, I would have had to disqualify a couple of them because they kept forgetting the rules, and punching to the head.
They all landed punches to the body that would have been capable of scoring even under WT rules. But then, we practice punches a lot more than a sport school.

WT/Olympic is the sparring I was referring to. I know it is not implicit to TKD, just taking a short-cut.

 

[skribs]

I can perceive this by using the mirrors. How do I "know" what to look for if I do not understand what is being said to me? Visual aids are a huge help.

In this case, what was being said didn't make sense to me until I figured out another piece to the puzzle. I wouldn't have been looking for the particular change I made.

 

[skribs]

No. In WT/Olympic-style sparring, punches are low percentage. This is true. But it is absolutely not true of TKD as a whole. It isn't even true in KKW schools that teach the full art. It is only true in schools that are wholly and completely focused on the sport of TKD, ignoring the rest of the art.

A few of our students want to go compete at a tourney being hosted by a KKW school in Denver this March. I made them spar under WT rules today, to prepare a bit.
Frankly, I would have had to disqualify a couple of them because they kept forgetting the rules, and punching to the head.
They all landed punches to the body that would have been capable of scoring even under WT rules. But then, we practice punches a lot more than a sport school.

This is one of the issues I have with the WT sparring system. It's half-directed at the schools which don't focus on WT sparring, and half-directed at the tournament structure itself.

1. If a school is going to compete in tournaments, it should dedicate a significant portion of class time to those tournaments. Now, all I know is Taekwondo. But I have to wonder, how many people go to a boxing school, wrestling class, MMA gym, and expect to learn things that will not help them in the ring, on the mat, in the cage? Even things like Judo, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Muay Thai. How much of what they learn is barred in their matches?
   But take a more traditional approach to Taekwondo, where you teach grabs, punches to the head, etc. Where maybe half your class contains techniques that you can't use in a WT tournament. And then go "just to try it out", and show up and face schools where 80% of class is devoted to kicks, kick drills, and sparring practice, and they do 7-8 tournaments a year.
   To me, it's kind of the same thing as a group of guys playing softball once a month, and then one guy shows up and says "oh, I scheduled us a scrimmage game against the Yankees."
2. On the other hand, the tournament system sets this up. You've got people coming to the tournaments who go every other month, and people who go every other year, who are being put in the same bracket together. (Or in my case a few years back, you've got a 26 year old 5'5" dumpy IT technician who got into martial arts to lose weight, competing against an 18 year old who is 5" taller, actually in shape, and has probably had a lot of private lessons since his Master is his father).

I just don't like the idea of competing with a sport-focused school, because it already puts a well-rounded or traditional school at a disadvantage.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is one of the issues I have with the WT sparring system. It's half-directed at the schools which don't focus on WT sparring, and half-directed at the tournament structure itself.

1. If a school is going to compete in tournaments, it should dedicate a significant portion of class time to those tournaments. Now, all I know is Taekwondo. But I have to wonder, how many people go to a boxing school, wrestling class, MMA gym, and expect to learn things that will not help them in the ring, on the mat, in the cage? Even things like Judo, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Muay Thai. How much of what they learn is barred in their matches?
   But take a more traditional approach to Taekwondo, where you teach grabs, punches to the head, etc. Where maybe half your class contains techniques that you can't use in a WT tournament. And then go "just to try it out", and show up and face schools where 80% of class is devoted to kicks, kick drills, and sparring practice, and they do 7-8 tournaments a year.
   To me, it's kind of the same thing as a group of guys playing softball once a month, and then one guy shows up and says "oh, I scheduled us a scrimmage game against the Yankees."
2. On the other hand, the tournament system sets this up. You've got people coming to the tournaments who go every other month, and people who go every other year, who are being put in the same bracket together. (Or in my case a few years back, you've got a 26 year old 5'5" dumpy IT technician who got into martial arts to lose weight, competing against an 18 year old who is 5" taller, actually in shape, and has probably had a lot of private lessons since his Master is his father).

I just don't like the idea of competing with a sport-focused school, because it already puts a well-rounded or traditional school at a disadvantage.

That's inherent in competition events. If there's something to win (even just bragging rights) some folks will train specifically to win. If two people start with equal ability, train equally well for the same amount of time, and X is training specifically for the event while Y is training for general purpose or defensive use, X likely has a distinct advantage in the event. The CI at the school I'll be teaching at used to compete (she's in her 60's now and no longer competes). She never trained specifically for competition - forms or kumite - but managed to pull in some wins. I'd rather have those wins, though I don't have a problem with folks who specifically train for the sport.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I just don't like the idea of competing with a sport-focused school, because it already puts a well-rounded or traditional school at a disadvantage.

