Competitions

[AngelaG]

I wish they could find another acronym, I keep reading RSPB!

I can see both points of view, and I think that every sparring has it's limitations, unless it's to the death. The other aspect of competition is that it's two people that have prepared and trained for the encounter, even the so-called no-holds barred competitions cannot stimulate the feelings of a real violent encounter.

[Andy]

pasmith said:

Gary Spiers?

Isn't he dead?

Yeah. So? Does that make him less valid? If that is your criteria for judging a persons views then MA must be full of irrelevnt opinions.

Well it largely is, isn't it?
The idols you list are all published, and often found between the covers of UK MA mags, so I can see what influences you.

Lee Murray perhaps?

No idea what you're getting at with this. Are you making some sort of connection between Lee Murray training for full contact but still getting stabbed in a street fight?

Not Full Contact, but MMA.
Now maybe that supports your point or deflates it.
That depends on how you look at it.
Was it the limitations of his training that got him stabbed, or something else?

Whereas Alfie Lewis trained for points and killed a man?
There's no way you can judge two approachs to training based on these two extreme real life events.

Remember when I said way back that "Comparisons are odious"?

Take a look at those last two statements together.
Where do you make that out to be conditioning, and where does the assumption come in that this will logically follow in your Acronym de jour 'RBSD'?

I don't see how those two views contradict each other.

I can see that.

If someone fights under rules then those rules will condition them to behave in a certain way.

That being somewhat the whole point of this thread, you've made your opinion clear, though not your reasoning, other than to say because (insert published MA rag writer here) said so.

A person can only partially chose how much those rules effect them.

Interesting statement, please elucidate.

A person can't train semi contact and then start doing full contact blows for real.

Really?
Why not?

How you train is how you fight afterall.

Ah, the old ones are the best. ;D

What I meant by choosing how rules effects you is that you can chose what rules you fight under (rather than which bits of specific rules effect you) and how near to reality they are.

Presuming for a start, that you have some idea of what 'reality' is, how does competing to ANY ruleset help you?
It's still a sport you're talking about, as soon as you have rules.
Saying Karate X hits harder than Karate Y or whatever doesn't make it real.

Do the rules allow grappling, clinching, throws, head shots, ground work etc etc.
Obviously we can't compete under "No rules" but we can get close so that the leap to reality is not such a big one.

That's waffle.
You need to define reality, and there's not a sport out there that comes close.

Personally I think that any type of semi-contact makes the leap to reality a large one indeed.
A leap that many ordinary people wouldn't/couldn't manage.

You've made your opinion clear, but again, I have to say, not your reasoning.

Re: Also

"It's about Robin Hood, not the Archery contest."

No sorry I disagree with that.
If it was about "Robin Hood" then what would be the point of most people doing MA?

What indeed?
If you ask the majority, it's as a means of self exploration, physically and mentally with the added bonus of enlarged social skills and fitness.
The reasons tend to change over time.

How and what people train must have a bearing on how they fight or we are all wasting our time.

If all you want to do is fight, then why pay money for classes, when you can get all the experience you want on the town of a weekend night?

A person's ability to fight is dependent on many things...their natural ability,

"Robin"

how that ability is harnessed, training methods, techniques available in the style they do, how good their teacher is at imparting knowledge, fitness level, the quality of the opponent, how they're feeling that day, experience etc etc etc etc. Loads of stuff.

"Robin, Robin, Robin etc..."

To condense all that stuff down to "It's about Robin Hood" unfairly belittles and marginalises all of the other variables that make up the dynamic relationship that is a violent encounter.

LOL.
What?
The glory of mano et mano chest thumping and BO sharing?

At the end of the day people that train to hit hard have a higher chance of hitting hard for real than people that train to pull their blows.

Assuming of course, that people who train to score points in a contest are training to pull their blows.
WHICH THEY ARE NOT!

I don't see why that is so annoying to you.

Not annoying at all.
It just reminds me of talking to Chilu, and I find that ironically amusing.

Seems very straightforward and logical to me.

Yup, you got it all in neat little boxes in your head.
Boxes all labelled with an Acronym or a quote from some MA rag guru.

I'm not saying semi-contact is crap per se. It has its place. I just think there are better ways of sparring or competing that offer more to the practitioner.

While already acknowledging that you don't have much experience of it except some tippy tappy ITF TKD, where they don't even know what their hands are for in the mainstream.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Especially for...wait for it....you ready?....RBSD!

Don't you mean Reality?
Ah no, you mean Reality 'Based'.
LOL.
New names, same old crap.

[pasmith]

"...MA must be full of irrelevnt opinions."

"Well it largely is, isn't it?"

Yeah it is...now you come to mention it.
I think we are both displaying that very well.

