How important is sparring in traditonal karate?

[Ironbear24]

And yet...it works...

But does it work as well as sparring does? I mean not knowing what is coming is important right?

 

[Flying Crane]

But does it work as well as sparring does? I mean not knowing what is coming is important right?

Well, a fellow like Kong Soo Do, working for several decades in law enforcement, has found it to work quite well for him. And he knows others for whom it works well also. Do you think he is lying about that?

What people need to understand, and to be open to, is that there are more than one way to develop good skills. Some ways work better for certain kinds of needs, others work better for other kinds of needs, and some ways work better for some people. Thats it. Nothing mystical or magical about it.

But people get hung up on thinking that their way is the only way that works. It isn't. Don't be that fool.

 

[donald1]

What kind of traditional karate dosnt do sparring??? Theres something wrong with your club. I havent ever seen a traditional school that dosnt spar

 

[Ironbear24]

Well, a fellow like Kong Soo Do, working for several decades in law enforcement, has found it to work quite well for him. And he knows others for whom it works well also. Do you think he is lying about that?

What people need to understand, and to be open to, is that there are more than one way to develop good skills. Some ways work better for certain kinds of needs, others work better for other kinds of needs, and some ways work better for some people. Thats it. Nothing mystical or magical about it.

But people get hung up on thinking that their way is the only way that works. It isn't. Don't be that fool.

I am not accusing him of lying, I just don't understand. I am just asking to better understand.

What is it about bunkai that makes it on par with free sparring? I just want to know because some day I want to teach others.

If bunkai is truly so effective I want to know how and why. It could be a good alternative to teach people who are afraid or simply not comfortable with sparring.

 

[Ironbear24]

What kind of traditional karate dosnt do sparring??? Theres something wrong with your club. I havent ever seen a traditional school that dosnt spar

Yeah I never seen one, the least I have seen is controlled sparring with light contact.

 

[Paul_D]

What kind of traditional karate dosnt do sparring??? Theres something wrong with your club. I havent ever seen a traditional school that dosnt spar

There is nothing wrong with his club. How are you defining sparring? Are you talkng about sport/competion sparring?

Traditional to me means before Karate became a sport, so I would not expect to see any sport/competion sparring. Most modern clubs call themselves traditional, but are in fact nothing of the sort.

 

[Flying Crane]

I am not accusing him of lying, I just don't understand. I am just asking to better understand.

What is it about bunkai that makes it on par with free sparring? I just want to know because some day I want to teach others.

If bunkai is truly so effective I want to know how and why. It could be a good alternative to teach people who are afraid or simply not comfortable with sparring.

Well, I don't think there is any difinitive way to say that one is better or worse than the other, in an absolute way. Context matters, like I mentioned earlier. What are the needs, and how does the individual person relate to and connect with the methodology?

I will say that if your desire is to get into a ring and fight competitively, then some form of sparring will probably serve you well. But I am utterly unconvinced that it is necessary for someone who wil not fight in competition. That doesn't mean that it cannot still be worth while. But again, contex matters.

And I will also say, as I have said many times, that it is ok to recognize that you don't have the experience to properly understand some XYZ aspect of the martial arts. No problem with that. But it becomes a problem if you decide that it's worthless, in spite of your lack of understanding. That is a decision based on ignorance, I encourage you to not be that guy.

 

[Ironbear24]

Well, I don't think there is any difinitive way to say that one is better or worse than the other, in an absolute way. Context matters, like I mentioned earlier. What are the needs, and how does the individual person relate to and connect with the methodology?

I will say that if your desire is to get into a ring and fight competitively, then some form of sparring will probably serve you well. But I am utterly unconvinced that it is necessary for someone who wil not fight in competition. That doesn't mean that it cannot still be worth while. But again, contex matters.

Well if it helping a law enforcement officer then that must mean something.

 

[Ironbear24]

There is nothing wrong with his club. How are you defining sparring? Are you talkng about sport/competion sparring?

Traditional to me means before Karate became a sport, so I would not expect to see any sport/competion sparring. Most modern clubs call themselves traditional, but are in fact nothing of the sort.

I don't think I have ever done traditional anything then. It's always been "updated" or "modernized" in some way.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well if it helping a law enforcement officer then that must mean something.