I disagree. We do not do a lot of tourney stuff. Maybe one or two a year. But our students consistently bring home the gold. Why? In part, because they don't get black belts in two years. One of our blue belts, who has a couple years or so training (including a LOT of sparring, by that point) is in no way at a disadvantage when matched with someone who has 6 months of training.

 

[skribs]

That's inherent in competition events. If there's something to win (even just bragging rights) some folks will train specifically to win. If two people start with equal ability, train equally well for the same amount of time, and X is training specifically for the event while Y is training for general purpose or defensive use, X likely has a distinct advantage in the event. The CI at the school I'll be teaching at used to compete (she's in her 60's now and no longer competes). She never trained specifically for competition - forms or kumite - but managed to pull in some wins. I'd rather have those wins, though I don't have a problem with folks who specifically train for the sport.

But most other sports have leagues, and you compete with people in a similar league as yourself. Hence my analogy to the baseball team - you generally don't have a church softball team take on the Yankees. The Yankees go against other major leaguers, AAA clubs go against other AAA clubs, college teams go against college teams in the same division, and the local softball team will take on other local softball teams made up of players who are in a similar situation as them.

I disagree. We do not do a lot of tourney stuff. Maybe one or two a year. But our students consistently bring home the gold. Why? In part, because they don't get black belts in two years. One of our blue belts, who has a couple years or so training (including a LOT of sparring, by that point) is in no way at a disadvantage when matched with someone who has 6 months of training.

I have several thoughts on this:

1. What percentage of the class is sparring vs. non-sparring? If it's 40%, then yes, 2 years of 40% is going to beat 6 months of 80%.
2. This could be a different problem that I've seen, which is harder to define, where a school that wants its students to take more time to earn their black belt will have more advanced students, so when you go in with a blue belt it's the equivalent of a black belt anywhere else, so when you join a tournament, you're essentially bringing in players who are playing down a class or two. In this case, you're not intentionally doing so, but that's the effect.
3. My Mom stopped competing in tournaments when I was a kid because there was one lady who put on her black belt to do forms, and then put on her purple belt to spar, and ended up injuring both my Mom and another lady, and got a gold. In this case, it was intentional that she fought lower belts, and she injured them, (and it should have been considered cheating and she should have been thrown out), and my Mom refused to do tournaments anymore. She'd take me, but she wouldn't compete. Thought #2 brought me to this one.
4. Is this guy one example, or a typical example? We have a few students that go and dominate. This one girl, every match I've seen her do in the 3 tournaments she's been to have been like 26-3 (give or take a few). A few others that have done very well. But we also have a lot of students that are out of their element when they do a tournament, and by the time we get to the next tournament the following year they've forgotten all the lessons they learned at the last one.

Personally, as an adult I've done two tournaments. The first one, as an orange belt, I won easily. We were orange belts, and where I had experience as a kid and came from a school that teaches WT sparring, this guy I'm guessing was either Karate, ITF, or ATA (based on the fact his forms looked nothing like the palgwes or Taegeuks) and so I had a clear advantage.

The second, as a blue belt, I was the out-of-shape adult fighting someone who was practically still a teenager, who was the master's son. I was outmatched in every way - timing, technique, speed, strength, and reach.

I realize this is a small sample size, especially without another person in my bracket in either tournament. But there was a clear winner in each competition, and it didn't feel much like a competition either time. I also realize that there isn't much that could be done in either situation and we could still spar - these were 2-man brackets, after all. But I do know that when I go to a tournament and I watch the other schools matches while I'm waiting for mine to start, the ones that people say "they go to all the tournaments" tend to do really well, and the ones that are "let's just go and see what it's like" tend to lose, because they're there for the experience (like a vacation "experience", not like "level up" experience) and the ones who are there as part of their routine are there to win.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But most other sports have leagues, and you compete with people in a similar league as yourself. Hence my analogy to the baseball team - you generally don't have a church softball team take on the Yankees. The Yankees go against other major leaguers, AAA clubs go against other AAA clubs, college teams go against college teams in the same division, and the local softball team will take on other local softball teams made up of players who are in a similar situation as them.