"Was it the limitations of his training that got him stabbed, or something else?"

No idea. In the same way you have no idea either. Unless you were there it's all conjecture.

"you've made your opinion clear, though not your reasoning"

OK my reasoning is this...if you want to achieve a particular result through training then that training should/must *closely* resemble, reflect or re-create that final result for that training to have merit or application.
You learn to swim by swimming.
I feel that that reasoning is backed up by many sources (including UK based prominent martial artists...go figure) and is supported in education and athletics amongst other things.
Look at any military training. The military target what they are training for and attempt to re-create that within the realms of safety and reality.
The police train with real molotovs.
Boxers spar with contact.
Children practice under exam conditions.
That kind of thing.
All attempts to get closer to the conditions under which a person must perform.

At least I'm attempting to back up my thoughts with similar views shared by others of greater note than myself. The way you reply is similar to that Monty Python arguing sketch.

Me: "Semi-contact is not the ideal way of training for reality. Other people think that too."

You: "Yes it is and one of those people you mention is dead"

Well that's me convinced.

If I must provide back up to my views then you should too. And I don't mean Alfie Lewis accidently killing someone.

"A person can only partially chose how much those rules effect them.

Interesting statement, please elucidate."

OK I'll use some of my own experiences to illustrate this.
I did TKD and then moved into Thai boxing. Even though the rules for the sparring had changed, for many months I still fell back on some of the stuff that I did in TKD even when I knew I shouldn't be doing it (or it actually got me into trouble). Damn I still do some of it even now such is the imprinting that TKD do has had on me.
The stimulus (an attacking person) drew out certain responses without me thinking about it. I would guard a certain way, move a certain way and then realise that I shouldn't have.
I could *voluntarily* stop myself from doing certain things (like chambering up on one leg) but others just happened. Particularly under pressure.

Now you may say that I must be rubbish if I can't stop doing things one day and then do different things the next. That may be so but I feel I'm not alone in being like that.
Drive a car with the indicator lever on one side for a while and then switch to a car with it on the other. Many, many people will make mistakes indicating even though they know that it is on a different side.
That's conditioned response brought out subconsciously through stimulus.
Just like fighting.

Aren't we all training to achieve a similar state of mind and body in fighting that we achive when driving? Where things just happen naturally?
Well in my opinion it helps if those things help us in a fight rather than hinder.

"A person can't train semi contact and then start doing full contact blows for real.

Really?
Why not?"

OK perhpas "can't" was too strong a term. I shall never use the word "can't" again. I should have said that it's unlikely. Or that the odds are stacked aginst it happening. I prefer to stack the odds in my favour by training to hit as hard as I can.

"how does competing to ANY ruleset help you?"

Do you really need me to spell that one out?
Timing? Adrenalin? Nerves? Aggression? Handing it out and taking it? Honing your delivery systems against an unknown resisting opponent? Taking a shot and carrying on? Loads of stuff man...competition can be a very positive thing and a positive step towards preparing for a real encounter.

"That's waffle..
You need to define reality, and there's not a sport out there that comes close."

No I don't. Reality just "is". You seem to recognise it easily enough (without defining it) to judge other sports against it. And me waffling? Seeing as your a fan of irony I'm sure you'll recognise it right there...right after you accuse me of waffling....it's inbetween the "e" and the full stop.

"If you ask the majority, it's as a means of self exploration, physically and mentally with the added bonus of enlarged social skills and fitness.
The reasons tend to change over time."

And the (vast) majority would also like something that will help them out should the brown stuff meet the aircon (even though they might admit other reasons or put other reasons higher). Training to "enlarge your social skills" (whatever that is) doesn't mean that what you learn should/could be rubbish or not applicable to reality.

"If all you want to do is fight, then why pay money for classes, when you can get all the experience you want on the town of a weekend night?"

Because probably much like you I'm a law abiding citizen that thinks that we should have evolved beyond mindless violence long ago. I'd quite like to survive a car crash if I'm unlucky enough to be involved in one. Doesn't mean I'm gonna start aiming for other cars to see if I can.
Your point is a stupid one and one that is brought up to somehow paint me as one rung below a thug on the ladder with only violence on my mind.

"What?
The glory of mano et mano chest thumping and BO sharing?"

I'll copy and paste your "What?". What the hell are you on about?...Where did I mention glory in fighting at all?
I used words like "dynamic relationship". Do you deny that fighting is a dynamic realtionship? Two bodies colliding with many variables? I didn't put any spin of glory on it at all.

"Assuming of course, that people who train to score points in a contest are training to pull their blows.
WHICH THEY ARE NOT!"