Definitely. Their needs are different from a top level competition athlete, and different from military personnel, and different from a civilian who may need to defend himself. Again, context. Identify what the needs are, identify a methodology that makes sense to you, that you can relate to, and do that. But that isn't the only way, and a lot of people may overlap the kind of training you do, but for different reasons.

There are many ways, some different, some similar, some overlap. There is no RIGHT way, to which all others are simply wrong.

 

[Paul_D]

Well, I don't think there is any difinitive way to say that one is better or worse than the other, in an absolute way. Context matters, like I mentioned earlier.

Context, exactly. One isn't "better" then the other, they are just different tools for different jobs. Sparring is for fighting, kata is for self defence.

 

[Paul_D]

I don't think I have ever done traditional anything then. It's always been "updated" or "modernized" in some way.

Of course, but clubs that include sport karate refer to themselves as traditional, when they are (relatively) modern in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Flying Crane]

Context, exactly. One isn't "better" then the other, they are just different tools for different jobs. Sparring is for fighting, kata is for self defence.

And I would say that they each could support the other, I don't like to draw hard lines of division. But again, context, which includes purpose and needs, as well as how the person relates to and connects with the methodology.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

But bunkai is scripted.

Only if you allow for only a shallow interpretation. As an example, the opening movements of Pinan Shodan demonstrate a shoulder lock as just one possible bunkai. Now, that shoulder lock could be used from standing, such as from a grapple or on the ground. It demonstrates the principle of the lock with the actual application varying to the situation. This means that during training the instructor avoids the 'grab my wrist here' method of teaching. Rather, after demonstrating a typical application as demonstrated in a portion of kata the in-depth exploration begins. So that movement shows a shoulder lock. Okay, how can be best employ that technique? What are some ways that aren't 'typical'? What are the follow up moves that are possible?

This is where the rubber meets the road. Kata is often thought of as a class-filler that is used to get to the next belt level. Just a collection of pre-arranged movements. When thought of in that way...boring! Useless! Waste of time!

However, there is another way to view kata. As techniques, principles and strategies in physical movement. So, using the shoulder lock bunkai from Pinan Shodan to continue my example, we can begin using it by rote as a beginner's teaching tool. From there we can progress to alternate ways to use that shoulder lock (such as on the ground). From there we can move to making it part of a fluid response to an attack. The mistake is assuming that the movements have to be just as exact in real life as they are during an attack. Early masters weren't idiots. They knew fights are chaotic, dynamic, hot messes that only look cool when both sides are choreographed. Thus the bunkai simply shows a template by which the kata designer wished to impart a particular technique and/or concept. Often in a particular order they wished it to be taught in.

This is why many karate masters felt that all of karate could be learned with just one, or just a few kata. Uechei Sensei was one of those IIRC. Viewing kata as just a collection of pre-fab movements one would be hard pressed to think they could learn all of karate. Viewing it as a catalog that can then be delved into deeply it is easy to see how a single kata, and surely just a few would last you a lifetime of training because within one kata is striking, grappling, ground defense, joint locks, cavity pressing etc.

Sure, one could ground fight or punch without learning kata. But a lot of time, energy and thought went into the development of many kata (but by no means all the 'newer-learn-a-form-get-a-belt). It preserves the essence of the art as it was developed so it's worth the time to learn so that it can be passed on to future generations. Not the only means of teaching an art, but it is an effective one if taught properly.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Let me go a step further with and example and then real world application vs. a resisting opponent.

Horse stance and chambering the fists on the hips. From a casual observation it's 'are you kidding me stupid'. Right? I mean...who drops down into a horse stance and fights with their fists chambered on their hips?

Except...it really isn't for punching someone in a fight. But if that's the way your taught, and then teach someone else, who teaches someone else....well, that's what you figure it has to be. But it isn't.

Let's look at the horse stance through completely different glasses: When someone moves their leg, let's say the right one so that you drop into a horse stance...what did you accomplish? Well for starters you've lowered your center of gravity and given yourself a more stable base. Okay, that's not a bad thing and could be quite useful. But what about the wacky hip chambering thing you always see with the horse stance? After all, it's in all the line drills right? Visualize this, keeping in mind that typing this isn't the same as actually standing with you on the mats demonstrating it while I teach. To chamber our fist on your hip, you're first extending your hand/fist in front of you. Why? What if we're grabbing something in that outstretched hand? Say the persons belt, shirt, arm, coat or whatever. Point is that we've grasped 'something' on the other person or the person themselves. Now visualize what happens next as you chamber that fist. Your fist corkscrews as you bring it in. Kinda like if you have something or someone in that fist and now you're drawing them into your center of gravity...particularly if you're dropping your own center by extending one of your feet. Not a bad way to off-balance someone that either interferes with what they were trying to do or sets you up for doing something to them or both. Taking someone off-balance is a nice way to set them up for all kinds of 'other stuff'.