I think we have the same problem here that exists with the belts: there's simply no way to make clear delineations. And if you did, you'd still run into two problems - one new and one a repeat. Let's say we create two leagues: one intended for sport-oriented schools and one intended for "general purpose" and "self-defense" schools. Firstly, both leagues would be small, with the second being too small to support itself, since probably most people who compete will go looking for a school that trains competitors. Next, let's assume the "other" league manages to stay afloat, and that the schools adhere to whatever rule is in place about how much time/effort they spend training for competition. There are still going to be competitors who will want to win. They will grab a partner or two and the rulebook, and train specifically for the competition. And they'll still have a distinct edge over similar folks who didn't train much for the competition. It's a natural advantage for the competitive types.

And I'm actually okay with that. I've been looking into competitions this year - both striking and grappling. If my knees and/or finances don't stop me, I'll go. I'll do no specific training for the competitions, other than reading the rulebooks and restricting a few of my sparring/randori sessions (if I get any with my students) to those rules. I expect that'll give an energetic, competitive, and competition-trained opponent a real advantage. So be it. I'll either have enough additional skill to overcome that advantage, or he'll win. It'll probably be fun either way.

 

[dvcochran]

This is one of the issues I have with the WT sparring system. It's half-directed at the schools which don't focus on WT sparring, and half-directed at the tournament structure itself.

1. If a school is going to compete in tournaments, it should dedicate a significant portion of class time to those tournaments. Now, all I know is Taekwondo. But I have to wonder, how many people go to a boxing school, wrestling class, MMA gym, and expect to learn things that will not help them in the ring, on the mat, in the cage? Even things like Judo, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Muay Thai. How much of what they learn is barred in their matches?
   But take a more traditional approach to Taekwondo, where you teach grabs, punches to the head, etc. Where maybe half your class contains techniques that you can't use in a WT tournament. And then go "just to try it out", and show up and face schools where 80% of class is devoted to kicks, kick drills, and sparring practice, and they do 7-8 tournaments a year.
   To me, it's kind of the same thing as a group of guys playing softball once a month, and then one guy shows up and says "oh, I scheduled us a scrimmage game against the Yankees."
2. On the other hand, the tournament system sets this up. You've got people coming to the tournaments who go every other month, and people who go every other year, who are being put in the same bracket together. (Or in my case a few years back, you've got a 26 year old 5'5" dumpy IT technician who got into martial arts to lose weight, competing against an 18 year old who is 5" taller, actually in shape, and has probably had a lot of private lessons since his Master is his father).

I just don't like the idea of competing with a sport-focused school, because it already puts a well-rounded or traditional school at a disadvantage.

Like @Dirty Dog said, they were practicing for the different rules. This is a very good example of how well muscle memory works (against you in this case). Tournaments are a competition. You should expect to go up against people with varying skill levels. If everyone were exactly the same age, height, weight, rank, time in grade, etc..., you take most the real world variability out. Plus you would be lucky to have two competitors per group at an average tourney. Again, not very competitive.
It sounds like you are a fan of the participation trophy. If it is a group of 4 year old's, I don't have a huge problem with them. But it should NEVER happen for older competitors.
The groups I competed against when I went to the Nationals and Trials were a pretty even split. About half were 17-25 years old and half were 26-34 years old. It was an even mix from both groups that went on to the Olympics, one of them being the 34 year old.

 

[jks9199]

I just don't like the idea of competing with a sport-focused school, because it already puts a well-rounded or traditional school at a disadvantage.

If you're going to play a game, you have to learn and prepare for the rules. The people who do that are going to win the game more often. To make a bit of an absurd example... if you put a pro soccer team on a football field against even a good high school team, with no prep other than a quick explanation of the rules and making sure they're wearing their pads properly... The results ain't likely to be pretty, and (despite possibly a higher level of general fitness; soccer is an exhausting game!) they'll more likely than not get creamed.

If you want to win in tournaments, you have to adapt your training to the rules you'll be playing under. Sometimes, that's harder than others. Again, extreme example -- take a BJJ player to a point based karate tournament... Not going to work so well, is it? Unless a tournament supports classical forms, they aren't likely to do well against XMA style forms. My students would often lose form competitions because our system's forms are just too short, and some principles are too different. In sparring, if you're used to contact levels that get you eliminated for hitting too hard... well, you're set up for failure, aren't you.