Well why the feck is it called semi-contact then? And why ate you defending semi-contact if that is not what you do? Trad Karate is certainly controlled contact. Freestyle is now full contact? When did that happen?People getting knocked out every weekend? Like happens in Thai, Boxing, MMA and other full-contact events? I should get down and see some of this "full-contact semi-contact"...sounds interesting.
So I could enter a freestyle semi-conatct event and fully leg kick someone as hard as I can. Cool. Might try it.

"It just reminds me of talking to Chilu, and I find that ironically amusing."

Haha. I'm glad your're ironically amused. You are also deeply patronising.

"Yup, you got it all in neat little boxes in your head.
Boxes all labelled with an Acronym or a quote from some MA rag guru."

There you go again. Patronising. If you can't offer a cohesive argument then being patronising and resorting to implied name calling isn't going to help you out.
Personally I'm just trying to make sense of the wide world of martial arts through my own experiences while learning from others that have gone before or that have experience I don't.
Stop being patronising and you might actually be saying something I might listen to.

[Andy]

pasmith said:

"...MA must be full of irrelevnt opinions."

"Well it largely is, isn't it?"

Yeah it is...now you come to mention it.
I think we are both displaying that very well.

"Was it the limitations of his training that got him stabbed, or something else?"

No idea. In the same way you have no idea either. Unless you were there it's all conjecture.

"you've made your opinion clear, though not your reasoning"

OK my reasoning is this...if you want to achieve a particular result through training then that training should/must *closely* resemble, reflect or re-create that final result for that training to have merit or application.
You learn to swim by swimming.

Yeah?
We're not talking about swimming though.
To use your analogy, we're talking about getting thrown overboard into a stormy sea, and all the theories you expouse about whether breaststroke or crawl is best for survival go out of the window.
Who would have the best chance of survival?
A 100M Crawl champion, or someone who swims 400M on a friday and a Sunday?

I feel that that reasoning is backed up by many sources (including UK based prominent martial artists...go figure) and is supported in education and athletics amongst other things.

Yeah, I mentioned the name dropping earlier.
You're not doing these people justice, nor any favours by attempting to use them to substantiate your insular point of view.

Look at any military training. The military target what they are training for and attempt to re-create that within the realms of safety and reality.
The police train with real molotovs.
Boxers spar with contact.
Children practice under exam conditions.
That kind of thing.
All attempts to get closer to the conditions under which a person must perform.

Innacurate and grasping.

At least I'm attempting to back up my thoughts with similar views shared by others of greater note than myself. The way you reply is similar to that Monty Python arguing sketch.

Seen it all, done it all, bought the T Shirt and realised it was all a bit childish perhaps?
'Greater note' LOL

So, you like to measure yourself by these idols of RBSD?

Me: "Semi-contact is not the ideal way of training for reality. Other people think that too."

You: "Yes it is and one of those people you mention is dead"

Well that's me convinced.

Nope, that's a deliberate misquote on your part.

If I must provide back up to my views then you should too.

Sure.
What don't you understand?

OK I'll use some of my own experiences to illustrate this.
I did TKD and then moved into Thai boxing. Even though the rules for the sparring had changed, for many months I still fell back on some of the stuff that I did in TKD even when I knew I shouldn't be doing it (or it actually got me into trouble). Damn I still do some of it even now such is the imprinting that TKD do has had on me.

Well Robin, that's about you, and not your training.

The stimulus (an attacking person) drew out certain responses without me thinking about it. I would guard a certain way, move a certain way and then realise that I shouldn't have.
I could *voluntarily* stop myself from doing certain things (like chambering up on one leg) but others just happened. Particularly under pressure.

If you don't do that now, then that's about you Robin.

Now you may say that I must be rubbish if I can't stop doing things one day and then do different things the next. That may be so but I feel I'm not alone in being like that.

Lot's of Robins out there.

Drive a car with the indicator lever on one side for a while and then switch to a car with it on the other. Many, many people will make mistakes indicating even though they know that it is on a different side.
That's conditioned response brought out subconsciously through stimulus.

How many corners it takes before you realise is about you Robin.

Just like fighting.

You mean sport, MMA, RBSD or what passes for your reality?

Aren't we all training to achieve a similar state of mind and body in fighting that we achive when driving?

Err. wild guess, but NO?

Where things just happen naturally?
Well in my opinion it helps if those things help us in a fight rather than hinder.

Maybe someone will invent a 'Fighting' pill, we can all just pop whenever danger looms eh?

"A person can't train semi contact and then start doing full contact blows for real.

Really?
Why not?"

OK perhpas "can't" was too strong a term. I shall never use the word "can't" again. I should have said that it's unlikely. Or that the odds are stacked aginst it happening. I prefer to stack the odds in my favour by training to hit as hard as I can.