As a practical application, I'm doing this constantly on duty to bad guys or folks that may become bad guys if given the chance to remain on balance. I'm grasping their shirt or belt or limb and lowering my center of gravity to take them off-balance. Usually to set them at a position of disadvantage, say, for cuffing or to set up a take down to cuff them in a prone position once I've established positive control over them.

So the 'horse stance' could well be a very stupid waste of time, or a basic and very sound principle that we use all the time without thinking about it after we've learned the principle. Depends on how it's taught. From a grappling perspective, trying to off-balance someone is a very basic principle that is taught early on. It is a foundational principle upon which a ton of other principles are taught. So it is interesting that the 'horse stance' is taught so early on in karate, indeed as early as 'basic' line drills. Which means karate is also a grappling art in addition to other things. Interesting that you see it in kata as well which means that the principle, learned early on, is part of the technique/concept of the movement.
So it really is the perspective in which you view something as to the actual value of the content that you derive from it.

 

[Paul_D]

But bunkai is scripted.

I think this may be the key to your difficulty in understanding how kata is intended to be applied.

Back in the bad old pre internet days I too was taught kata as a scripted fight. E.g

Bad man attacks with punch A you defend with kata move 1. Bad man then does kick B and you defend with kata move 2, bad man then performs attack 3 you finish him with kata move 3.

As we know this is a) utter bollocks (although it is unbelievably in the post internet age still taught that way by many) and b) totally and utterly impractical. As soon as bad man deviates from the script the whole sequence falls apart.

Kata is intended to be applied both pre emptively and also applied "to" the enemy rather then "with" them. Or in other words it does not require to perform a set sequence of moves for it to work, all that it require is for them to be on the receiving end of a one way stream of violence which ends only when they are no longer in a position to be a threat, or until you have created the opportunity to escape.

Kata does of course take into account natural responses, for example if someone covers their head to protect themselves from your strikes, kata teaches you to strip their limbs away so you can continue to hit them, but it does not require them to perform specific attacks at specific points in a specific order. Any bunkai which relies upon that is flawed, and any instructor who teaches that way does not understand the very art they claim to teach.

Trying to force kata to fit karate style attacks, from a karate-ka, delivered from six feet away, is usually what leads to most misunderstanding.

 

[Flying Crane]

Let me go a step further with and example and then real world application vs. a resisting opponent.

Horse stance and chambering the fists on the hips. From a casual observation it's 'are you kidding me stupid'. Right? I mean...who drops down into a horse stance and fights with their fists chambered on their hips?

Except...it really isn't for punching someone in a fight. But if that's the way your taught, and then teach someone else, who teaches someone else....well, that's what you figure it has to be. But it isn't.

Let's look at the horse stance through completely different glasses: When someone moves their leg, let's say the right one so that you drop into a horse stance...what did you accomplish? Well for starters you've lowered your center of gravity and given yourself a more stable base. Okay, that's not a bad thing and could be quite useful. But what about the wacky hip chambering thing you always see with the horse stance? After all, it's in all the line drills right? Visualize this, keeping in mind that typing this isn't the same as actually standing with you on the mats demonstrating it while I teach. To chamber our fist on your hip, you're first extending your hand/fist in front of you. Why? What if we're grabbing something in that outstretched hand? Say the persons belt, shirt, arm, coat or whatever. Point is that we've grasped 'something' on the other person or the person themselves. Now visualize what happens next as you chamber that fist. Your fist corkscrews as you bring it in. Kinda like if you have something or someone in that fist and now you're drawing them into your center of gravity...particularly if you're dropping your own center by extending one of your feet. Not a bad way to off-balance someone that either interferes with what they were trying to do or sets you up for doing something to them or both. Taking someone off-balance is a nice way to set them up for all kinds of 'other stuff'.