Then there's sandbagging, like the black belt forms/purple belt sparring you described, or just outright not competing at the proper level so you can get the trophy... (Personally, compete at any event during a tournament as a black belt, you're competing in all of them as a black belt. And if the tournament circle is small enough, that runs across tournaments, too.) I've seen people compete as "novice" in kickboxing who have long boxing records -- because it's "their first kickboxing event." Or tournaments where, somehow, the host school seems to win most of the events... Bottom line -- there's always someone who feels that the win is what matters, not sportsmanship and character.

Honestly, the rising costs coupled with single elimination fighting rules (who wants to pay $50 or more to fight for 10 seconds as someone gets 3 points for things that wouldn't be effective if they actually had to make contact), and the final straw of sandbagging, is what led me to stay out of tournaments... Travel hours, pay a bunch of money, get one fight... and lose to a hand flip thing that's only going to work in a tournament setting... Not worth it...

But that leads me to what is your purpose in competing... For me, and when I take my students, it's the opportunity to perform under a different sort of pressure, and fight against people they don't train with every day. The "win" for my students isn't taking a trophy home -- it's whether I said they demonstrated the principles they've practiced. And for me, I "won" if my teacher said I did -- regardless of whether I took home a trophy or medal.

 

[CB Jones]

But most other sports have leagues, and you compete with people in a similar league as yourself. Hence my analogy to the baseball team - you generally don't have a church softball team take on the Yankees. The Yankees go against other major leaguers, AAA clubs go against other AAA clubs, college teams go against college teams in the same division, and the local softball team will take on other local softball teams made up of players who are in a similar situation as them.

So do the tournaments....Beginner v Beginners....Intermediate v Intermediate....Advanced v Advanced....Black Belts v Black Belts. Also bigger tournaments will also have weitgh classes for the BB division.

But I do know that when I go to a tournament and I watch the other schools matches while I'm waiting for mine to start, the ones that people say "they go to all the tournaments" tend to do really well, and the ones that are "let's just go and see what it's like" tend to lose, because they're there for the experience (like a vacation "experience", not like "level up" experience) and the ones who are there as part of their routine are there to win.

Thats because live competition against a variety of people often helps you advance your skills....Steel sharpens steel....Competing against better opponents makes you better. Thats why its silly to sandbag.

Find a good org. The org we compete in has sandbagging rules....

1) The divisions are divided by belt but with if you have a certain amount of years training you have to move up regardless of belt color.

2) If you ever compete up in division(Beginner, Intermediate, or Advanced) you must remain in that division you can not go back down.

But most of our competitors aren't competing for awards....its about testing yourself, pushing yourself to get better, and comradery/fellowship with other Martial Artist.

 

[skribs]

I think we have the same problem here that exists with the belts: there's simply no way to make clear delineations. And if you did, you'd still run into two problems - one new and one a repeat. Let's say we create two leagues: one intended for sport-oriented schools and one intended for "general purpose" and "self-defense" schools. Firstly, both leagues would be small, with the second being too small to support itself, since probably most people who compete will go looking for a school that trains competitors. Next, let's assume the "other" league manages to stay afloat, and that the schools adhere to whatever rule is in place about how much time/effort they spend training for competition. There are still going to be competitors who will want to win. They will grab a partner or two and the rulebook, and train specifically for the competition. And they'll still have a distinct edge over similar folks who didn't train much for the competition. It's a natural advantage for the competitive types.

And I'm actually okay with that. I've been looking into competitions this year - both striking and grappling. If my knees and/or finances don't stop me, I'll go. I'll do no specific training for the competitions, other than reading the rulebooks and restricting a few of my sparring/randori sessions (if I get any with my students) to those rules. I expect that'll give an energetic, competitive, and competition-trained opponent a real advantage. So be it. I'll either have enough additional skill to overcome that advantage, or he'll win. It'll probably be fun either way.

I don't know. I think that if the "gotta win" crowd isn't in your bracket, more people might go to tournaments.

Going back to my baseball analogy, how many local softball leagues would there be if there was a law that required you to allow professional baseball teams to compete against you?

Like @Dirty Dog said, they were practicing for the different rules. This is a very good example of how well muscle memory works (against you in this case). Tournaments are a competition. You should expect to go up against people with varying skill levels. If everyone were exactly the same age, height, weight, rank, time in grade, etc..., you take most the real world variability out. Plus you would be lucky to have two competitors per group at an average tourney. Again, not very competitive.
It sounds like you are a fan of the participation trophy. If it is a group of 4 year old's, I don't have a huge problem with them. But it should NEVER happen for older competitors.
The groups I competed against when I went to the Nationals and Trials were a pretty even split. About half were 17-25 years old and half were 26-34 years old. It was an even mix from both groups that went on to the Olympics, one of them being the 34 year old.