Despite squirming on the hook, you still don't say why?

"how does competing to ANY ruleset help you?"

Do you really need me to spell that one out?

Yeah, I do!

Timing? Adrenalin? Nerves? Aggression? Handing it out and taking it? Honing your delivery systems against an unknown resisting opponent? Taking a shot and carrying on? Loads of stuff man...competition can be a very positive thing and a positive step towards preparing for a real encounter.

All stuff you'll find in a points match, so what's your point?

"That's waffle..
You need to define reality, and there's not a sport out there that comes close."

No I don't. Reality just "is". You seem to recognise it easily enough (without defining it) to judge other sports against it. And me waffling? Seeing as your a fan of irony I'm sure you'll recognise it right there...right after you accuse me of waffling....it's inbetween the "e" and the full stop.

No Irony envolved.
No matter how delusional you are, sport does not equate to reality, and it doesn't matter if the mutated offspring of Geoff Thomson and Dave Turton tell you so.

"If you ask the majority, it's as a means of self exploration, physically and mentally with the added bonus of enlarged social skills and fitness.
The reasons tend to change over time."

And the (vast) majority would also like something that will help them out should the brown stuff meet the aircon (even though they might admit other reasons or put other reasons higher).

Yeah for sure they'd like it.
The real delusion lies with those who think they are getting it, while the more realistic people are the ones asking questions because they're not sure, rather than those with no real experience who like to lecture others.

Training to "enlarge your social skills" (whatever that is) doesn't mean that what you learn should/could be rubbish or not applicable to reality.

See any rubbish around here?

"If all you want to do is fight, then why pay money for classes, when you can get all the experience you want on the town of a weekend night?"

Because probably much like you I'm a law abiding citizen that thinks that we should have evolved beyond mindless violence long ago. I'd quite like to survive a car crash if I'm unlucky enough to be involved in one. Doesn't mean I'm gonna start aiming for other cars to see if I can.

Yet you suggest that approximation to reality is the only worthwhile endeavour?

Your point is a stupid one and one that is brought up to somehow paint me as one rung below a thug on the ladder with only violence on my mind.

No, it isn't.
See it as you will however.

"What?
The glory of mano et mano chest thumping and BO sharing?"

I'll copy and paste your "What?". What the hell are you on about?...Where did I mention glory in fighting at all?
I used words like "dynamic relationship". Do you deny that fighting is a dynamic realtionship? Two bodies colliding with many variables? I didn't put any spin of glory on it at all.

Sorry, but the Homo Eroticism is bursting from your words ;"fighting is a dynamic realtionship", "Two bodies colliding with many variables"
Bwahahahaaaaa.

"Assuming of course, that people who train to score points in a contest are training to pull their blows.
WHICH THEY ARE NOT!"

Well why the feck is it called semi-contact then?

What are you asking for if you don't know?
You want me to explain it to you?
Want a Historical breakdown of how Semi-Contact evolved?
If you do, why was I even bothering to reply to you?

And why ate you defending semi-contact if that is not what you do?

Don't recall saying what I do or don't do.

Trad Karate is certainly controlled contact.

Ideally yes.
I've seen more blood on the mat at Kumite than any MMA event or RBSD seminar though.

Freestyle is now full contact? When did that happen?

Dunno what you're on about.

People getting knocked out every weekend? Like happens in Thai, Boxing, MMA and other full-contact events? I should get down and see some of this "full-contact semi-contact"...sounds interesting.

Yeah, but then there's a much bigger circuit for Semi then there is for MT etc etc.

So I could enter a freestyle semi-conatct event and fully leg kick someone as hard as I can. Cool. Might try it.

You should.
The video of you trying to catch someone with a full Thai leg kick in a points match would be hilarious, a real keeper.

"It just reminds me of talking to Chilu, and I find that ironically amusing."

Haha. I'm glad your're ironically amused. You are also deeply patronising.

What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.

"Yup, you got it all in neat little boxes in your head.
Boxes all labelled with an Acronym or a quote from some MA rag guru."

There you go again. Patronising. If you can't offer a cohesive argument then being patronising and resorting to implied name calling isn't going to help you out.

Diddums.
What name did I call you?
I apologise.

Personally I'm just trying to make sense of the wide world of martial arts through my own experiences while learning from others that have gone before or that have experience I don't.

Late start, but that's more like it.

Stop being patronising and you might actually be saying something I might listen to.

Well, there's a life goal for me to work towards. ;D

[pasmith]

My goodness we're both quote-tastic today. I'll attempt to keep my reply shorter.

Blimey where do I start...