As a practical application, I'm doing this constantly on duty to bad guys or folks that may become bad guys if given the chance to remain on balance. I'm grasping their shirt or belt or limb and lowering my center of gravity to take them off-balance. Usually to set them at a position of disadvantage, say, for cuffing or to set up a take down to cuff them in a prone position once I've established positive control over them.

So the 'horse stance' could well be a very stupid waste of time, or a basic and very sound principle that we use all the time without thinking about it after we've learned the principle. Depends on how it's taught. From a grappling perspective, trying to off-balance someone is a very basic principle that is taught early on. It is a foundational principle upon which a ton of other principles are taught. So it is interesting that the 'horse stance' is taught so early on in karate, indeed as early as 'basic' line drills. Which means karate is also a grappling art in addition to other things. Interesting that you see it in kata as well which means that the principle, learned early on, is part of the technique/concept of the movement.
So it really is the perspective in which you view something as to the actual value of the content that you derive from it.

I will add another item into the mix, taken from the Chinese forms and fundamentals. Often the movement is exaggerated in practice, and people who are not familiar with the purpose and the method criticize that exaggeration. The fist chambered at the hip while in horse stance could be an example of this. But the purpose of the exaggeration is to help you understand the body connection that gives a real boost to ones power. Throwing a punch with the whole body working together is a lot more powerful than throwing a punch with the strength of the arm and shoulder. The exaggerated movement can help a student understand how to make those connections and develop that skill. Once that is done, then the exaggerated movement is reduced and eliminated in actual application, even if it is retained during training as a reinforcement mechanism.

But someone who isn't familiar with that approach to training simply sees an exaggerated movement in a training scenario, and believes that is how someone tries to fight, and thinks it's a bad idea.

 

[drop bear]

Well, a fellow like Kong Soo Do, working for several decades in law enforcement, has found it to work quite well for him. And he knows others for whom it works well also. Do you think he is lying about that?

What people need to understand, and to be open to, is that there are more than one way to develop good skills. Some ways work better for certain kinds of needs, others work better for other kinds of needs, and some ways work better for some people. Thats it. Nothing mystical or magical about it.

But people get hung up on thinking that their way is the only way that works. It isn't. Don't be that fool.

We shouldnt have to take a persons word for it.

I get hung up on that.

You are confusing multiple ways to develop skills with limited ways of showing that a skill has been developed. If an esoteric method to develop skill has been used there has to be more than somebody's word that it works.

I fought a dragon. An actual dragon so i think my method is probably best. I mean they are 20 feet long and breath fire. That is a lot harder to deal with than a criminal going after your wallet.

 

[Steve]

I will add another item into the mix, taken from the Chinese forms and fundamentals. Often the movement is exaggerated in practice, and people who are not familiar with the purpose and the method criticize that exaggeration. The fist chambered at the hip while in horse stance could be an example of this. But the purpose of the exaggeration is to help you understand the body connection that gives a real boost to ones power. Throwing a punch with the whole body working together is a lot more powerful than throwing a punch with the strength of the arm and shoulder. The exaggerated movement can help a student understand how to make those connections and develop that skill. Once that is done, then the exaggerated movement is reduced and eliminated in actual application, even if it is retained during training as a reinforcement mechanism.

But someone who isn't familiar with that approach to training simply sees an exaggerated movement in a training scenario, and believes that is how someone tries to fight, and thinks it's a bad idea.

This came up in another thread. You don't have to understand the training methods in order to evaluate a demonstration of skill. You can develop a skill however you wish. A hammer isn't defined by how it is designed or how it functions. It's defined by the result. It may look completely foreign, but if the nail ends up holding two boards together, the hammer works. That evaluation requires no knowledge at all about the hammer, how it functions or its design.

confusing an evaluation of results with a judgement of methods is incorrect. Doing that on purpose is dishonest.

Regarding the dragon, I always figured @drop bear was chasing the dragon.

 

[drop bear]

This came up in another thread. You don't have to understand the training methods in order to evaluate a demonstration of skill. You can develop a skill however you wish. A hammer isn't defined by how it is designed or how it functions. It's defined by the result. It may look completely foreign, but if the nail ends up holding two boards together, the hammer works. That evaluation requires no knowledge at all about the hammer, how it functions or its design.

confusing an evaluation of results with a judgement of methods is incorrect. Doing that on purpose is dishonest.

Regarding the dragon, I always figured @drop bear was chasing the dragon.

I unleash the dragon thank you very much.