How is wanting to compete against people of similar level proving that I want a participation trophy? I just want an even match. Or a match where I don't spend 90% of it wondering why I even bothered when there's no chance.

There's a big difference between a 34 year old who is training for the Olympics, and an adult who is using martial arts to get back into shape after living a sedentary lifestyle for the last several years.

If you're going to play a game, you have to learn and prepare for the rules. The people who do that are going to win the game more often. To make a bit of an absurd example... if you put a pro soccer team on a football field against even a good high school team, with no prep other than a quick explanation of the rules and making sure they're wearing their pads properly... The results ain't likely to be pretty, and (despite possibly a higher level of general fitness; soccer is an exhausting game!) they'll more likely than not get creamed.

If you want to win in tournaments, you have to adapt your training to the rules you'll be playing under. Sometimes, that's harder than others. Again, extreme example -- take a BJJ player to a point based karate tournament... Not going to work so well, is it? Unless a tournament supports classical forms, they aren't likely to do well against XMA style forms. My students would often lose form competitions because our system's forms are just too short, and some principles are too different. In sparring, if you're used to contact levels that get you eliminated for hitting too hard... well, you're set up for failure, aren't you.

Then there's sandbagging, like the black belt forms/purple belt sparring you described, or just outright not competing at the proper level so you can get the trophy... (Personally, compete at any event during a tournament as a black belt, you're competing in all of them as a black belt. And if the tournament circle is small enough, that runs across tournaments, too.) I've seen people compete as "novice" in kickboxing who have long boxing records -- because it's "their first kickboxing event." Or tournaments where, somehow, the host school seems to win most of the events... Bottom line -- there's always someone who feels that the win is what matters, not sportsmanship and character.

Honestly, the rising costs coupled with single elimination fighting rules (who wants to pay $50 or more to fight for 10 seconds as someone gets 3 points for things that wouldn't be effective if they actually had to make contact), and the final straw of sandbagging, is what led me to stay out of tournaments... Travel hours, pay a bunch of money, get one fight... and lose to a hand flip thing that's only going to work in a tournament setting... Not worth it...

But that leads me to what is your purpose in competing... For me, and when I take my students, it's the opportunity to perform under a different sort of pressure, and fight against people they don't train with every day. The "win" for my students isn't taking a trophy home -- it's whether I said they demonstrated the principles they've practiced. And for me, I "won" if my teacher said I did -- regardless of whether I took home a trophy or medal.

This is kind of the point that I'm making. The purpose is to demonstrate the principles you're learning. So you demonstrate them and lose...what does that prove about the principles? If you think about it, nothing. But the initial feeling is that you followed your training and lost.

So do the tournaments....Beginner v Beginners....Intermediate v Intermediate....Advanced v Advanced....Black Belts v Black Belts. Also bigger tournaments will also have weitgh classes for the BB division.



Thats because live competition against a variety of people often helps you advance your skills....Steel sharpens steel....Competing against better opponents makes you better. Thats why its silly to sandbag.

Find a good org. The org we compete in has sandbagging rules....

1) The divisions are divided by belt but with if you have a certain amount of years training you have to move up regardless of belt color.

2) If you ever compete up in division(Beginner, Intermediate, or Advanced) you must remain in that division you can not go back down.

But most of our competitors aren't competing for awards....its about testing yourself, pushing yourself to get better, and comradery/fellowship with other Martial Artist.

Yes, there is beginner vs. beginner. But as you get to the more advanced, you have students with different amounts of hours in sparring training. Take a traditional school with 20% of the class going to WT sparring, and a sport focused school with 80% of the class going to WT sparring. In the red belt division (let's assume 2 years), you might have a traditional student with 50 hours of sparring training going up against a sport student with 200 hours of sparring training in class.

Is that a fair bracket? They're both red belts. But one has a clear training advantage over the other in this case.

And what skills are you trying to advance? Because you're not advancing your traditional Taekwondo skills. You're advancing your WT sparring skills. Which is only a small focus of your class, and you're not likely to go again for quite some time. By the time you go again, you'll be in a different bracket, and you'll probably have forgotten or not be able to apply the lessons you learned, because of the time and the change of division.