Well for one...when I point out how patronising you're being it might be nice to then try and be LESS patronising rather than MORE?
Just a tip.
Being MORE patronising could...could mind...make you seem like a dick.

"Yeah, I mentioned the name dropping earlier."

So the rule is is that you can mention Alfie Lewis killing someone, Pele Reid becoming a boxer and you fighting Pele Reid and that's OK but I mention a few names that I feel share my views and I'M name dropping. OK. Bit odd that.

"Innacurate and grasping."

Now there you see that's not really backing up your views is it. That's just quoting and commenting. If you had explained why me saying that the Police using real molotovs in their training is "Innacurate and grasping." then we could talk. As it is all I have are three words.

"'Greater note' LOL

So, you like to measure yourself by these idols of RBSD?"

And you seem to laugh at things that aren't funny. Why saying that people like Geoff Thompson are of greater note than myself makes you actually laugh out loud is beyond me. Do you find yourself laughing when other people aren't?
I don't so much measure myself against these people as listen to what they say, digest, ponder and see if it has relevence to my own training and views.

"Well Robin, that's about you, and not your training."

So let me get this straight. I mention other people that hold these views and that wasn't good enough. I then go on to mention my own experiences and that isn't good enough either? There really is no winning with you is there?.
Oh and remember at the top where I said you might SEEM like a dick? Well by continually referring to me as "Robin" like a school child might? Well that means you actually are a dick. Sorry if that contravenes the terms of use Angela. Fine me some karma points or summat.

"How many corners it takes before you realise is about you Robin."

And arguing with you is like pulling teeth. Christ.
I'm not even gonna comment any more than that. Can you not take an example on face value and comment accordingly without trying to make me seem like an idiot? I guess not.

"Despite squirming on the hook, you still don't say why?"

Oh please...squirming? hahah.
I still don't say why?
Despite continually explaining that I believe that the further from your goal conditions your training is the less it will help you out when applied for real (in any discipline fighting or not)?

"Sorry, but the Homo Eroticism is bursting from your words ;"fighting is a dynamic realtionship", "Two bodies colliding with many variables"
Bwahahahaaaaa. "

Well I suppose you can read into it what you want. Perhaps you'll come up with that highly original "joke" and say that MMA and BJJ are a bit gay looking?..."mount"..titter...bit sexual that ain't it?
You're straying into being a dick territory again there.

"Freestyle is now full contact? When did that happen?

Dunno what you're on about"

I'm on about the bit where you said semi-contact people don't pull their blows...jesus..now you can't even remeber what you said before. Not a good sign that.

"The video of you trying to catch someone with a full Thai leg kick in a points match would be hilarious, a real keeper."

Again. Laughing at stuff that ain't funny. Not sure why that would be funny. You're definately odd.

"Late start, but that's more like it."

Are you this patronising in real life?
I have to go now but I'd quite like to get this back on topic tomorrow and stop some of this mud slinging.

Maybe start a Paul and Andy only thread so these other good people don't have to read your shite?

[Andy]

pasmith said:

My goodness we're both quote-tastic today. I'll attempt to keep my reply shorter.

Blimey where do I start...

Well for one...when I point out how patronising you're being it might be nice to then try and be LESS patronising rather than MORE?
Just a tip.
Being MORE patronising could...could mind...make you seem like a dick.

Thanks for sharing the benefit of your obviously vast experience on the subject once again.

So the rule is is that you can mention Alfie Lewis killing someone, Pele Reid becoming a boxer and you fighting Pele Reid and that's OK but I mention a few names that I feel share my views and I'M name dropping. OK. Bit odd that.

How so?
You're the one obsessed with rules.
Maybe I'm just acting as the rules have conditioned me eh?
LOL

Now there you see that's not really backing up your views is it. That's just quoting and commenting. If you had explained why me saying that the Police using real molotovs in their training is "Innacurate and grasping." then we could talk. As it is all I have are three words.

Which distracts from the thread at hand.
Another thread, or perhaps pictures of the police throwing molotovs at each other in a realistic environment might have been relevant.

And you seem to laugh at things that aren't funny. Why saying that people like Geoff Thompson are of greater note than myself makes you actually laugh out loud is beyond me. Do you find yourself laughing when other people aren't?

No, you just don't understand what it is that amuses me, which is you putting yourself subconsciously on the same evolutionary ladder as your idols, no matter how far down the scale that is.


[quoteI don't so much measure myself against these people as listen to what they say, digest, ponder and see if it has relevence to my own training and views.

Then wave their flag for all your worth.

So let me get this straight. I mention other people that hold these views and that wasn't good enough. I then go on to mention my own experiences and that isn't good enough either? There really is no winning with you is there?.

Welcome to the real world.
No one holding your hand here.

