Point Fighting: Is it truly Karate?

[DaveB]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

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]

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.