Point Fighting: Is it truly Karate?

[Kung Fu Wang]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

- 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]

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]

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