Oh and remember at the top where I said you might SEEM like a dick? Well by continually referring to me as "Robin" like a school child might?

Nope, I refer to "Robin", as in the aforementioned "Robin, not the archery contest", as opposed to repeating points I've made several times over, I also made it clear you were enforcing the very point you petulantly attempt to argue against.

Well that means you actually are a dick. Sorry if that contravenes the terms of use Angela. Fine me some karma points or summat.

Your opinion is noted, and accredited the appropriate value.

Hey.
Shame about Tung Fu eh?

And arguing with you is like pulling teeth. Christ.
I'm not even gonna comment any more than that. Can you not take an example on face value and comment accordingly without trying to make me seem like an idiot? I guess not.

Well I could take that, and turn it right back on you.
For starters, it's not an arguement.
It's supposed to be a discussion.
Only you are responsible for how you come across to others.

Well I suppose you can read into it what you want. Perhaps you'll come up with that highly original titter...bit sexual that ain't it?
You're straying into being a dick territory again there.

You just can't help but get personal can you?

I'm on about the bit where you said semi-contact people don't pull their blows...jesus..now you can't even remeber what you said before. Not a good sign that.

I don't need to remember what I said.
That's the beauty of a forum.
It's all written out to peruse later when you've finished the hissy fit.

The video of you trying to catch someone with a full Thai leg kick in a points match would be hilarious, a real keeper."

Again. Laughing at stuff that ain't funny. Not sure why that would be funny. You're definately odd.

It was your idea after all.
If you can find me a decent points fighter that you can catch with a leg kick, fighting to their rules, even once, I'll stop laughing

Are you this patronising in real life?
I have to go now but I'd quite like to get this back on topic tomorrow and stop some of this mud slinging.

See my first post in this thread.
I chose to disagree for sake of discussion (read as debate, not arguement).

If you have something more reasoned to add, then I'm sure we'd all appreciate it.

Maybe start a Paul and Andy only thread so these other good people don't have to read your shite?

Hey, why not start a thread all your own so you can agree with yourself, and not have your beliefs challenged. ;D

[Aefibird]

Guys, please.

If you want to continue a sensible discussion on the forum then that's fine. However, if you want a slanging match then please take it to private messages.

Thanks.

[Andy]

Pity kickcatcher isn't here.

He could have cleared all this up in no time.
What with his limited experience in TKD, expertise in Geoff Thomson 'power slaps', and ability to absorb the well intentioned elbow or two.

Pity he moved to the USA (or whatever the lie of the week is) and lives nowhere near York. ;D

[pasmith]

Well Andy you seem to have some sort of personal agenda here beyond just what we are talking about.
I don't give a monkey's about what's happened to Tung Fu, Kickcatcher or Chilu for that matter.
You seem to be making out that I belong to some sort of "Get Andy" internet club?
Don't think I've ever crossed your path before have I?
It is a shame that Tung Fu has bitten the dust as I enjoyed some good discussions over there. Ho hum.

Back to the points in hand...clearly you know more about the modern semi-contact circuit than me. Hopefully we can progress this discussion one question at a time.

First up....can you or can you not hit each other as hard as you want when fighting in a fairly respresentative semi-contact tournamnet? something like the Cimac super league perhaps?

[Andy]

pasmith said:

Well Andy you seem to have some sort of personal agenda here beyond just what we are talking about.

That's the impression I got from you.

I don't give a monkey's about what's happened to Tung Fu, Kickcatcher or Chilu for that matter.
You seem to be making out that I belong to some sort of Get Andy internet club?

No, but you reason in a similar fashion.
As soon as your beliefs are challenged, you get personal, and see discussions as arguements to be won or lost.

Don't think I've ever crossed your path before have I?

Not to my knowledge.

It is a shame that Tung Fu has bitten the dust as I enjoyed some good discussions over there. Ho hum.

Only a shame in that there's no dungheap for certain conversational vandals to crow from anymore.
Except perhaps B*llshido.

Back to the points in hand...clearly you know more about the modern semi-contact circuit than me. Hopefully we can progress this discussion one question at a time.

Perhaps.
Shall I call you a "dick" too then, and we're even?

First up....can you or can you not hit each other as hard as you want when fighting in a fairly respresentative semi-contact tournamnet? something like the Cimac super league perhaps?

That's a leading question.
It's not a matter of hitting as hard as you want or not.
The idea is that contact levels are controlled, both by the individuals and the referee's.
Fighters will usually hit as hard as they think they can get away with in some cases.
This is tactical, designed to intimidate.