 

[CB Jones]

Yes, there is beginner vs. beginner. But as you get to the more advanced, you have students with different amounts of hours in sparring training. Take a traditional school with 20% of the class going to WT sparring, and a sport focused school with 80% of the class going to WT sparring. In the red belt division (let's assume 2 years), you might have a traditional student with 50 hours of sparring training going up against a sport student with 200 hours of sparring training in class.

Is that a fair bracket? They're both red belts. But one has a clear training advantage over the other in this case.

Yes it is fair. You put in what you want to put in. You want to do better put in more training. Its not the Tourney's job to tailor a division for you to be competitive in.

And what skills are you trying to advance? Because you're not advancing your traditional Taekwondo skills. You're advancing your WT sparring skills. Which is only a small focus of your class, and you're not likely to go again for quite some time. By the time you go again, you'll be in a different bracket, and you'll probably have forgotten or not be able to apply the lessons you learned, because of the time and the change of division.

Disagree.

We come from a "traditional" dojo. We do very little point sparring in class......everything is continuous sparring 3-4 minutes rounds with no score or points. And our members have no problem competing. Competition is just where you go to test what you have learned against other styles and abilities.

 

[CB Jones]

@skribs

It sounds like you struggled and got discouraged......struggling is part of it. Like Jimmy Dugan said.....

When my son started competing...he was the smallest in his division. The 1st year he didn't win a single fight. 1 and done every tourney. 2nd year he was able to achieve some 2nd and 3rd place finishes.

3rd year he was the 2nd best kid in his age division but their was one kid he just couldn't get past.

Then he beat him and rose to the top spot. Now it continuously working to stay at the top. The competition helps drive you to continuously get better at the application of your art.

 

[skribs]

Yes it is fair. You put in what you want to put in. You want to do better put in more training. Its not the Tourney's job to tailor a division for you to be competitive in.

But the tournaments are broken up by experience, by going by belt level or by beginner/intermediate/advanced/black belt. Is it fair to have a high blue belt fight a purple belt? No.

Is it fair for someone who has done 1 tournament before and has 50 hours of sparring training to go up against someone who has done 15 tournaments and has 200 hours of sparring training? That's the same thing as a purple belt fighting a high blue belt.

I get that you get what you put in, but unless you're competing to move up to higher brackets (i.e. Nationals, World, Olympics, etc), then it should be more about measuring yourself against similar students. That's why they have divisions based on belt, weight, and gender.

When my son started competing...he was the smallest in his division. The 1st year he didn't win a single fight. 1 and done every tourney. 2nd year he was able to achieve some 2nd and 3rd place finishes.

3rd year he was the 2nd best kid in his age division but their was one kid he just couldn't get past.

Then he beat him and rose to the top spot. Now it continuously working to stay at the top. The competition helps drive you to continuously get better at the application of your art.

So he's going several times per year? That does give him constant feedback on his tournament skills. The schools I'm talking about are ones that go once a year or once every other year don't get that constant growth check.

 

[skribs]

It sounds like you struggled and got discouraged......struggling is part of it. Like Jimmy Dugan said.....

First tournament I did as an adult, I won. It was clear the other person hadn't trained in this style. The win felt hollow. I was glad I won, but it still felt hollow.

The second tournament I did, I lost. It was clear I was outclassed.

I stopped after that for a few reasons. One, working 14+ hour days, I don't really have the time to get into shape to be competitive. Two, when we do go to the tournaments now, I'm usually coaching and don't have time to compete myself. I've also not been super happy with the way tournaments are ran (lots of little things that add up), and like @jks9199 said, why pay $70+ (the cost in my area) for a single match?

Losing isn't what discouraged me. Struggling isn't what discouraged me. Wanting to have a good competition instead of it being about who's school spends more time on WT sparring is what discouraged me.

(If my school changed and wanted to focus 80% on sparring and do 4+ tournaments a year, I might go for it. But at the same time, I might find a new school, because winning tournaments isn't what I've found important).

 

[CB Jones]

We will agree to disagree then.

I think good hard competition is good for you.

 

[CB Jones]

And if you don't like the format of WT....maybe try a different org.

We compete in org that are open to all styles.

Scoring is simple...Light contact to head (face contact allowed in Adult Black belt div.), medium to heavy contact allowed to body, (some org allow groin contact others don't)

Must be good technique that judges believe would have been an effective strike if it was full power and all strikes are only worth 1 point a piece.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

winning tournaments isn't what I've found important.

When you are still young, you should try to compete as many tournaments as you can. You can always enhance your MA foundation through your old age.