[pasmith]

Right I think I see...one person *could* be trying to hit with control while the other *could* be trying to take their head off as a means of intimidation and it's up to the ref to mediate between the two?
Don't you think that is a little bit sad and not much basis for a system of competition?
That's an honest question and not meant to be leading or personal in any way.
I honestly find it very odd that a fighter would enter a semi-contact tournament and then hit hard to intimidate the other person. That smacks of cowardice to me. A bit bullying?

[Andy]

pasmith said:

Right I think I see...one person *could* be trying to hit with control while the other *could* be trying to take their head off as a means of intimidation and it's up to the ref to mediate between the two?

You could put it that way.

Don't you think that is a little bit sad and not much basis for a system of competition?

Not at all.
It's the nature of any sport to explore the rules if you want to win.
If there's anything sad in that, it's an observation about human nature.

That's an honest question and not meant to be leading or personal in any way.
I honestly find it very odd that a fighter would enter a semi-contact tournament and then hit hard to intimidate the other person. That smacks of cowardice to me. A bit bullying?

It depends on the tournament or organisation.
Trad Karate Kumite tends to be stiffer on the 'control' aspect of point fighting than the freestyle circuit.
Then of course, you have guys like Pele that I mentioned.
He might thing he's touching someone all nice, but to be on the receiving end, might (does) feel like something else.
The speed modern SC matches are fought at, makes control very difficult, and running on to what might otherwise be a controlled technique can add a great deal to the collisional force.

[pasmith]

OK I understand all that.

It basically boils down to...

One persons semi-contact could be anothers heavy contact. Agreed.
Control is sometimes hard to achieve in the heat of combat. Agreed.
Both of those can add up to a person receiving heavy blows whilst doing something nominally called "semi-contact". I can see that too.

My "problem" with that is the element of "intent". Aside from the previous example of hitting hard to intimidate, the above examples don't carry any intention to hit hard. They are a kind of accident or misunderstanding that results in a heavy blow.

When I spar knockdown rules I intend to hit hard and my opponent understands and agrees to that. In the same way he intends to hit me hard back and I accept that too. There's no grey area there and I don't need to adapt the techniques that I might do on the pads or the bags.

I believe that lack of intention in semi-contact is a drawback when it comes to using any skills we might have for real (which is what this thread was started to find out). I've tried to explain why that is but to no avail. I will continue to believe that despite what you might say. That is not me recycling others views nor latching onto the latest ramblings from the latest RBSD guru. It is not an opinion I hold lightly but one me and many others have experience of (however much you rate that experience which is clearly very little).

I also believe that that lack of intention engenders the wrong type of muscle memory in the participents (if their intention is to be able to hit hard for real which as you point out is not everyones goal). In the same way that doing knockdown engenders the wrong muscle memory when it comes to dealing with head punches. As we have agreed ALL forms of competitive fighting engender bad habits to some degree.

Personally I feel not intending to hit hard and re-inforcing that with semi-contact competitions and sparring is a particularly bad habit to adopt or to allow into your training (again with the caveat that what you want is some ability to hit hard on the street).

Again this was the intention of the thread. Not "is semi-contact rubbish". But does it encourage bad habits?
Clearly I think it does.
And for the sake of discussion you have decided to adopt the view that it doesn't.

That doesn't mean I don't do it nor think others shouldn't do it as I believe that the pros outweigh the cons.

Your go.

PS..I've let a lot slide from your last couple of posts for the sake of keeping this debate civil. If we keep going in this mannner I'll probably forget about them all together.

[Andy]

pasmith said:

OK I understand all that.

It basically boils down to...

One persons semi-contact could be anothers heavy contact. Agreed.
Control is sometimes hard to achieve in the heat of combat. Agreed.
Both of those can add up to a person receiving heavy blows whilst doing something nominally called semi-contact. I can see that too.

My problem with that is the element of intent.

The "intent", is to enter the competition, play by the rules as far as you need to, and to the best of your ability.
It's not about fighting, it's a sport, a game.
Like the difference between throwing the Javelin in competition, and a spear in battle.
They may look similar, but they are not the same.

Aside from the previous example of hitting hard to intimidate, the above examples don't carry any intention to hit hard. They are a kind of accident or misunderstanding that results in a heavy blow.

Obviously hitting hard isn't the objective of points competition.
Just like amatuer boxing, it can happen.

When I spar knockdown rules I intend to hit hard and my opponent understands and agrees to that. In the same way he intends to hit me hard back and I accept that too. There's no grey area there and I don't need to adapt the techniques that I might do on the pads or the bags.

Would I be right in saying you don't allow face punches in Kyokushin knockdown?

I believe that lack of intention in semi-contact is a drawback when it comes to using any skills we might have for real (which is what this thread was started to find out). I've tried to explain why that is but to no avail.

I understand your beliefs, and why you have them.

I will continue to believe that despite what you might say.

Not really much point in adding anything further to the topic then is there?

That is not me recycling others views nor latching onto the latest ramblings from the latest RBSD guru. It is not an opinion I hold lightly but one me and many others have experience of (however much you rate that experience which is clearly very little).

I can rate people on their own merits.
I find it distasteful when all to often their thoughts and writings are at best half comprehended, then held up as slogans of truth to support hopeless arguements on MA forums.
The oft touted M*tt Th*rntons grammatically aggravating "Aliveness" being an example that springs to mind.

I also believe that that lack of intention engenders the wrong type of muscle memory in the participents (if their intention is to be able to hit hard for real which as you point out is not everyones goal).

Muscle Memory, best you not get me started on that.

In the same way that doing knockdown engenders the wrong muscle memory when it comes to dealing with head punches. As we have agreed ALL forms of competitive fighting engender bad habits to some degree.

I disagree.
Does a lack in some area of your art mean you give up?
No, you go looking for the answers, elsewhere if need be.

Personally I feel not intending to hit hard and re-inforcing that with semi-contact competitions and sparring is a particularly bad habit to adopt or to allow into your training (again with the caveat that what you want is some ability to hit hard on the street).

All together now....say after me.....It's a sport!.
It's a game, it can be fun, it can be motivational, it's got nothing directly to do with reality.

Again this was the intention of the thread. Not s semi-contact rubbish. But does it encourage bad habits?
Clearly I think it does.

Clearly, I think it doesn't.

PS..I've let a lot slide from your last couple of posts for the sake of keeping this debate civil.

As have I, but I saw no need to mention it.

If we keep going in this mannner I'll probably forget about them all together.

Gee, you would mister?

[Andy]

Let's take a look at the positives of Kumite/Semi Contact etc for a moment shall we.

To compete at the top levels of any sport you need to be fit, so you have the incentive to do those early morning runs, gym sessions and extra work on technique.
If you don't win, or at least acheive the goals you want when competing, then you can either give up, or go away and work harder.
Either character building or an indication of character perhaps.

If you take the stance that Kumite is bad for you ( alledged bad habits etc), what do you do instead?
Kata?
Occasional Sparring?
Stand around and talk about it for a bit?

Now let's say, for sake of discussion, that you recognise it for what it is; a game perhaps, or as someone once described it to me, psychological tag;
What are the positives to be drawn?

There's the aforementioned fitness levels required at top levels of any sport for a start, but what else?

One of the key, and to me most important things in any level of Kumite, is that you have a finite time to analyse your opponent.
You're looking to recognise specific body movement cues in order to 'get the jump' on them.
In the meantime, they're not only trying to disguise their intent, but to analyse you as well.
This happens in boxing, MMA and a street fight.
The difference in Kumite, or more specifically things like the Semi Contact leagues, is that you typically only have 60 seconds to do it in.
You learn to think fast, and use strategy.
Even before a match starts, you are analysing your opponent.
Height, reach, posture, coordination and demeanour.

You also learn just how fast you are, or are not.
Something you think might work in your head has no place on the mat, as unless you have 200% surety of success, you don't go there.

Now like I've already said, Semi-Contact is not about RBSD or whatever, but have a think about this.

If I did a Darren Brown, and handed a member of the audience a peice of paper with three intended targets on it, then stood 10 feet away from an opponent, told them to defend themselves, and hit all three targets before they could even move, do you think I might be able to translate that skill into something useful in personal defence?

Not bragging or anything, but back in 93', the ITF TKD invited fighters from my organisation to their Nationals.
Suffice to say, I've never taken a TKD class in my life, but I walked away with National titles in both point stop and continuous.
It's small potatoes, but it was about observation, analyzation and adaptation.
I watched, I thought, I won.
What's the Latin Veni Viri or summat?
Basically, I cam, I saw I conquered.

Do I have any bad habits?
Sure lots, but the last two times I picked up my hands, there wasn't a pulled punch, side stance or Semi Contact move in sight.
I observed, I analyzed and I overcame.

Like I said, if there are delusional Semi Contact people (hell knows, there's no shortage of Kick Boxing world champions) out there, that's about them (Robin), not about what they do (the archery contest).

Arguements over which style would beat x style etc bore me senseless.
Styles don't beat style's, people do.
It's about how YOU apply what you have.
If you put together a limited sporting format (read that as ALL OF THEM), then sure, some arts are going to have a higher percentage of core techniques and strategies than others which suit that format.

That all goes out of the window when someone sticks a gun through your letterbox, or puts a glass against your girlfriends eye.

When that happens, just being fit, alert, and being able to observe, adapt and overcome are all important.
Now didn't I just say that Semi Contact gave you all three?